ANZAC day

[thesneakster]

To be honest, i'm getting a little tired of Anzac day and the sudden upsurge of rememberance and appreciation of all these soldiers that comes with it. I have tremendous respect for those who served in both ww1 and ww2, but I don't see what's so particularly great about what the ANZACs did.

As said above, it's the first battle we fought, with everything else rolled in

 

[Ingolifs]

Don't call me unpatriotic you bloody auzzie.

 

[Alec{zacool}]

sneaky pete, when you say thats the first battle "We" fought, do you mean in WW1? or in all, 'cos I remember that the good 'ol aussies fought in the boer war.

 

[ego]

ANZAC day is not just a commemoration of the battle of gallipoli but a commemoration to the Australian and NZ soldiers who were killed in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and recent wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a time to commemorate the men who sacrificed themselves so that others may live.

To be honest, i'm getting a little tired of Anzac day and the sudden upsurge of rememberance and appreciation of all these soldiers that comes with it. I have tremendous respect for those who served in both ww1 and ww2, but I don't see what's so particularly great about what the ANZACs did.

I always thought the point of it was to remember how the British drove young men of Australia and New Zealand to places they couldn't spot on a map to risk their lives protecting the Empire's interests, emphasizing the importance of total independence; but it turns out I was being too optimistic 

 

[calandale]

This seems to happen just about every year.

 

[thesneakster]

sneaky pete, when you say thats the first battle "We" fought, do you mean in WW1? or in all, 'cos I remember that the good 'ol aussies fought in the boer war.

I do mean 'first major military action', if your going to nitpick. Yes, we did send a fair few troops to the boer war, but where they 'Australian' troops, or just Australians in a british regiment?

I always thought the point of it was to remember how the British drove young men of Australia and New Zealand to places they couldn't spot on a map to risk their lives protecting the Empire's interests, emphasizing the importance of total independence; but it turns out I was being too optimistic 

Well, you do realise that they were being paid a fair bit more than most other troops.

 

[ego]

Well, you do realise that they were being paid a fair bit more than most other troops.

So they were happy to serve, and are proud of the fact that they served, as cannon fodders for the Empire?

 

[Hræfn]

explain what is special about this day

I don't know if I should dignify that with an answer.

Hey, I didn't know what ANZAC day was. I doubt it's mentioned much outside Turkey and the South Pacific, i'd certainly never heard of it. I've heard of the battle of Gallipoli but not ANZAC Day.

 

[Allegro]

Anyway, anybody care to explain what significance the battle for Gallipoli had?

where the odds were, really, over 50%

Ottomans had lesser men than allied forces.

 

[ego]

Ottomans had lesser men than allied forces.

Less men, weak supplies and overall worse conditions; but the defending side always has an advantage.

 

[Alec{zacool}]

sneaky pete, when you say thats the first battle "We" fought, do you mean in WW1? or in all, 'cos I remember that the good 'ol aussies fought in the boer war.

I do mean 'first major military action', if your going to nitpick. Yes, we did send a fair few troops to the boer war, but where they 'Australian' troops, or just Australians in a british regiment?

Oh now I remember, Australia was just part of the British Empire...and they had to send troops into the boer war. And that was at 1899 or something...

 

[thesneakster]

Anyway, anybody care to explain what significance the battle for Gallipoli had?

where the odds were, really, over 50%

Ottomans had lesser men than allied forces.

Ok, i'll give you, and 10, no, 20 of your mates a rifle, and some bullets. We'll start on a beach, then i'll go about, 500 meters away, up a cliff, dig a hole and set up a machiene gun...
you still up for it?

explain what is special about this day

I don't know if I should dignify that with an answer.

Hey, I didn't know what ANZAC day was. I doubt it's mentioned much outside Turkey and the South Pacific, i'd certainly never heard of it. I've heard of the battle of Gallipoli but not ANZAC Day.

Yes, but he's British. They kinda sent us to Gallipoli...

 

[Allegro]

Ottomans had lesser men than allied forces.

Ok, i'll give you, and 10, no, 20 of your mates a rifle, and some bullets. We'll start on a beach, then i'll go about, 500 meters away, up a cliff, dig a hole and set up a machiene gun...
you still up for it?

What? You said Turks outnumbered their enemies and i corrected that.
By the way Ottomans didnt have many machine guns they were very ill equipped, there have been several occasions which allied soldiers got stalled by the rapid fire came from Turkish positions and thought they had machine guns but they couldnt find any machine guns after making their way up there. Sometimes they even found much less Turkish corpses than they expected.
It's the Brits' fault for landing the ANZACs in wrong place and even for them participating in Gallipoli, ANZAC soldiers thought they were going to France but one morning they found themselves in Alexandria, it was a very unexpected change for them.
I wonder if the acts of chivalry from both sides are known in Australia or New Zealand, some consider the battle as the last battle of chivalry or something like that, soldiers from both sides really respected each other and refrained from unfair tactics, there were occasions which the both sides' trenches were as close as 8 metres but neither sides threw grenades.

 

[Swordmaster]

They even sang some songs and listened to them each other.

 

[Archonsod]

So they were happy to serve, and are proud of the fact that they served, as cannon fodders for the Empire?

Name a single nation involved in World War 1 which didn't use it's troops as cannon fodder

Furthermore, Anzac casualties are a tiny part of the British casualties in the battle:

  Australia: 18.500 wounded and missing - 7,594 killed.
New Zealand : 5,150 wounded and missing - 2,431 killed.
British Empire (excl. Anzac) : 198,000 wounded and missing - 22,000 killed.

It's the Brits' fault for landing the ANZACs in wrong place and even for them participating in Gallipoli, ANZAC soldiers thought they were going to France but one morning they found themselves in Cairo, it was a very unexpected change for them.

Erm no,
Firstly, Australian troops which were sent to Gallipoli (along with the rest of the allied forces who were landed) were sent there for the express purpose of that battle (in fact, several of the Anzac units were withdrawn from the Western Front to reach there).
Secondly, the deployment of troops was in response to a request for aid from Russia who was threatened by the Ottomans. Churchill pushed the plan as a chance to take Turkey out of the war (and the defeat of Turkey would mean many of the Baltic powers would be forced to declare, hopefully on the side of the Entente). You could just as easily claim it was Russia's fault for requesting aid, or Turkey's fault for threatening Russia.
Thirdly, troops were landed exactly where they were intended to be. Of the six declared beacheads, only two failed to materialise, both assigned to the British forces and both driven off by Turkish artillery.

Finally, Australia had it's independance granted 14 years before the outbreak of the war. It wasn't a case of the Brits sending the Aussie's anywhere - there was no obligation for the Australian government to provide troops to Britain, or even to get involved in the war. The Australian government decided to send their own troops into the conflict, and also agreed to subordinate them to the British high command.

 

[Allegro]

I know ANZACs joined voluntarily but if you examine the letters written by the soldiers you can see that they thougth they were going to France. I didnt say Britain didnt have the right to open a front in Dardanelles, i just looked the situation from the ANZACs' perspective, how many of them would have joined if they knew they were going to fight against a people they had never heard of in a land they they didnt know as well instead of their dreams of seeing the Europe and Paris coming true? In the letters you may see that most of them had a great ambition to see Europe due to ther spiritual values and the change in the plans had been a great disappointment for them.
Most of the foreign sources i've seen claimed that the first landing was done at a wrong spot but i dont remember any seeing Turkish sources mentioning it and i dont know if it's really true or not maybe there is someone who knows better than me about this around here. But i've heard that no troops got out of the first freighter when it landed because they had alerady died on the way.
And actually Turks were positioned wrongly too, General Von Sanders was in charge of the Turkish army there and he didnt know the terrain well, he didnt listen to the advices of Mustafa Kemal who had been there since the first Balkan War, in the end Anzacs landed troops at the spots that Mustafa Kemal guessed. I am not good with names, there might be someone else around here who can give the names of the spots that Anzacs caught Turks off-guard.

 

[morgoth2005]

Well the generally Empire troops were not "Empire" completely. Even during the Second World War, in the nth Indian division serving in North Africa the whole of the artillery brigade was British.

 

[Archonsod]

I know ANZACs joined voluntarily but if you examine the letters written by the soldiers you can see that they thougth they were going to France.

Yes, but then if you look at the letters sent out by the soldiers just before D Day most thought they were going somewhere else. Loose lips sink ships as they say

I didnt say Britain didnt have the right to open a front in Dardanelles, i just looked the situation from the ANZACs' perspective, how many of them would have joined if they knew they were going to fight against a people they had never heard of in a land they they didnt know as well instead of their dreams of seeing the Europe and Paris coming true?

Most probably would to be honest. At the start of 1916 the War was still being portrayed as 'The Great Adventure of the Age' across the world, many were eager to sign up simply to prove they were real men. It wasn't really until the various disasters throughout 1916 that it finally hit home (at least on the Entente side of things) what a great big cock up the whole thing was. Even then, men still volunteered out of a sense of duty or honour. Much the same thing was happening in Canada and even the US (A lot of American and Canadian volunteers were fighting under the allied forces long before their respective countries officially declared).
As for fighting someone they didn't know, the Ottoman Empire was still a world player despite being on the verge of collapse. It still held influence worldwide (not to mention that most men would have grown up with the Victorian portrayal of the Ottoman Empire as an exotic and sometime hedonistic land).

Most of the foreign sources i've seen claimed that the first landing was done at a wrong spot

The troops were landed at the right places. In fact, the Turkish forces were concentrated precisely on the landing points (the Royal Navy had been shelling those areas for the past month or so, but were forced to stop three days before the troops went in). If the allied forces had drifted off then they would have had a much easier time of it - outside of the landing areas the Turkish forces would have been insufficient to repulse the landings.
Several ships were destroyed on the way in at all of the landing sites, not only did the Turkish artillery keep up a onstant barrage of the shoreline, but they had also mined the beaches.

And actually Turks were positioned wrongly too, General Von Sanders was in charge of the Turkish army there and he didnt know the terrain well, he didnt listen to the advices of Mustafa Kemal who had been there since the first Balkan War, in the end Anzacs landed troops at the spots that Mustafa Kemal guessed.

Not really. The main problem was that they expected the British shelling to resume at any moment, so even though they knew where the allies were coming in they waited until the last possible moment to deploy. They also suffered logistical problems - in the intervening days between the bombardment and the allied landings pretty much anyone who could pull a trigger was dispatched to the penninsula to repulse the possible attack. Needless to say, the infrastructure of the area was overwhelmed.

Interestingly it is one of the few triumphs of Gallipoli. The move pretty much forced the Ottoman offensive towards Russia to grind to a halt. Arguably, without Gallipoli Russia would likely have fallen by mid 1916 to the Central European powers, something which would certainly have prolonged (if not decided) the war.

 

[morgoth2005]

It would have, because as Clemencau described, that without the massive manpower contribution of Russia, we would have been beaten. Even through all the failures they managed to draw off a considerable amount of German forces, and most of the Austrian ones (the rest were in Italy).

 

[Allegro]

Yes, but then if you look at the letters sent out by the soldiers just before D Day most thought they were going somewhere else. Loose lips sink ships as they say

That's alerady what i am saying, the British had valid reasons to hide the truth, as i've said before my first statement blaming the British was done from an ANZAC point of view, they did what they had to do but unfortunately ANZACs suffered from it too.

Most probably would to be honest. At the start of 1916 the War was still being portrayed as 'The Great Adventure of the Age' across the world, many were eager to sign up simply to prove they were real men. It wasn't really until the various disasters throughout 1916 that it finally hit home (at least on the Entente side of things) what a great big cock up the whole thing was. Even then, men still volunteered out of a sense of duty or honour. Much the same thing was happening in Canada and even the US (A lot of American and Canadian volunteers were fighting under the allied forces long before their respective countries officially declared).
As for fighting someone they didn't know, the Ottoman Empire was still a world player despite being on the verge of collapse. It still held influence worldwide (not to mention that most men would have grown up with the Victorian portrayal of the Ottoman Empire as an exotic and sometime hedonistic land).

Well it is debatabe if Ottomans had any influence or not but they were totally alien to ANZAC soldiers, you can see in their letters that some of them actually got surprised after seeing that Turks were ordinary human beings.

The troops were landed at the right places. In fact, the Turkish forces were concentrated precisely on the landing points (the Royal Navy had been shelling those areas for the past month or so, but were forced to stop three days before the troops went in). If the allied forces had drifted off then they would have had a much easier time of it - outside of the landing areas the Turkish forces would have been insufficient to repulse the landings.
Several ships were destroyed on the way in at all of the landing sites, not only did the Turkish artillery keep up a onstant barrage of the shoreline, but they had also mined the beaches.

I dont have any personal idea about the landing sites' being right or wrong, i didnt look into the reports of Allies about this issue about Turks mining the beach is completely a new argument to me, i've never heard about Turks having land mines then, and shall dig further about it.

Not really. The main problem was that they expected the British shelling to resume at any moment, so even though they knew where the allies were coming in they waited until the last possible moment to deploy. They also suffered logistical problems - in the intervening days between the bombardment and the allied landings pretty much anyone who could pull a trigger was dispatched to the penninsula to repulse the possible attack. Needless to say, the infrastructure of the area was overwhelmed.

Yes really. Turks might have covered the shores more effectively if Von Sanders had listened to Mustafa Kemal, by Von Sanders' orders Turks left at least 2 spots weak as far as i remember, that means they overpowered other 2 spots unnecessarily plus an another landing was done in a distant place from others and it was obviously to draw attention and confuse the Turks, Mustafa Kemal realised it and warned Von Sanders but he didnt listen and put more than enough battalions there. As i've stated before i am not really good with names so i hope there is someone amongst us who can give the exact name of the spots.