Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Australia Bloody Yank watches "Anzacs"

tag

Just remember that that's the arguement they used to launch the campaign. I've got a book at home (somewhere in a box) that describes some of the lesser known information "behind the scenes". I can't recall all the details but essentially, if the initial take-over had worked, it would've been taking huge amount of resources (materials and lives) for the allies to try and defend and maintain occupation, giving it a net "deficit" gain and certainly not strategic. Churchill however convinced majority with his "pipe dream" - it was essentially a land battle that they could never win and never maintain.

I have a copy of my grandfathers Gallipoli diary. Sobering reading. Very matter of fact.

Just to elaborate a bit more. Planned occupation and control of the strait by the allies was a good idea, and would offer advantages, but just a pipe dream - just like saying it would have been strategically significant to control Hitler, it doesn't make sense because there is actually no valid strategy behind being able to do that.

The Brits never properly considered what occupation would mean and hence a strategy was never developed. If they had at least considered some of the planning aspects if would've become evident that this is not valid for consideration of developing a strategy. Everything going against this idea include: they would need to be able to maintain and defend occupation along the entire 30mile stretch of the strait including Constantinople; occupation in enemy territory leading to constant, heavy retaliation; no land support available from the allies - all supplies to come if from the ocean and having to constantly protect and defend the ports available.

The allies were already struggling on the Western front and it was hoped that this campaign would take the pressure off but it would've only created an additional drain on resources and troops. Negative overall net gain, no strategic value.

The decision to proceed was not strategic but a gamble and based on an unobtainable outcome. Churchill was a narcissist and keen to get a good victory under his belt, but also a gambler of the worst kind - 140,000 ally casualties at Gallipoli with half being British and Irish.

Some interesting comments here:
https://history.stackexchange.com/q...of-the-dardanelles-fiasco-in-world-war-i

My great uncle, Arthur Young, was a veteran of the Boer War and Gallipoli. He died in 1968 and I remember as a kid hearing him talk about NZ back when he was a kid. He had one of those large gramophone type horns for a hearing aid and would say, "speak up sonny, I can't hear ya".

He never mentioned anything about those two wars except on one occasion when he said that if they ever saw a Boer soldier, which was seldom, they would shoot above his head.

This is an interesting part account (typical, patriotic title aside) of the battle of Long Tan written by the NZ Listener a few years back.

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/c...-a-massacre-of-anzac-soldiers-in-vietnam

I tend to agree with Dan__oZ's comments also being Gallipoli was just one campaign. Readers get a bit excited about a picture of British grinding Aussies as cannon fodder but most campaigns they were treated as fairly( or unfairly) as other soldiers. Worth noting that Australian service was volunteers only and the Australian government could over ride crown disciplinary measures, particularly death sentences for serious breaches. The Defence force Act of Australia held primacy, as well as public feeling you cant execute our guys performing voluntary service for another country. It was the australian feeling they were helping britain as a close cultural ally, not as vassals of a colony anymore. Death sentences were handed down but mostly commuted. We also had the highest attrition and AWOL rate and general insubordination charges and this was tolerated to a degree for the above reason, we made up for it being pretty good fighters when we were on duty Just to add some balance to the emotion gallipoli evokes... it wasnt the whole picture.

Ever think about publishing it? Your family could edit stuff considered too personal, but I bet it would be a great historical text with personal perspective.