PDA

View Full Version : Gallipoli



nautiguy
08-05-2009, 09:11 PM
I am, and have been for about seven years, one of the great lurkers in the bilge, but every once in a while a question percolates in my mind that requires that I indulge and ask a question. Thus:


I just finished watching the movie “Gallipoli”. I know that the movie version by necessity distills reality into an easily digested 2 hours or so. I have a question for you, our Antipodean friends on the basis that the facts of the battle are essentially true. Why are you Aussies almost always getting involved in wars that don't have any bearing on the current or future welfare of your country. In addition to the 1st world war, it seems that your involvement in the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraqi/Afghanistan conflicts could not possibly be of any benefit to the wellbeing of your country. The obvious example of a good reason to fight is the 2nd world war, in which the Australians were genuinely at risk, but for the life of me I can't fathom the reasons for your involvement in the other conflicts.


Here in the US, we assume the position of the naturally belligerent and take any slight as a reason to go to war. But, I cant' figure put why you guys want to follow us.


Please enlighten me.

bobbys
08-05-2009, 09:25 PM
I am, and have been for about seven years, one of the great lurkers in the bilge, but every once in a while a question percolates in my mind that requires that I indulge and ask a question. Thus:


I just finished watching the movie “Gallipoli”. I know that the movie version by necessity distills reality into an easily digested 2 hours or so. I have a question for you, our Antipodean friends on the basis that the facts of the battle are essentially true. Why are you Aussies almost always getting involved in wars that don't have any bearing on the current or future welfare of your country. In addition to the 1st world war, it seems that your involvement in the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraqi/Afghanistan conflicts could not possibly be of any benefit to the wellbeing of your country. The obvious example of a good reason to fight is the 2nd world war, in which the Australians were genuinely at risk, but for the life of me I can't fathom the reasons for your involvement in the other conflicts.


Here in the US, we assume the position of the naturally belligerent and take any slight as a reason to go to war. But, I cant' figure put why you guys want to follow us.


Please enlighten me..

I am reading the Times history of WW1 right now and im looking at many old and rare pictures of Gallipoli, I Am reading the reasons given in the book but should probably not comment and leave it to the Aussies to do so, I wish i knew how to scan the pics without taking them out of the book I know our friends down under would like to see them.

The Bigfella
08-05-2009, 09:42 PM
Sometimes its just the right thing to do - like being a good corporate citizen is - this is about being on the side of what is right - its about fair play. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq (we pulled out of the latter last week) - where things have not been played fairly up until we jointly got involved.

... and in a related issue, the first Aussie flag that was carried ashore at Gallipoli, has been stolen. It was in storage whilst the Memorial it was normally housed at was being renovated.

bobbys
08-05-2009, 09:49 PM
Sometimes its just the right thing to do - like being a good corporate citizen is - this is about being on the side of what is right - its about fair play. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq (we pulled out of the latter last week) - where things have not been played fairly up until we jointly got involved.

... and in a related issue, the first Aussie flag that was carried ashore at Gallipoli, has been stolen. It was in storage whilst the Memorial it was normally housed at was being renovated..

There was a documentary on Gallipoli awhile back, Anyways they had a story a Company?? of Australians advanced forward into a town and were never seen or heard from again. Very strange story and sort of spooky.

PeterSibley
08-05-2009, 10:12 PM
Read up on the Anzus treaty , a cornerstone (as they say ) of our policies post WW2 .We scratch your back in hope that one day you might scratch ours .


In national and international affairs ....seek out the self interest .It's always there .

seanz
08-05-2009, 10:14 PM
The obvious example of a good reason to fight is the 2nd world war, in which the Australians were genuinely at risk, but for the life of me I can't fathom the reasons for your involvement in the other conflicts.


Australians were in WW2 from '39 onwards, long before the country was at direct risk.

Apart from that.....a lot of people have asked the same question as you have and there is no satisfactory answer.

PeterSibley
08-05-2009, 10:35 PM
Well from an EnZed point of view , the Southern Isles were more British than Britain ....where the Empire went , NZ went .

seanz
08-05-2009, 10:47 PM
We'll be more British than Britain if the current immigration trends continue.....:)

I'm not entirely sure if NZ is more British than Oz......it's not like NZ voted to elect Her Maj as our official head of state or anything...........:D


You might find that there was no effective difference in the level of fervor for the Empire 100 years ago given number of volunteers from each country.


We do do a nice rose garden down this way though..............
:)

PeterSibley
08-05-2009, 11:39 PM
I lived in NZ as a boy , til '62 ,when I was kidnapped to Oz ..... dry brown grass , 40 degree summers and Murray River water . A shock to a young soul !:D

But I do remember NZ as little England , the fervour ,the fervour ! Hell ,a mate's Mum had the whole inside of the house wallpapered with pictures cut from women's magazines of every Royal ( of any description:D ).....they were a little socially backward ;),of the dairy farming variety . But it may have eased off a bit as the years went by ...it has in Oz .

dhic001
08-06-2009, 03:28 AM
From the NZ perspective of the world wars, Britain was the mother country of the nation, and where Britain went, we went. Basically the brits were family, and family ties meant a lot in those days. Family and empire meant a great deal until the empire collapsed, and Britain decided the EU was more important than the commonwealth. ANZUS was the reason for our involvement in US wars, although our nuclear stance changed that in the 1980s. Unlike Australia, we don't feel the need to back the US in everything they do, hence not being part of the 'coalition of the war criminals' (oh, sorry coalition of the willing was what they called it).
Daniel

nezih ahmet
08-06-2009, 03:57 AM
As from the other side of Gallipoli war,many people from NZ side,died for nothing,bcs of the wrong decision of politicians.
Bcs of Gallipoli policy,Churchill's cabinet resigned.
I think,followers of big Countries has to think their future.If you close your eye and take the orders from them,you have to accept the result.Failure.
If you are governed,your countries' decision can not be healthy.
I mean it is valid for all Countries in the world.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 04:07 AM
As from the other side of Gallipoli war,many people from NZ side,died for nothing,bcs of the wrong decision of politicians.
Bcs of Gallipoli policy,Churchill's cabinet resigned.
I think,followers of big Countries has to think their future.If you close your eye and take the orders from them,you have to accept the result.Failure.
If you are governed,your countries' decision can not be healthy.
I mean it is valid for all Countries in the world.

Indeed , Gallipoli was an enormous stuff up .Well done Turkey .:)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 04:21 AM
As from the other side of Gallipoli war,many people from NZ side,died for nothing,bcs of the wrong decision of politicians.
Bcs of Gallipoli policy,Churchill's cabinet resigned.
I think,followers of big Countries has to think their future.If you close your eye and take the orders from them,you have to accept the result.Failure.
If you are governed,your countries' decision can not be healthy.
I mean it is valid for all Countries in the world.

Small correction - Churchill resigned from Asquith's Cabinet, and went to fight in France.

Many people who took part in the Gallipoli campaign thought that the idea was a good one - the quality of the Turkish resistance was very high - higher than had been expected.

And your message cuts both ways:

If Turkey had stayed neutral in WW,1 instead of joining Germany, (because of the gift of a couple of useless ships - the Goeben and the Breslau) not only would Turkey not have been invaded at Gallipoli but Turkey would have retained Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Transjordan Syria and Iraq within its empire.

Of course, Mustapha Kemal might never have risen to prominence, in that case.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 04:34 AM
Small correction - Churchill resigned from Asquith's Cabinet, and went to fight in France.

Many people who took part in the Gallipoli campaign thought that the idea was a good one - the quality of the Turkish resistance was very high - higher than had been expected.

And your message cuts both ways:

If Turkey had stayed neutral in WW,1 instead of joining Germany, (because of the gift of a couple of useless ships - the Goeben and the Breslau) not only would Turkey not have been invaded at Gallipoli but Turkey would have retained Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Transjordan Syria and Iraq within its empire.

Of course, Mustapha Kemal might never have risen to prominence, in that case.

Correct me if I'm wrong , but weren't there a couple of battleships being built for Turkey ( that had been paid for ) that were seized by the Crown prior to Turkey's declaration for Germany ? Perhaps a cause of bad blood ?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 04:34 AM
These figures are more or less generally accepted:

Turkey - 66,000 men killed, according to Von Sanders, the German capaign commander

Australia - 8,709 killed (war memorial figure)

New Zealand - 2,721 killed (war memorial figure)

Britain - 43,000 killed (post-war historian's calculation)

France - 8,000 killed (ditto)

The Bigfella
08-06-2009, 04:35 AM
Just curious, how many men died at Galipoli?

ever heard of Google?

or, what did your last slave die of?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 04:37 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong , but weren't there a couple of battleships being built for Turkey ( that had been paid for ) that were seized by the Crown prior to Turkey's declaration for Germany ? Perhaps a cause of bad blood ?

Absolutely right. Churchill (him again) prohibited their export.

They became HMS Erin and HMS Agincourt. Slightly odd design, so of limited use.

The Goeben and the Breslau, the two German ships in the Mediterranean in August 1914, escaped from the RN into Turkish territorial waters at the start of the war and were given to Turkey "in exchange". They were no use to either Germany or Turkey and did nothing for the whole war except get Turkey into it.

The Bigfella
08-06-2009, 04:43 AM
As part of the campaign, an Aussie sub - the AE2 I think - penetrated the Dardanelles into the Sea of Marmara and caused some consternation in Constantinople for a while.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 04:45 AM
Well seeing Germany donated two ships and Britain stole two ,it's not hard to see how a bias may have developed .

What was the political disposition of the Turkish authorities to Britain and Germany prior to hostilities ? It seems as though it may be the more important factor .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 05:16 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419NJWT43AL._SS500_.jpg

This is a picture of General Liman von Sanders who was invited by Turkey to overhaul their Army in 1913

Churchill had good reason to do as he did. And the purchase price was refunded.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 05:31 AM
I ought to expand that.

I hope that Nezih Ahmet will correct and expand on this:

The Young Turks came to power in 1908; they saw themselves as a modernising movement and saw Meiji Japan (allied to Britain in WW1) as a role model.

The Italian occupation of Libya in 1911 and the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 made the Young Turks rightly cautious of Christian Europe, which condemned neither Italy for invading Ottoman territory nor Serbia Greece and Montenegro for the massacres of Moslems that occurred during the Balkan wars.

Historically of course Turkey had been allied to France and to Britain, but Turkey's historical enemy was Russia and when first France and then Britain allied themselves with Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary it probably seemed logical to line up with Germany.

However there was no real reason for Turkey to declare war; probably the majority view in the Turkish Government was that neutrality was the best course. Germany more or less "jumped" Turkey into declaring war on the German side.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 05:37 AM
Churchill had good reason to do as he did. And the purchase price was refunded.

I hadn't realised that ,it wasn't mentioned in the report on the confiscation that I read .

So you are saying the attempted invasion of Turkey was on the cards before the outbreak ? Turkey had shown a predisposition towards Germany before the war .

I wonder why ?

If you can enlighten me I'd be pleased to hear .As you said earlier sitting it out would have been far wiser .

skuthorp
08-06-2009, 05:38 AM
There were Indians, Ghurkas, even a small contingent from Hong Kong as well and maybe more British Colonial troops I don't know about.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 05:46 AM
I ought to expand that.

I hope that Nezih Ahmet will correct and expand on this:

The Young Turks came to power in 1908; they saw themselves as a modernising movement and saw Meiji Japan (allied to Britain in WW1) as a role model.

The Italian occupation of Libya in 1911 and the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 made the Young Turks rightly cautious of Christian Europe, which condemned neither Italy for invading Ottoman territory nor Serbia Greece and Montenegro for the massacres of Moslems that occurred during the Balkan wars.

Historically of course Turkey had been allied to France and to Britain, but Turkey's historical enemy was Russia and when first France and then Britain allied themselves with Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary it probably seemed logical to line up with Germany.

However there was no real reason for Turkey to declare war; probably the majority view in the Turkish Government was that neutrality was the best course. Germany more or less "jumped" Turkey into declaring war on the German side.

Cross post ...thanks Andrew ,just what I was after .
Historically of course Turkey had been allied to France and to Britain, but Turkey's historical enemy was Russia and when first France and then Britain allied themselves with Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary it probably seemed logical to line up with Germany.

Yes, the whole nasty business of being on the intersection of Christian Europe and the old Eastern Empire .The Balkan reference too , thanks .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 05:47 AM
Oh, no, there was no thought of invading Turkey before August 1914 or for a while afterwards; everyone expected Turkey to be neutral - disposed towards Germany, but neutral. After all, Britain still thought of Turkey as a long standing ally.

Lets look a bit more closely at pre-WW1 diplomacy.

Oil, which came from the Middle East and fuelled battleships, comes into this.

Britain's battle fleet had been fuelled with British coal until the Dreadnought class - in order to get enough power and speed and range the decision was taken to switch to oil fuel.

In order to secure British supplies, and not wanting to be dependent on Shell, which was thought to be pro-German, the Admiralty founded the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now called BP) .

Germany promoted the "Railway from Berlin to Baghdad", and actually built most of it, as a way of extending German influence into Iraq, which of course also had oil fields. The railway line could transport troops - German troops - to places where they could threaten not just the British oil fields in Persia but the southern flank of Imperial Russia and the Suez Canal and ultimately India itself. This was most definitely a military railway.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 05:53 AM
Now lets get back to the Erin and the Agincourt and the Goeben and the Breslau

The latter two ships escaped into Turkish waters and they ought, under international law, have been given 24 hours refuge and then either expelled or disarmed and interned (you may recall the Admiral Graf Spee and the Battle of the River Plate in WW2 ).

However, Germany "gave the ships to Turkey", and even dressed their crews in Turkish uniforms.

This meant that the ships could be used to attack Russian shipping on the Black Sea.

Russia took this as a direct threat and declared war on Turkey, followed by her allies, Britain and France.

If Turkey had abided by international law and interned the ships she would have sat out the War as a neutral.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 05:55 AM
Yes , oil was the new smokeless fuel for the fleet wasn't it ?

I'm still puzzled as to why the Turks would declare for Germany , a lot of risk against very little gain ,unless they foresaw a German victory and were worried by the Baghdad to Berlin Railway too .

That said Turkey was militarilly quite strong , certainly strong enough to assert itself without falling into line with either combatant .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 05:56 AM
There were Indians, Ghurkas, even a small contingent from Hong Kong as well and maybe more British Colonial troops I don't know about.

And, famously, the Jewish Mule Corps - recruited from Palestine - the first specifically Jewish fighting force since AD70 and the genesis of the Israeli Defence Force.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 05:58 AM
You keep being one post ahead of me !

This is good Andrew .
One question ...when were the two Turkish ships built in Britain paid for ? At the time or post war ?

martin schulz
08-06-2009, 06:10 AM
I'm still puzzled as to why the Turks would declare for Germany , a lot of risk against very little gain ,unless they foresaw a German victory and were worried by the Baghdad to Berlin Railway too .

I am quite clueless about the Turkish involvement in WWI, but perhaps (gathered from Lawrence's book) Germany was the only option in middle East against France and the UK.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 06:23 AM
I am quite clueless about the Turkish involvement in WWI, but perhaps (gathered from Lawrence's book) Germany was the only option in middle East against France and the UK.

Yes it gets complicated ...why would Turkey need to set itself against Britain and France ? Neutrality seemed to have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 06:37 AM
Hello Martin!

Now we get into my family history because my father's father was on the sales force at Vickers!

Britain was the biggest exporter of arms before WW1, mainly because of Sir Basil Zaharoff - the "Merchant of Death", who controlled Vickers and had a line into Armstrongs as well.

In 1900 Turkey had no Navy; between then and 1914 40 ships were ordered and delivered from British shipyards and the Turkish Navy was trained by British officers. After all, Turkey had been our ally for many, many years.

In 1914 four Dreadnought battleships were under construction for foreign buyers in British yards:

Vickers were building the Reshadieh for Turkey

Armstrongs had been building the Rio de Janeiro for Brazil but Brazil could not pay due to a recession in the rubber business and asked Armstrongs to find another buyer - they sold her to Turkey as the Sultan Osman 1.

Armstrongs were also building two battleships for Chile - the Almirante Latorre and the Almirante Cochrane. They were also taken over.

Now, I should explain that it was, and it is, standard practice for export shipbuilding contracts to contain a clause permitting the ship to be taken over by the nation building the ship in the event of war, against refund of the stage payments.

This was and is everyday practice.

In the case of the Almirante Latorre and the Almirante Cochrane, the ships were taken over with no hard feelings and became HMS Canada (because she was paid for by Canada)and the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle respectively.

In 1919 HMS Canada was resold to Chile and renamed Almirante Latorre. HMS Eagle having become an aircraft carrier was not wanted by Chile and stayed in the RN.

No hard feelings about those two.

The Turkish ships were different because they were actually complete and were running builder's trials.

Churchill was worried that the Turkish crews who were already in Britain would take them out of the country and he acquired them before war with Germany was actually declared - which was not something permitted in the building contracts. This caused outrage in Turkey because the ships had been paid for by public subscription - not that the Turkish Government, finding itself at war, repaid the subscriptions from the British Government refund.

HMS Malaya was paid for as a gift to the RN by the Government of Malaya and HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand were paid for by public subscription in Australia and New Zealand respectively. HMAS Australia served with the Grand Fleet for part of WW1 and one consequence of this was the only collision between Australia and New Zealand except in sports.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 06:46 AM
Thanks for the clarification ....as I said earlier ,I have read that this particular action caused much resentment in Turkey and was a motivator ,perhaps a prime political key to the Turkish declaration .It appears to have been thought out poorly in Britain .

A neutral Turkey was better than two ships .

martin schulz
08-06-2009, 06:49 AM
Yes it gets complicated ...why would Turkey need to set itself against Britain and France ? Neutrality seemed to have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages .

I strongly recommend this site:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

I took those quote from it:


The Balkans, 1912: Italy Versus Turkey

Strife in the Balkans was nothing new. In 1912 it continued with war between Italy and Turkey, over the latter's African possessions. Turkey lost and was forced to hand over Libya, Rhodes and the Dodecanese Islands to the Italians.

The Balkans, 1912 (Part II): The First Balkan War

Turkey's troubles were not yet over. Having concluded peace with the Italians it found itself engulfed in war with no fewer than four small nations over the possession of Balkan territories: Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria - and later Montenegro.

The intervention of the larger European powers brought about an end to this the First Balkan War of 1912-13. Again Turkey lost out, shedding Crete and all of its European possessions.

The Balkans, 1913: The Second Balkan War

Later in the 1913, conflict erupted again in the Balkans, as Bulgaria, unsatisfied with its earlier spoils, fought with its recent allies in an attempt to control a greater part of Macedonia; and when the so-named "Young Turks" - Turkish army officers - denounced the earlier peace as unfair.

Between May and July 1913 Bulgaria's former allies beat back the new aggressor, Bulgaria, and Romania captured the Bulgarian capital Sofia in August. Beaten and having surrendered on 10 August 1913, Bulgaria also lost Adrianople back to Turkey.

Troubled Peace in the Balkans

Peter of SerbiaDespite the re-establishment of peace in the Balkans, nothing had really been settled and tensions remained high. The numerous small nations that had found themselves under Turkish or Austro-Hungarian rule for many years stirred themselves in nationalistic fervour.

Yet while these Balkan nations sought their own individual voice and self-determination, they were nevertheless united in identifying themselves as pan-Slavic peoples, with Russia as their chief ally.

The latter was keen to encourage this belief in the Russian people as the Slav's natural protectors, for aside from a genuine emotional attachment, it was a means by which Russia could regain a degree of lost prestige.

PeterSibley
08-06-2009, 06:56 AM
Martin ,I've bookmarked that for later reading ...I'm off to bed !
Thanks all for the discussion .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 07:06 AM
Yes, not only was Churchill acting illegally but his action was not well thought out.

The sequence of events was:

2nd August, 1914 _ Turkey pays the final instalment of the price

3rd August - delivery ceremony at Armstrongs' yard. Half an hour before the Protocol of Delivery and Acceptance is due to be signed and the Turkish flag is due to be raised, it is announced that Britain is requisitioning the ships.

Churchill is advised by both the First Sea Lord and by the Attorney-General that his action is illegal.

4th August 1914; Germany invades Belgium; the British ultimatum is given to Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg by the British Ambassador (the two have dinner together - Bethmann-Hollweg saying he cannot believe Britain is serious) and expires at midnight.

9th August - the Goeben and the Breslau are allowed into the Dardanelles. Smoke from the British ships pursuing them is visible on the horizon.

16th August - the Goeben and the Breslau reach Istambul and are given to Turkey - retaining their German crews.

29th October - the Goeben and the Breslau bombard Sevastopol.

2nd December - Russia declares war on Turkey.

The consequences were perhaps even more widespread than the Gallipoli and the Mesopotamian Arabian and Palestine campaigns of WW1 - some argue that the closure of the Russian warm water ports crippled the economy and led to the Russian Revolution.

Even more - Ludendorff said in his memoirs that the entry of Turkey into the war allowed Germany and Austria to fight on for two years longer than they would have done otherwise.

If correct - that means no US entry into the war, no Russian revolution, etc.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 07:16 AM
Correction to the foregoing: the Chilean ships were requisitioned for title; whilst the Turkish ones were requisitioned for use, meaning that Britain did not repay the puchase price but paid a "fair charter rate" for them (in fact, £1,000 per day unless Turkey entered the war).

The Bigfella
08-06-2009, 07:32 AM
There's a good explanation of the courting of Turkey in Les Carlyon's book, "Gallipoli"

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 09:12 AM
Well, here we are - three American, a couple of Australians, two New Zealanders, a Turk, a German and an Englishman, all trying to understand the catastrophe that overwhelmed our grandparents and great grandparents.

The more one studies the origins of the First World War, the more unaccountable it becomes.

Each explanation proffered - and there are many - becomes untenable as you look at it closely.

And the really horrible thing is that by and large the political leaders did have a sense of the horrors that were to come, but they were powerless to find a way out of them.

Here is a correspondence between old friends that sends shivers down my spine:

quote
.................................................. ...............................

Tsar to Kaiser, July 29, 1:00 A.M.
Peter's Court Palais, 29 July 1914

Sa Majesté l'Empereur
Neues Palais
Am glad you are back. In this serious moment, I appeal to you to help me. An ignoble war has been declared to a weak country. The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do what you can to stop your allies from going too far.

Nicky

Kaiser to Tsar, July 29, 1:45 A.M.
This and the previous telegraph crossed.
28 July 1914

It is with the gravest concern that I hear of the impression which the action of Austria against Serbia is creating in your country. The unscrupulous agitation that has been going on in Serbia for years has resulted in the outrageous crime, to which Archduke Francis Ferdinand fell a victim. The spirit that led Serbians to murder their own king and his wife still dominates the country. You will doubtless agree with me that we both, you and me, have a common interest as well as all Sovereigns to insist that all the persons morally responsible for the dastardly murder should receive their deserved punishment. In this case politics plays no part at all.



On the other hand, I fully understand how difficult it is for you and your Government to face the drift of your public opinion. Therefore, with regard to the hearty and tender friendship which binds us both from long ago with firm ties, I am exerting my utmost influence to induce the Austrians to deal straightly to arrive to a satisfactory understanding with you. I confidently hope that you will help me in my efforts to smooth over difficulties that may still arise.

Your very sincere and devoted friend and cousin

Willy

Kaiser to Tsar, July 29, 6:30 P.M.
Berlin, 29. July 1914
I received your telegram and share your wish that peace should be maintained. But as I told you in my first telegram, I cannot consider Austria's action against Servia an "ignoble" war. Austria knows by experience that Servian promises ono paper are wholly unreliable. I understand its action must be judged as trending to get full guarantee that the Servian promises shall become real facts. This my reasoning is borne out by the statement of the Austrian cabinet that Austria does not want to make any territorial conquests at the expense of Servia. I therefore suggest that it would be quite possible for Russia to remain a spectator of the austro-servian conflict without involving Europe in the most horrible war she ever witnessed. I think a direct understanding between your Government and Vienna possible and desirable, and as I already telegraphed to you, my Government is continuing its exercises to promote it. Of course military measures on the part of Russia would be looked upon by Austria as a calamity we both wish to avoid and jeopardize my position as mediator which I readily accepted on your appeal to my friendship and my help.


Willy

Tsar to Kaiser, July 29, 8:20 P.M.
Peter's Court Palace, 29 July 1914

Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship.

Your loving Nicky

Tsar to Kaiser, July 30, 1:20 A.M.
Peter's Court Palais, 30 July 1914
Thank you heartily for your quick answer. Am sending Tatischev this evening with instructions. The military measures which have now come into force were decided five days ago for reasons of defence on account of Austria's preparations. I hope from all my heart that these measures won't in any way interfere with your part as mediator which I greatly value. We need your strong pressure on Austria to come to an understanding with us.


Nicky

Kaiser to Tsar, July 30, 1:20 A.M.
Berlin, 30. July 1914
Best thanks for telegram. It is quite out of the question that my ambassadors language could have been in contradiction with the tenor of my telegram. Count Pourtalès was instructed to draw the attention of your government to the danger & grave consequences involved by a mobilisation; I said the same in my telegram to you. Austria has only mobilised against Servia & only a part of her army. If, as it is now the case, according to the communication by you & your Government, Russia mobilises against Austria, my rôle as mediator you kindly intrusted me with, & which I accepted at you[r] express prayer, will be endangered if not ruined. The whole weight of the decision lies solely on you[r] shoulders now, who have to bear the responsibility for Peace or War.

Willy

Kaiser to Tsar, July 31
Berlin, 31. July 1914

On your appeal to my friendship and your call for assistance began to mediate between your and the austro-hungarian Government. While this action was proceeding your troops were mobilised against Austro-Hungary, my ally. thereby, as I have already pointed out to you, my mediation has been made almost illusory.


I have nevertheless continued my action. I now receive authentic news of serious preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. Responsibility for the safety of my empire forces preventive measures of defence upon me. In my endeavours to maintain the peace of the world I have gone to the utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster which is now threatening the whole civilized world will not be laid at my door. In this moment it still lies in your power to avert it. Nobody is threatening the honour or power of Russia who can well afford to await the result of my mediation. My friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed has always been sacred to me and I have honestly often backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble especially in her last war.


The peace of Europe may still be maintained by you, if Russia will agree to stop the milit. measures which must threaten Germany and Austro-Hungary.


Willy

Tsar to Kaiser, July 31
This and the previous telegram crossed.
Petersburg, Palace, 31 July 1914

Sa Majesté l'Empereur, Neues Palais

I thank you heartily for your mediation which begins to give one hope that all may yet end peacefully. It is technically impossible to stop our military preparations which were obligatory owing to Austria's mobilisation. We are far from wishing war. As long as the negociations with Austria on Servia's account are taking place my troops shall not make any provocative action. I give you my solemn word for this. I put all my trust in Gods mercy and hope in your successful mediation in Vienna for the welfare of our countries and for the peace of Europe.


Your affectionate
Nicky

Tsar to Kaiser, August 1
Peter's Court, Palace, 1 August 1914

Sa Majesté l'Empereur
Berlin
I received your telegram. Understand you are obliged to mobilise but wish to have the same guarantee from you as I gave you, that these measures do not mean war and that we shall continue negociating for the benefit of our countries and universal peace deal to all our hearts. Our long proved friendship must succeed, with God's help, in avoiding bloodshed. Anexiously, full of confidence await your answer.


Nicky

Kaiser to Tsar, August 1
Berlin, 1. August 1914

Thanks for your telegram. I yesterday pointed out to your government the way by which alone war may be avoided. Although I requested an answer for noon today, no telegram from my ambassador conveying an answer from your Government has reached me as yet. I therefore have been obliged to mobilise my army.


Immediate affirmative clear and unmistakable answer from your government is the only way to avoid endless misery. Until I have received this answer alas, I am unable to discuss the subject of your telegram. As a matter of fact I must request you to immediatly [sic] order your troops on no account to commit the slightest act of trespassing over our frontiers.


Willy

.................................................. ............

unquote

And here's an odd footnote - most of us know that Gavrilo Prinzip was not executed for his crime, but died of tuberculosis some years later.

The Goeben became the last surviving "Dreadnought" to have survived the First World War - at one point Germany offered to buy her as a museum ship and Turkey refused, then Turkey offered her to Germany but at that time Germany refused, and she was scrapped in 1972.

nezih ahmet
08-06-2009, 12:13 PM
Dear Mr.Bennet,
This is a big oppurtunity to meet you here.I had heard your name too much.You are well experienced about WW1 especially about Balkans and Ottoman Empire.I am a regular spectator of one TV and one Historian mentioned about Mr.Bennet.Is it you? I think you are,Sir.Bcs any foreigner can not enter this subject easily and can not give detailed information,except you.
I take off my cap and solute for these detailed information,you gave.
Today Mr.Sibley sent one msg and mentioned about the power of
Ottoman Empire.Let me tell him something.Think one Country,
entered three wars and lost.First happened in 1878(called 93 War)
Ottoman lost against Russia(Balkan disaster and lost Balkan peninsula,Heart of Empire).Second Trablus war(Libya).Third,First Balkan War in 1912.Empire spent all his economic power and became poor and poor.To show this poverty,I would like to attach one picture and see one soldier at Ottoman Army.But I do not know how to attach.If one can attach I can send it to his private E-mail address.
Before WW1,France,England and Russia signed an agreement against Germany.Russia's agreement oriented Ottoman to Germany.Bcs Russia was historical enemy.Ottoman had no chance to be neutral.You know what happened after WW2.At that time,Turkey was neutral.After WW2,Russia demanded Joint control of Bosphore.http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif

Keith Wilson
08-06-2009, 12:37 PM
Might be worth posting this; words by Kemal Atatürk, commander of the Turkish forces at Gallipoli and the founder of the modern Turkish state, on the occasion of the dedication of the ANZAC memorial in 1934.
Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well.

TomF
08-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Brilliant.

Larch_Keelson
08-06-2009, 01:46 PM
Tag lines could read: empire building, Anglo Saxon, military interventionism, war crimes, propaganda.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 04:16 PM
Dear Mr.Bennet,
This is a big oppurtunity to meet you here.I had heard your name too much.You are well experienced about WW1 especially about Balkans and Ottoman Empire.I am a regular spectator of one TV and one Historian mentioned about Mr.Bennet.Is it you? I think you are,Sir.Bcs any foreigner can not enter this subject easily and can not give detailed information,except you.
I take off my cap and solute for these detailed information,you gave.
Today Mr.Sibley sent one msg and mentioned about the power of
Ottoman Empire.Let me tell him something.Think one Country,
entered three wars and lost.First happened in 1878(called 93 War)
Ottoman lost against Russia(Balkan disaster and lost Balkan peninsula,Heart of Empire).Second Trablus war(Libya).Third,First Balkan War in 1912.Empire spent all his economic power and became poor and poor.To show this poverty,I would like to attach one picture and see one soldier at Ottoman Army.But I do not know how to attach.If one can attach I can send it to his private E-mail address.
Before WW1,France,England and Russia signed an agreement against Germany.Russia's agreement oriented Ottoman to Germany.Bcs Russia was historical enemy.Ottoman had no chance to be neutral.You know what happened after WW2.At that time,Turkey was neutral.After WW2,Russia demanded Joint control of Bosphore.http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif

I am sorry to disappoint you - I am not the man that you are thinking of. I do have a distant family connection to Turkey through my late uncle, JG Bennett, but his interests were mainly religious. He was the Head of Station for MI6 in Istambul after WW1 and remained a friend of Turkey all his life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Bennett

I have sent you a private message with my email address on it and if you will send me the picture I will be very pleased to post it on your behalf.

You make a very good point about the inevitability of Turkey's position both before WW1 and after WW2 - to this day.

I hope that we can persuade you to post often on this forum because we need to know and understand your country better.

carioca1232001
08-06-2009, 06:17 PM
A first-class thread, probably one of the finest that has ever been launched on WBF !

Having returned recently from a holiday to Turkey, which incidentally left both my wife and myself much impressed, our Turkish tour guide had been bombarded all day long with 'why did this happen, and why did that not ....etc.etc.' ;).

Came a time when the poor man showed signs of having had just about enough of me :)

Threads such as these are exactly why I habitually stroll on the WBF, for there are times when one hits the jackpot !

Keep it going, will you all, please !

carioca1232001
08-06-2009, 06:32 PM
Might be worth posting this; words by Kemal Atatürk, commander of the Turkish forces at Gallipoli and the founder of the modern Turkish state, on the occasion of the dedication of the ANZAC memorial in 1934.

But long before 1934, Attaturk saw to it that the Turkish language was changed to the Roman script, and while this gigantic reform was taking place - in a span of 6 (six) months to be exact - at least 5000 (five thousand) words of the French vocabulary came to roost in modern Turkish !

How many victors can one think of in modern history that are able to adopt anything of the culture of those they have just vanquished ??

Turkey, a country with a glorious and fascinating history !

WX
08-06-2009, 06:42 PM
There was a documentary on Gallipoli awhile back, Anyways they had a story a Company?? of Australians advanced forward into a town and were never seen or heard from again. Very strange story and sort of spooky. http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2279598)
Bobbys, they were English soldiers.
All the Sandringham men, whose names are inscribed on the memorial, fought as part of the 5th Norfolk Company under Captain Frank Beck. Captain Beck had been the agent for the Sandringham estate and had formed a Company consisting of volunteers from the estate in 1906 as part of the local volunteer battalion.
A total of 156 men from the 5th Norfolk lost their lives during the campaign, which ended in January 1916 when the allies withdrew after being overcome by Turkish troops.
It had been thought the whole company was wiped out during the campaign as depicted in the film All The King's Men.
But John Crowe, 64, whose father Robert Crowe fought in the Gallipoli campaign, said the version of events depicted in the film was inaccurate as some survivors did return home to Norfolk, including his father.

Larks
08-06-2009, 06:56 PM
I'd like to thoroughly recommend the Louis De Bernieres novel "Birds without wings" for an amazing insight into what was going on in Turkey up to and including that period, the conflicts that Turkey was involved in, politics within Turkey, the rise of the Young Turks, Ataturk, internal conflicts, the "removal" of the Turkish Christians to Greece and vice versa of the Greek Muslims - a world of history that as an Australian I had little or no knowledge of.

Nezih Ahmet, have you heard of the book? I'd be very interested in your opinion of it.

WX
08-06-2009, 06:59 PM
Since the fall of Singapore, Australia has looked to the US to protect our back in times of big trouble. In exchange we support and contribute to US military actions.

Three Cedars
08-06-2009, 07:09 PM
Not entirely accurate but still a fine sad song -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDit0DyItsM&feature=PlayList&p=24B362D89098FD71&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=43

carioca1232001
08-06-2009, 07:13 PM
Small correction - Churchill resigned from Asquith's Cabinet, and went to fight in France.

Many people who took part in the Gallipoli campaign thought that the idea was a good one - the quality of the Turkish resistance was very high - higher than had been expected.......

The ram-rod straight sentries that stand guard by the gates of the Dolmabache palace in Istanbul, are a living legend of the steel behind Turkish fighting men.

A great deal of people in our tour group needed to come really close to them to verify they were real....... no, they were not robots !


If Turkey had stayed neutral in WW,1 instead of joining Germany, (because of the gift of a couple of useless ships - the Goeben and the Breslau) not only would Turkey not have been invaded at Gallipoli but Turkey would have retained Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Transjordan Syria and Iraq within its empire.

Of course, Mustapha Kemal might never have risen to prominence, in that case.

Would this mean that Britain never cast its eye on the Turkish empire in the Arabias, you know, desiring to covet it ? ;)

Was Britain contented to colonise just India, and other nations to the East of India ?

Besides Attaturk who might not have made it, my paternal grandfather may still have been a big-shot in Karachi, Pakistan...... for he betted his whole fortune on the Turks putting up a tough fight in Iraq (specifically, Basra):)

As a major supplier of fire-wood to the Crown, in a time when oil was just beginning to take its foothold in the energy scenario - as you yourself have exemplified with the RN warships - my grandfather was crippled overnight with Lawrence making short work of defeating the Turks in Basra.

Larks
08-06-2009, 07:39 PM
I've visited Gallipoli twice and seen it change quite a lot in the two visits. But one of the most profound places was the Nek, it was an area no bigger than two tennis courts and a sharp drop off either side, 800 Australian soldiers were killed there in that small area and I quite clearly remember standing there and becoming overcome trying to imagine that many people (bodies) in that small an area, mates climbing over dead mates.

WX
08-06-2009, 07:47 PM
The charge at the Nek was a massacre.

paladin
08-06-2009, 07:49 PM
If ever you are in a battle for your life, and the only companion to be had was someone like a Turk...take him...he will stand until his last breath is gone, fighting..

WX
08-06-2009, 07:58 PM
Chuck, no one could fault their courage. During the Korean War the Turks beat back a major assault on their position. When asked if they needed supplies they asked for bread.
http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html

carioca1232001
08-06-2009, 08:26 PM
Chuck, no one could fault their courage. During the Korean War the Turks beat back a major assault on their position. When asked if they needed supplies they asked for bread.
http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html

A Turkish engineer resident in the US and who was on an assignment in Brazil in the mid-70´s, had told me about the exploits of the Turkish Brigade in Korea.Your link has provided my first contact with the official version of the facts.

Interestingly, the sentries standing to attention by the gates of Istanbul´s historic palaces, have their left arm turned around over their backs, with the left hand clasping the hilt of their bayonets, hanging off their waist belts

The Bigfella
08-06-2009, 08:39 PM
The charge at the Nek was a massacre.

Actually, it was a number of charges - all as spectacularly unsuccessful as the previous one. The problem lay in the command - the Generals had absolutely no idea of the conditions above the beaches and they simply issued orders to, for example, storm the Nek. When it failed, the troops were simply ordered to do it again. The reason it failed was because the Turkish army had perfectly established machine guns that totally covered the Nek with crossfire.

There were some spectacular examples of poor leadership. Carlyon's book (which I must have loaned to someone) is really worth the read.

WX
08-06-2009, 09:33 PM
Carlyon's book (which I must have loaned to someone) is really worth the read.
Superb book, I have it.

Chip-skiff
08-06-2009, 10:08 PM
The landings at Gallipoli look like a brilliant move, on a nice, flat map, which is no doubt how they were conceived by the general staff. If the invasion force had gotten skirmishers off the beaches and up onto the plateau the first day or two, before Turkish reinforcements arrived, they might have pulled it off. But instead they mucked about, establishing depots and digging in. And paid dearly for their methodical approach.

For a historical novel, I studied the role of the New Zealand and Australian forces, particularly the Mäori Battalion. Besides books by Christopher Pugsley and Michael King, I recommend novels by Robin Hyde and for a contemporary account, the four-volume A History of the Great War by John Buchan. A common observation is that the predominately English commanders tended to use the colonial forces as cannon fodder. New Zealand lost a strikingly high percentage of its male population in the Great War.

An opposing officer— can't recall the exact source— said: "The British Army fight like lions. But they are led by donkeys."

The Bigfella
08-06-2009, 10:24 PM
Superb book, I have it.

Would you like a read of his next one... "The Great War" which covers all the lead in stuff and the Western Front in detail?


... snip...

An opposing officer— can't recall the exact source— said: "The British Army fight like lions. But they are led by donkeys."

Pretty much true of most armies.

Chip-skiff
08-06-2009, 10:36 PM
Another wildly interesting book is The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell.

Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy of Great War novels has mostly to do with the psychological effects of combat.

At the moment I'm reading A Long, Long Way by Sebastian Barry, a trench-level Irish account of the war and the Troubles.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 11:25 PM
The original plan was to use older battleships, ships unfit to stand in line against Dreadnoughts, of which Britain had quite a few, to force the Straits by sea.

Only after five British and one French battleship had been sunk in a single day, trying this, was it decided to land troops in the area.Nobody had landed troops on a hostile beach for a very long time indeed.

Two very long standing consequences of this are the development of minesweeping and in particular the RN and RAN's heavy emphasis emphasis on mine countermeasures and the development of modern combined operations.

WX
08-06-2009, 11:26 PM
The landings at Gallipoli look like a brilliant move, on a nice, flat map, which is no doubt how they were conceived by the general staff. If the invasion force had gotten skirmishers off the beaches and up onto the plateau the first day or two, before Turkish reinforcements arrived, they might have pulled it off. But instead they mucked about, establishing depots and digging in.

They did, you might be thinking of the landings later on at Sulva bay.

Ian, I may have that one as well, I know I have read it.

The Bigfella
08-06-2009, 11:40 PM
The penetration of the Straits by the AE2 caused significant concern to the
Turks, and there are photos showing their troopships with the sides lined with armed soldiers looking out for subs much later in the war.

Ahh, found it

http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/5environment/submarines/images/ae2_sub-watch-rb_d.jpg

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 03:34 AM
Here is Ahmet's picture:

http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/ee352/acraigbennett/VATAN.jpg?t=1249633957

downthecreek
08-07-2009, 03:57 AM
We have in our family a poignant personal memento of Gallipoli. Unfortunately it is in the keeping of my sister in New York, so I can't quote from it. This is a pity, as it is a remarkable document.

This is a letter written by my grandfather to my grandmother from the ship taking him to the Dardanelles. He was a 2nd Lieutenant in the Kings Own Scottish Borderers.

The letter is full of forboding. Reading between the lines, this was not just the letter of a young man going into battle, but also one with profound reservations about the wisdom of what he was required to do. On the other hand, he was, at the same time, straining to reassure and comfort his beloved wife. It is an extraordinary document - full of tension and profound anxiety and, at the same time, determination to keep up his spirits and those of his family.

His forboding was justified. He was hit within a few minutes of landing, went to the dressing station, where the medics wanted to hold him, insisted on returning to fight with his men and was killed within 24 hours.

Before the war, the regiment served in India. The families were brought home via Egypt and my grandmother, accompanied by her young son and pregnant with my mother, was aboard a ship bringing her home from there at the time of the invasion. In fact, the ship was quite close to the Dardanelles at the time of his death. She received her husband's last letter when she landed in Liverpool. It is stained with her tears.

Larks
08-07-2009, 04:20 AM
Ahmet, that is quite an amazing photo, not least of all for it's colour and clarity - can you tell us anything about it or history behind it? Was one of these men related to you?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 04:52 AM
Would this mean that Britain never cast its eye on the Turkish empire in the Arabias, you know, desiring to covet it ? ;)

Was Britain contented to colonise just India, and other nations to the East of India ?



Well, I would not go that far. Oil had entered into the calculation.

And we had (together with the French) interfered massively in Egypt, because of the Canal, and "bagged" a coaling station at Aden.

We were "protecting" the Trucial States (modern UAE) - mainly because they were a bunch of pirates and slavers, who made nuisances of themselves around the Indian Ocean.

The Mesopotamian campaign against Turkey was really the brainchild of the Indian Army, and was perhaps the consequence of two hundred years of the British in India looking at the empire of Turkey and scheming to get some of it. Normally they were stopped in their tracks because the British Government in Britain was a long standing ally of Turkey. Getting thrashed by the Turks at Kut was not part of the plan.

nezih ahmet
08-07-2009, 04:53 AM
I firstly would like to thank Mr.Bennet,he pasted the two soldiers
picture.
As informed before,Ottoman had no choice and joined this bloody war.
As Mr.Bennet declared,England builded modern ships for Ottoman
and established the modern Ottoman Navy including training.They
were ally during the Kirim War against Russia.After twenty years, everything changed bcs of the Policy and they push Ottoman to the Arms of Germany.Bcs of Gallipoli resistance,allied forces could not help Russia and Tzar regime collapsed.I mean this war is one of the main reasons of Tzar's end.You know,new regime established in Russia.Communism.Maybe west could not estimate this.But it is very strange that new Russian Regime supported Turkey during the independence War.Offcourse diplomats achieved this by negotation.Maybe new Russian Regime hoped that they could control Turkey by this way.Bcs main target of them was to reach hot seas.
But another different action came from Russia,after the WW2.
In 1945,they pressed Turkey to control Bosporus together.
Joint control,although Turkey was neutrol during WW2.
In my mind,in this Geography,you have to be on alert and you have to have o strong Army.Otherwise you can not survive.
Bcs,during the war,nobody is throwing flower each other.

skuthorp
08-07-2009, 04:59 AM
I had two uncles survive Gallipoli and France though one came home with lung damage from gas. Uncle John went north to the Kimberlys for his health and became a buffalo shooter. I never met him as he died during WW2.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 05:13 AM
I firstly would like to thank Mr.Bennet,he pasted the two soldiers
picture.
As informed before,Ottoman had no choice and joined this bloody war.
As Mr.Bennet declared,England builded modern ships for Ottoman
and established the modern Ottoman Navy including training.They
were ally during the Kirim War against Russia.After twenty years, everything changed bcs of the Policy and they push Ottoman to the Arms of Germany.Bcs of Gallipoli resistance,allied forces could not help Russia and Tzar regime collapsed.I mean this war is one of the main reasons of Tzar's end.You know,new regime established in Russia.Communism.Maybe west could not estimate this.But it is very strange that new Russian Regime supported Turkey during the independence War.Offcourse diplomats achieved this by negotation.Maybe new Russian Regime hoped that they could control Turkey by this way.Bcs main target of them was to reach hot seas.
But another different action came from Russia,after the WW2.
In 1945,they pressed Turkey to control Bosporus together.
Joint control,although Turkey was neutrol during WW2.
In my mind,in this Geography,you have to be on alert and you have to have o strong Army.Otherwise you can not survive.
Bcs,during the war,nobody is throwing flower each other.


Absolutely right.

Turkey is on a North/South choke point as well as an East/West one.

Turkey is where Europe meets the Middle East.

Turkey is hugely influential in Central Asia

Which of course is why Turkey is in NATO and soon to be in the EU (Britain has reverted to normal pro-Turkey policy on that one! ;) )

nezih ahmet
08-07-2009, 05:25 AM
Larks
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Back in Darwin - again
Posts: 2,607


http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Gallipoli
Ahmet, that is quite an amazing photo, not least of all for it's colour and clarity - can you tell us anything about it or history behind it? Was one of these men related to you?
__________________
Larks


In acc.with your above msg,I do not have any relation with them.
At that time,my Grandfather and his family living in Greece and migrated to Turkey in 1925 with the exchange agreement of Moslem and Christian people,between two countries after independance war.
I think this picture shows you something.Pls have a look the face
of two soldiers.They are below 20,maybe less than 18.You know what happened during the war.One High School(Lycee) class,from
one City in Ottoman,had been sent to front and noboday turned back from the front.All dead.One class from the Medicine faculty ,in Istanbul,went to front and nobody returned.Big loss.
After this bloody war,4 years later,this country achieved independance war in 1922.These two wars were existance or nonexistance of one Country.http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 05:37 AM
"Three nations were formed at Gallipolli"

nezih ahmet
08-07-2009, 05:48 AM
Dear Mr.Bennet,
Thanks again for your kind help.
For the place of Turkey,I am agree with you.Maybe England is supporting Turkey for EU entry.But France and Germany do not have the same idea.Since two years,they are against the entry of Turkey.Before that,they were using Greece.But Greece wake up and changed his policy.You know why they do not want Turkey?
In my mind,Population is very important.As I know France and Germany together has majority on Population and these two beloved countries take decisions and the others declare like a spectator.Hence they do not want to loose this advantage.France informed that they will go public and make referandum for Turkey's Entry.This is the first,happened and they did not apply
such a thing for the other canditates before.They also want social
reforms.But I belive that Turkey ahead on some economic
reforms,although some other EU members does not have,like Romania and Bulgaria.They did not want the social reforms from the other canditates firstly.Offcourse Turkey has to make some reforms but not social reforms firstly.May I say double standard?http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif

PeterSibley
08-07-2009, 05:57 AM
Dear Mr.Bennet,
This is a big oppurtunity to meet you here.I had heard your name too much.You are well experienced about WW1 especially about Balkans and Ottoman Empire.I am a regular spectator of one TV and one Historian mentioned about Mr.Bennet.Is it you? I think you are,Sir.Bcs any foreigner can not enter this subject easily and can not give detailed information,except you.
I take off my cap and solute for these detailed information,you gave.
Today Mr.Sibley sent one msg and mentioned about the power of
Ottoman Empire.Let me tell him something.Think one Country,
entered three wars and lost.First happened in 1878(called 93 War)
Ottoman lost against Russia(Balkan disaster and lost Balkan peninsula,Heart of Empire).Second Trablus war(Libya).Third,First Balkan War in 1912.Empire spent all his economic power and became poor and poor.

You are correct of course .I was refering to the ability of Turkey to see off a strong allied invasion force .The Ottoman Empire may have been a thing of the past in all reality, but the Turkish homeland was not open to invasion .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 06:00 AM
Of course the EU is a Franco-German club.

It always has been - it is another effect of WW1.

But France did not want us in, either - we got in in the end.

Personally I am more worried by Romania, although it is smaller, due to the level of corruption in that country.

martin schulz
08-07-2009, 06:38 AM
Of course the EU is a Franco-German club.

If that were true Poland wouldn't be in.



Edited to add: Given the current Islam-friendly government in Turkey, whoe even want to put aside the secular achievements Attatürk established, I am really not sure I want Turkey in the EU, but I do know that the aggressive way the US insists on Turkey's membership is counterproductive.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 06:55 AM
That is for sure.

skuthorp
08-07-2009, 06:56 AM
If that were true Poland wouldn't be in.



Edited to add: Given the current Islam-friendly government in Turkey, whoe even want to put aside the secular achievements Attatürk established, I am really not sure I want Turkey in the EU, but I do know that the aggressive way the US insists on Turkey's membership is counterproductive.

The US has a history of short term advantage that turns into medium term disaster and their interest in Turkey jopining the EU is purely strategic of course. That said in the long run it would be a good outcome. As I see it the 'islamic lobby' would not be in favour because of the possible 'dilution' of their influence over time.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 06:59 AM
Can I just remind people of the difference between "Islamic" (pertaining to the Moslem faith) and "Islamist" (seeking to restore the Caliphate and uniting all True Believers under its religious rule)

Turkey abolished the Caliphate in 1924, if I recall correctly.

carioca1232001
08-07-2009, 07:00 AM
You are correct of course .I was refering to the ability of Turkey to see off a strong allied invasion force .The Ottoman Empire may have been a thing of the past in all reality, but the Turkish homeland was not open to invasion .

The Turkish people we met were quite oblivious to their former Empire as well as to the stoic manner they defended their land from foreign invaders at Gallipolli. No chest thumping in this country, not by a long shot, no :)

The Turkish flag flies high, though, from most hill/mountain tops wherever the eye can reach in Turkey ;). Similarly, Istanbul airport teems with travellers, with slanted eyes, from Turkic-speaking nations of the former USSR.

At the Attaturk Memorial in Ankara, our Turkish guide actually suggested that we not visit the Son et Lumiere show enacting the military action at Gallipolli. He said it was rather drab and was meant for Turks only !

The only other eminent Turk buried at the Attaturk Memorial is Izmet Inonu, who was a confidant of Attaturk´s, having accompanied him through thick and thin, all the trials and tribulations, right up to the latter´s demise.

Inonu was left-leaning (apparently !) and was head of state in the 50´s and 60´s, and allegedly told Nikita Krushev to get stuffed when the Russians threatened to nuke Turkey if the US did not pull out their missiles from Turkish bases (Cuban missile crisis). I recall this incident like yesterday;)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 07:04 AM
The Turkish people we met were quite oblivious to their former Empire as well as to the stoic manner they defended their land from foreign invaders at Gallipolli. No chest thumping in this country, not by a long shot, no :)

The Turkish flag flies high, though, from most hill/mountain tops wherever the eye can reach in Turkey ;). Similarly, Istanbul airport teems with travellers, with slanted eyes, from Turkic-speaking nations of the former USSR.

At the Attaturk Memorial in Ankara, our Turkish guide actually suggested that we not visit the Son et Lumiere show enacting the military action at Gallipolli. He said it was rather drab and was meant for Turks only !

The only other eminent Turk buried at the Attaturk Memorial is Izmet Inonu, who was a confidant of Attaturk´s, having accompanied him through thick and thin, all the trials and tribulations, right up to the latter´s demise.

Inonu was left-leaning (apparently !) and was head of state in the 50´s and 60´s, and allegedly told Nikita Krushev to get stuffed when the Russians threatened to nuke Turkey if the US did not pull out their missiles from Turkish bases (Cuban missile crisis). I recall this incident like yesterday;)

Where does that remind me of?

China!

Turkey, like China, is on the way up.

martin schulz
08-07-2009, 07:17 AM
The US has a history of short term advantage that turns into medium term disaster and their interest in Turkey jopining the EU is purely strategic of course.

Well you guys don't even accept Puerto Rico as US State, but want the EU to include a currently questionable-secular country :(

PeterSibley
08-07-2009, 07:20 AM
You guys ?.....Skuthorp is Australian .....we don't currently have a policy on Puerto Rico's status .

carioca1232001
08-07-2009, 07:27 AM
Where does that remind me of?

China!

Turkey, like China, is on the way up.

Turkey is definitely so !

We were completely taken by surprise given our in situ finding !

Specially myself, as my impressions of Turkey were frozen to 1962, when Iran, Pakistan and Turkey formed a US-backed alliance (CENTO).

The agricultural and industrial sectors have literally inverted their roles, from 90 % and 10 %, respectively, in 1962.

skuthorp
08-07-2009, 07:30 AM
I went to school with a Peruto Rican and he thought he was an American, and so did I. But I do see Martin's point about Turkey as a secular state, but there are doubts whether it will stay that way. I'm not up with the situation completely but I understood that the military was expected to act if that looked like changing.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 07:37 AM
Well, Germany and Italy both have Christian Democrat parties that have governed them for long spells at a time, and are governing them at the moment. I'm not terribly worried by Islamic Democrats.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
08-07-2009, 08:00 AM
.......we don't currently have a policy on Puerto Rico's status .

And why not? - you already have one significant offshore possession, think what advantage may accrue from a second - an empire upon which the sun never sets!

Duncan Gibbs
08-07-2009, 08:11 AM
And why not? - you already have one significant offshore possession, think what advantage may accrue from a second - an empire upon which the sun never sets!
We just need small rocks to occupy in the eastern Pacific, the Atlantic and the western Indian oceans. Hang on....

skuthorp
08-07-2009, 08:13 AM
We just need small rocks to occupy in the eastern Pacific, the Atlantic and the western Indian oceans. Hang on....

How about England, wer'e knocking them off with ease at the moment and Mrs Winsor is still Queen of Aus as well. We could send 'em Julia as GG.

Larks
08-07-2009, 08:25 AM
you already have one significant offshore possession, !

aah, Tasmania??:D

skuthorp
08-07-2009, 08:39 AM
aah, Tasmania??:D

There's supposedly more New Zealanders in Aus than in NZ, so does that make us a Kiwi colony? And as for Tasmania, ask anny Taswegian, we;re the North Island.

Syed
08-07-2009, 09:04 AM
Turkey is definitely so !

We were completely taken by surprise given our in situ finding !

Specially myself, as my impressions of Turkey were frozen to 1962, when Iran, Pakistan and Turkey formed a US-backed alliance (CENTO).

The agricultural and industrial sectors have literally inverted their roles, from 90 % and 10 %, respectively, in 1962.

CENTO - Central Treaty Organization was adopted by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and UK. (1955 - 1979)

RCD - Regional Cooperation for Development was originally established by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. (1964 - 1979)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-07-2009, 09:14 AM
Thanks.

Those initials tell a story in themselves, don't they?

Peerie Maa
08-07-2009, 10:39 AM
We just need small rocks to occupy in the eastern Pacific, the Atlantic and the western Indian oceans. Hang on....

No don't go there. You keep on hitting them with your subs.:eek::D

carioca1232001
08-07-2009, 03:33 PM
CENTO - Central Treaty Organization was adopted by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and UK. (1955 - 1979)

RCD - Regional Cooperation for Development was originally established by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. (1964 - 1979)

Syed,
I stand corrected, although I am sure you are generous enough to afford me some leeway, as I left town - but wasn´t run out by the sheriff, mind you ! - in July 1965 !

RCD does ring a bell too !

BTW, the reason I dragged the US ( and not the UK !) into CENTO was sort of circumstantial ( I have translated from Portuguese, circumstancial): there were quite a few mates in school who had close relatives as Flying Officers in the Pakistan Air Force, wherein, some of them would be sent to the US for advanced flight training ....and ...in 'the best flyer' contest, it would invariably be a Pakistani and a Turk , contesting the top slot ;).

Duncan Gibbs
08-07-2009, 06:09 PM
No don't go there. You keep on hitting them with your subs.:eek::D

Ownership or flag is not a prerequisite for that: Case in point being your warship and our rock (Lord Howe Island)! :rolleyes::D;)

Anyhoo, of WWI, the fact that at certain times (Christmas, etc...) opposing troops would leave their trenches and have a game of soccer, sing songs together and then go back to killing each other en-masse speaks volumes of the idiocy and uselessness of that particular war. Andrew, that exchange of telegrams you posted is truly scary. It makes one think that the manufacture and sale of armaments should be made as similarly unacceptable as smoking.

PeterSibley
08-07-2009, 06:22 PM
It is to me , but I'm something of a minority .

Whameller
08-10-2009, 06:59 AM
This has been a fascinating thread - as much for the rate and range of drift from the original question as for the subject matter. Here is my bit on the original topic.

My British great-grandfather was one of the 43,000-odd British casualties - killed commanding a company (in the same Infantry regiment that I still serve in) on the first night of the landings at Suvla Bay. My New Zealand great-grandfather and a couple of othe NZ relatives survived.

I remember talking to one of them (a great,great-uncle; he served there in the Royal Navy) years ago. He always regarded himself as British - just one whose family came from NZ. As such, he regarded it as a 'no brainer' (not that he used that sort of language !) for NZ to enter the war with Britain. Reading the histories, it seems that this was the general view in both NZ and Australia.

As to why the Allies wanted to force the Dardanelles, while I bow to those with better knowledge of Ottoman/German/British diplomatic relations, there were valid military/political grand strategic reasons as well:

- With stalemate on the Western front it was vital for the Allies to keep Russia in the war - and effectively so.
- Russia was struggling, partly (and there were many other reasons) for lack of materiel.
- Delivery of materiel from the Allies was through the cold water ports in the north - severely constrained in winter - so opening sea lines of communication to Russia's warm water ports on the Black sea was a valid and potentially vital aim.
Looked at from a professional point of view, the concept was sound. The planning and execution of both the first attempt to bounce the Dardanelles and then the landings were not so good.

The actual comat is, of course, the stuff of legend. Visiting the penininsula, you can only stand in awe at what the participants of both sides experienced and achieved.

Militarily, the most effectively conducted part of the operation was the Allies eventual withdrawal - a textbook example of how to withdraw in contact.

In terms of unintended consequences, the importance of Gallipoli in the birth of 3 nations is well known. Less well known is the contibution the lessons learned there made to success in WW2. The British Government commissioned a comprehensive report on the campaign; it was one of the key documents that the joint planning staffs read as they began work for Operation OVERLORD - the allies invasion of NW Europe in 1944.

The Bigfella
08-10-2009, 07:27 AM
At one stage in my career, I had staff at the Australian War Memorial and was fortunate to be invited to a number of functions, such as the Anniversary Oration. I mentioned Les Carlyon earlier... he gave this speech in between writing "Gallipoli" and "The Great War"

http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2004.asp

It begins....



Alan Bond, that case-hardened warrior from the corporate wars, was in a little trouble in 1983, and this time it wasn’t financial. The Australian yacht – his yacht, really – was trailing by three races to one in the America’s Cup. Bond still thought victory possible. He made a reference to Gallipoli. Then he spoke the deathless words: ‘We had our backs to the wall there and we won that one.’ We shouldn’t take easy shots: this man later bought his own university......

Larks
08-11-2009, 03:46 AM
Here's a new interactive ABC web site on Gallipoli that some may find interesting, I haven't explored it yet but am just about to

http://www.abc.net.au/innovation/gallipoli/

Larks
08-11-2009, 05:13 AM
I just spent the last hour exploring that ABC link, fascinating. It is only the first day of the Anzac landings but contains Diaries, photos and interviews with Allied and Turkish soldiers, great 3D vision of the landing and positions, very much worth spending some time looking over, though the last hour has only covered part of it.

martin schulz
08-11-2009, 05:25 AM
Well, Germany and Italy both have Christian Democrat parties that have governed them for long spells at a time, and are governing them at the moment.

That's not the same thing and you should know it. Those Christian-Democrats/Christian-Social-Union are as much christian as the Social-Democrats are Socialists. Apart from trying to desperately uphold last centuries moral value, those parties don't really have an aganda, except doing everything to be re-elected.


I'm not terribly worried by Islamic Democrats.

I am, especially when I observe discussions about headscarfs, islam-schools and the Kurds in Turkey. I believe the democracy is only a very thin layer which can easily be washed away by radicals and the the EU would have to deal with a culture it hasn't a clue about.

PeterSibley
08-11-2009, 05:25 AM
But you need a faster connection than my satelite !! :(

WX
08-11-2009, 06:59 AM
opposing troops would leave their trenches and have a game of soccer, sing songs together and then go back to killing each other en-masse speaks volumes of the idiocy and uselessness of that particular war.
I think that only happened once. You have to remember that the troops had no say in being at the Front. To be found behind the lines without a very good reason would get you shot...except in the ANZAC Battalions, we didn't shoot deserters.

WX
08-11-2009, 08:34 PM
Anyone wishing to read the Australian WW2 histories will find them here. I had no idea they had been made available online.
http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/