Gallipoli Landings

[Andrew P]

I think it probably would surprise many New Zealanders and Australians that there were English soldiers as well.

Robert

I think you might be surprised that many Australians do know that they were not alone at Gallipoli.

The two biggest complaints I have heard over the years is that

1.Australians do not know other nations were involved. &

2.We always blame the British for letting us down.

It always annoys me that just because Australians & NZ'ers remember Gallipoli more than some other countries do, we should be made to feel guilty because we don't have our main focus on the French at Kum Kale and Cape Helles, or the British at Cape Helles or Suvla.

Quite normally our main focus (and the media's) is on the Australians and New Zealanders who fought there, especially around Anzac Day, but we do not forget the other nations that were involved, nor the Turks who opposed us.

Regards

Andrew

[Robert Dunlop]

I meant don't use English when you mean British.

Thank you Malcolm. I deliberately used the word English. The archetypal image of an inept officer in the First World War is very specifically English, not British. This image is wrong and needs to debunked.

Robert

[Tim Birch]

re. Tim Birch's throwaway comment on Dunkirk.

Dunkirk was not a defeat of the British army - it was a let-off because of a German stuff-up (be it by Hitler or the field General involved).

That was no throw away comment - for whatever reasons you like to put on it the BEF was forced to withdraw from France - that, in my book is a defeat.

This is not the Forum to discuss a WW2 campaign, however, I stand by my previous remark in the context in which it was made.

Tim

[Robert Dunlop]

I think you might be surprised that many Australians do know that they were not alone at Gallipoli.

The two biggest complaints I have heard over the years is that

1.Australians do not know other nations were involved. &

2.We always blame the British for letting us down.

It always annoys me that just because Australians & NZ'ers remember Gallipoli more than some other countries do, we should be made to feel guilty because we don't have our main focus on the French at Kum Kale and Cape Helles, or the British at Cape Helles or Suvla.

Andrew

I'm not at all surprised, just as there are many New Zealanders who have a greater awareness of the details.

Before I left to live and work in England (just over a decade ago), the two issues that you mention would feature in the few books, films and documentaries that were available on this subject and came the way of people who were not specifically looking for information on Gallipoli. I have just retrieved Maurice Shadbolt's book 'Voices of Gallipoli' from my shelves. It was published in 1988 when Maurice Shadbolt was a well-known New Zealand novelist. In the introduction he writes:

'As a novelist and as a New Zealander I had been fascinated by the campaign long before I first visited the peninsula in 1977. I grew up in a small New Zealand town, which, in the 1930s and 1940s, was still in grief from the Gallipoli disaster, where the names of lost sons, husbands and fathers were thick on the town war memorial. As a boy scout I shivered through dawn parades on 25 April, the anniversary of the landing on the peninsula. From fathers of school friends, men who had survived, I heard of locations like Quinn's Post and Chunuk Bair - names which feature conspicuously in these pages. Later, much later, I read most of the formal histories...'

There are three points that I would emphasize in relation to this quote. Firstly, at time of his formative experiences, virtually all of New Zealand was small towns. We remember Gallipoli because it hurt deeply. Gallipoli was not the only place where New Zealanders were killed but it is the focus for that grief. Second, despite having read the histories, Shadbolt's book deals almost exclusively with ANZAC Cove and immediate surrounds. There is virtually no mention of the involvement in the Krithia battles for example. This focus is repeated in the blurb on the back cover: 'Telling their stories with a novelist's skill, then lucidly backgrounding the campaign they survived, Maurice Shadbolt has shaped a remarkable document in the history of warfare: the distilled memories of a dozen old men who more than seven decades ago innocently set out to do battle as loyal sons of the British Empire and returned home betrayed, embittered and disillusioned - and New Zealanders.'

Third, I travel back to New Zealand at frequent intervals. Each time, I take the opportunity to browse the bookshops. I have noticed a steady increase in the number and range of books about both wars, with Carylon's book standing out for me as the most important 'revisionist' work. What I am less sure about is how widely known are the conclusions of this new information.

On the issue of being made to feel guilty, there have been some British authors who have (rightly) challenged the concept of the superiority of Dominion soldiers (compared to the British) in the First World War. Peter Simkin's work springs immediately to mind. I got the impression that this was a reaction to previous comments from authors from the former Dominions: 'Monash and the other Australians quoted here can perhaps be forgiven for a tendency to boast of their own successes while denigrating the deeds of British troops' is one example of a quote from Simkin. Eric Andrews goes still further in his book 'The Anzac Illusion'. Simkin goes on to point out the effectiveness of British divisions in the last hundred days. The key message is - Dominion divisions were not the only very good divisions. This should not diminish the pride in our forebears and it is sociologically very important that there is a focus for the collective experience of grief as we commemorate them.

This does not diminish the achievements and sacrifices of our British, Commonwealth, and other allies.

Robert

[Desmond7]

'Telling their stories with a novelist's skill, then lucidly backgrounding the campaign they survived, Maurice Shadbolt has shaped a remarkable document in the history of warfare: the distilled memories of a dozen old men who more than seven decades ago innocently set out to do battle as loyal sons of the British Empire and returned home betrayed, embittered and disillusioned - and New Zealanders.'

Robert - I can understand embittered and disillusioned. But 'returned home betrayed' ... who or what did these men perceive as having betrayed them?

I'm not pot-stirring, I just found the 'betrayed' word interesting.

Thanks for your depiction of NZ at the time. What was the population of NZ in 1914?

Des

[Robert Dunlop]

Des

The population of New Zealand was only 1.05 million in 1914. 130,000 served in the war, with 16,710 killed and missing. This was 1.52% of the total population, which was about half the proportion suffered by France (about 3.5%) and Germany (about 3%) and compares with the United Kingdom (about 1.5%) and Australia (about 1.1%).

Your question about 'betrayed' is very important. It may have been written by Shadbolt - authors often write this blurb. Or it was written by someone who was basing the comment on his or her interpretation of the book in the light of a prior personal perspective.

I can only offer a personal interpretation. It is doubtful that 'betrayed' refers to Britain. There was little apparent disagreement about the importance of going to war on behalf of Britain. It usually refers to the fact that the enthusiasm and ability of the soldiers was 'betrayed' by the incompetence of the military planners and commanders. Thus, many good men were sacrificed unnecessarily.

Some quotes from the book might illustrate this:

'All my mates ever got were wooden crosses' (Signaller and VC winner Cyril Bassett)

'Evacuation was cruelly mismanaged; many died unattended' as a caption in the book for a photo from the New Zealand Herald.

'I am not seeking popularity' (Colonel William George Malone) as a caption to the photo of Malone standing with his arms crossed in front of a dugout.

'General Godley was also impatient with medical opinion; he dismissed the views of doctors who protested that the New Zealanders were virtually all ill'

Robert

[Desmond7]

Robert - facts and figures appreciated.

You have also cleared up the 'betrayal' aspect for me.

[curranl]

Hello Trooper and All,

I had't realised you were doing a thesis on the 10(Irish) Division. First of all, as someone who did one a few years ago (env. science, not history), can I offer my sympathy!! Second, I'm not sure where you are based, but I live in the Irish Republic and I offer help - if I can be of any use.

I liked your quote on the 35 survivors of the 6th Royal Irish Rifles - my grand uncle Mick Curran (6155) was one of them!! Please keep an eye out for him when looking through material for the thesis.

I am currently waiting for some material from the Liddle Collection at Leeds University - there is a memoir of a Captain from the 6th R.I.Rifs which might be of interest.

Good luck with the thesis!

Regards,

Liam.

[trooper]

Liam

Thank you for your email. I live in North Down and doing my PhD at the University of Ulster so if I can be of any help let me know. I have a copy of Captain Campbell's memoir from the Liddell Collection and his great-niece lives near to me although I know there are other members of the family living in the Dublin area.

I also have a copy of what is left of the 6th Rifles war diary for Gallipoli. Not surprisingly it is incomplete but if you are interest send ne details off-line and I will send you a copy. I am currently trawling through the records of officers killed and wounded with the division at Gallipoli and will let you have any information on Rifles officers if you are interested. I will also keep an eye out for any mention of your grand-uncle.

Best wishes

Trooper

[Guest Desmond6]

The guy below should be of considerable interest to 10th and 16th Irish Div. people ...

I believe Murray must have transferred to a RDF btn in the 16th after coming back from midddle east. Anyone with pic, further info?

Captain A. H. Murray

Captain Murray of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, who is reported dangerously wounded by a gunshot in the head is formerly of Ballymena. He is a son in law of Mr. Huston Lancashire, chairman of the Ballymena Urban Council.

At the outbreak of war Captain Murray was an inspector of the Scottish Widows Provident Association in Dublin, a position which he immediately gave up and joined the Rugby Football Btn. Of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, as a private.

He took part in the landing at the Dardanelles where he was in the machine gun section and on the morning after the landing he was recommended for promotion, shortly afterward being gazetted a second lieutenant. He also participated in the Serbian Campaign, in which he was wounded and when in France was mentioned in despatches by Sir Douglas Haig. He was a popular footballer and tennis player in Ballymena and was educated at Ballymena Academy.

B.O. Aug. 24, 1917

I believe the post above relates to 3rd Ypres wound.

Des

[curranl]

Hi Trooper and All,

Thanks for keeping an eye out for my man. At the moment I am concentrating on him and the general picture of the 6th R.I.Rifs. As per a previous post, he was transferred to the 2nd RIF (51929) towards the end of the war, so you might come across him there - unlikely, I know, that he would be mentioned by name anywhere, but I live in hope!!

Regards,

Liam.

[Andrew P]

Hi Robert

I'm well aware of Simkin's attitude towards Australians in WW1, but that doesn't really cover my initial point I made of being made to feel guilty because of Australia's remembrance of Anzac Day. Comments such as 'Australians don't know other people were there' & 'We always blame the British for mistakes' gets flouted out now and again from people and it's pretty untrue.

Pick up any recent book by an Australian historian and it's a fair bet that any stuff ups by an Australian gets dealt with and not blamed on the British.

If you get a chance read 'Don't Forget me Cobber' by Robin Corfield. This is the story on Fromelles and it's fair to say that Australian officers get quite a bit of blame along with Haking.

'The Nek' by Peter Burness is another that redresses the issue of blame.

It was intersting that you brought up Monash as he wrote that book in response to Australians not getting much coverage in the papers when the 100 day battle began & the same can be said of writers like John Laffin. His books on Australians in the war were in response to a lack of acknowledgement from British & American writers who had all but ignored Australian & New Zealand achievements. Yet people like Simkin come out and say we get to much acknowledgement.

Believe me I know there were some great British divisions who were the equal of the Canadians and Anzacs, but I guess any downplaying of British divisions by Monash in his book might have come down to the reason that their flank was left unguarded due to a mistake of the British division on August 8th who were supposed to take Chippily Spur and hadn't which ensured the Australian division on the flank got severely cut up by German fire from the flank. Unfortunately this was not a singular case in the war or this battle.

But mistakes happen in the war, and the Australians also made similar errors, which aren't glossed over by modern writers.

Cheers

Andrew

[duckman]

I guess any downplaying of British divisions by Monash in his book might have come down to the reason that their flank was left unguarded due to a mistake of the British division on August 8th who were supposed to take Chippily Spur and hadn't which ensured the Australian division on the flank got severely cut up by German fire from the flank. Unfortunately this was not a singular case in the war or this battle.

But mistakes happen in the war, and the Australians also made similar errors, which aren't glossed over by modern writers.

Cheers

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Monash's book has been glaring at me from the shelves for a couple of months now because it keeps dropping down the reading priority list - but if he is uncomplimentary about the British failing to take the Chipilly Spur, then I think he is unfair. My understanding is that their failure to take the Spur was not a "mistake".

The one defect that I see in Monash's planning is that everything was so tightly orchestrated that it left little room for reacting to emergent situations. Such an event occurred just before Amiens when the Germans attacked III Corps forward positions during a relief. This drove the Brits off their start line and disorganised them. Their failure to take the Spur was largely because the tactical situation had got away from the planners - like so many times in that war. Their original objectives became unreachable before the attack went in. Adjustments to objectives were made, but the Australian left flank was left up in the air. Bean covers it in Vol VI, p 520 - 522.

Another case that has been used to illustrate that the British were incompetent, when all it actually illustrates that the Germans were quite good at what they were doing.

[Robert Dunlop]

but that doesn't really cover my initial point I made of being made to feel guilty because of Australia's remembrance of Anzac Day.

Andrew

Thanks for coming back on this point. You have elucidated counter-arguments with respect to the 'We always blame the British for mistakes' issue. It is important to re-emphasize the point about current works from Australian authors. I cannot comment on this because the only opportunity to browse military sections of bookshops in Australia occured on the two occasions that I was caring for my terminally ill father in Brisbane 12-18 months ago. That is where I got the chance to read Carylon's book. I noted the range of other books. Very few books from New Zealand and Australia appear in the various bookshops that I constantly visit here in London. So it is not always easy to pick up the shift in emphasis that you describe.

With respect to the 'Australians don't know other people were there' issue, I tried to give an historical context to our need to grieve as individual countries, separately from the grieving process that is important for England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, etc. Gallipoli was a natural focal point for this process - it was the first major loss of life of Australians and New Zealanders in the war. Nowadays, the word 'commemoration' is probably better because the personal connection with soldiers who were killed is not of the intensity experienced by those who lost sons, husbands, and fathers. But it is important to acknowledge that such 'commemorative' services do serve as a form of grieving for other losses, not just of soldiers killed in subsequent wars (I am not sure that everyone realises that ANZAC Day is not just about Gallipoli - at least, in respect of the services that I participated in back in New Zealand). I say this from my experience of working in palliative care (care of the terminally ill and dying, and their families) for many years. My hope is that others will come to fully realise what ANZAC Day means for us, and thereby acknowledge it's importance, without feeling that we in any way denigrate or deny the losses experienced by others.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

My wife reminded me of another issue that I had completely overlooked. In New Zealand, 'poppies' are 'sold' on ANZAC Day. It has the same significance as Poppy Day here in England, which is commemorated on 11th November.

Robert

[Glenn Warnes]

Is this the spirit and meaning of Anzac day??? As depicted in the 'Anzac Book' 1916

Spider

[Robert Dunlop]

Yes it is. And the ANZAC tradition goes on to say something like '...and we have continued to perform to a high standard ever since'. Rather more difficult to elucidate is the notion around Australia and New Zealand becoming distinct countries, which their inhabitants could be proud of. This notion should not be considered in a purely militaristic sense ie we are proud of the fact that we can be good soldiers.

In New Zealand, there has been a growing recognition, in very practical ways, of the fact that our country existed well before the European (also known as Pakeha, which is the Maori word) settlers arrived. During the time that I lived and worked in Maori communities in New Zealand, especially in the cities, it was clear that the pride in ancestral heritage stretched back beyond the 'birth' of the country, which is commemorated on Waitangi Day when the treaty was signed between many Maori chiefs and the representatives of Queen Victoria (ANZAC Day could be considered as a 'coming of age').

Maori have a concept of mana, which is a difficult word to explain fully. It encompasses the notions of 'status', 'spiritual power', 'presence', 'deserving of respect' and more. Mana can be acquired and increased in a variety of ways, including prowess in battle (in former times, people with great mana could not be touched and their personal effects, particularly jade pendants and other valued possessions, would have to be buried with them, lest the mana that resided in them would kill anyone who tried to wear them). Many Maori families proudly display photographs of men who fought as soldiers (sometimes taking pride of place in the many photographs of other members of the extended family), particularly in the Maori Battalion in the Second World War. These men appear to have been imbued with a level of mana that connects them with a past extending back well before the arrival of the Pakeha.

Robert

[christine liava'a]

And as Robert says, Anzac Day is not just about Gallipoli now, in NZ. All our WW1 veterans are dead. Now we commemorate them, but remember the WW2 veterans, as they are the ones parading, as well the men and women from our wars in Malaya, Korea, and Vietnam, and the peacekeepers in East Timor, and the present soldiers and Navy in the middle east. In fact, at the Anzac Day ceremony I went to, the speeches were not so much about the war(s), as the companionship and bonding that is involved in any war, and the effects of war on people.

In regard to lack of knowledge about others at Gallipoli, I disagree. Until fairly recently I was not aware that there were any others apart from Turks, Australians, NZers and British at Gallipoli; now I know better, but only because I have become interested and found out. I don't think the average NZer realises this. It is not usually mentioned on Anzac Day, and most people don't read history books!

And poppies are sold on Poppy day, usually just before Anzac Day. They are not legally allowed to be sold on Anzac Day, nothing is, all shops are shut on Anzac morning.

[Glenn Warnes]

Is this the spirit and meaning of Anzac day??? As depicted in the 'Anzac Book' 1916

Spider

Good to see the spirit is still there on both sides of the Tasman and also in the old 'Empire'

Spider of oz

[MartinWills]

The presence, an substantial contribution, of the French at Gallipoli is one that is often sidelined. I am never sure why, but the French themselves have given very little publicity to the campaign as if it is one they would prefer to forget. There is little written on the French contribution - I can think of only three or four books. There is an interesting account - a diary of a Poilu who served at Gallipoli and Salonika before bing invalided home and which is interesting to read, as long as your French is up to it.

The usual explanation is that the French prefer not to remember a campaign which is regarded as a failure, but I am not wholly convinced by this.

[digger5410]

Regarding other nations serving in the Gallipoli campaign. My paternal grandfather was there as a member of the Lovat Scouts.

[paul guthrie]

I think the French had slightly more KIA than the Anzacs but of course much less than UK troops.

[Guest dinkidi]

... I am puzzled why memories of this campaign feature so highly in Antipodean psyche when compared with the even greater tragedies and victories experienced by their forces on the Western Front, ...Was it because Gallipoli was a glorious defeat

G'day Tim

Perhaps there is no difinitive answer. Emotions certainly run high, and attempts to explain, or even understand, the phenomenon are sure to get shot down.

My pet hate is the interpretation that a national reverence has been imposed by the Government or the RSL. Any such attempt is more likely to have the opposite result.

One aspect of that is the supposed brain-washing of our kids. I reject that totally.

I have the Victorian Education Department "Readers" for fifth to eighth years of my primary schooling, 1949 to 1952. Of the nearly 1000 pages of "prescribed reading", 7th Grade devotes 10 pages to "Anzac" extracts from Masefield, and 1 page to an obscure poem "Anzac Day" which does not mention Australia, but contains "Where Turk and Christian met".

Strangely enough Masefield covers almost the same ground in 4.5 pages for 8th grade, there is an 11 line extract from Gellert, a poem [Our Britain proved to be E'en] "Greater Than We Knew, and Binyon's "To The Fallen". By this time the students would usually be 14 years old, and free to leave school.

By Grades 5 & 6 we were deemed ready to learn about Boadecia, Lochinvar, & Pipes of Lucknow, but Anzac was left for the final 2 years.

Dr Bean is often credited with shaping our particular view. His Official History is now on line at the AWM. It may be no harder to read than the Bible, but I personally can't agree that it would be attractive reading.

[Guest dinkidi]

Tim

Didn't get to Gallipoli vs Western Front Bit, no answers but some observations.

The fact that Gallipoli soldiers wore an A not a G on their colour patches might hold some clues. I understand that the honour was requested at Battalion level, not "decreed" from the top. Qualification was not limited to those at the Landing, who seem to have always been personally known as the "Originals" of each unit.

Until April the War may have seemed impersonal. The casualty lists changed that in many ways. Perhaps the most significant to this argument, might be the effect on recruitment. A new term was coined, apparently within the ranks, of Fair Dinkums. Until then recruits MIGHT have been accused of being 6 bob a day tourists, but from then on the risks involved were at least emerging. So even if the majority of the AIF did not actually serve on Gallipoli, it may have "caused" their later enlistment.

The compactness of the Anzac Battleground is quite significant. It was a distinct & seperate community. Everyone knew what everyone else was doing, it was possible to visit other units, go to the beach etc etc, something like Home. The results of any actions could be attributed directly to the known participants, friend or foe.

Its trite, but all of that was simply swallowed up in the great morass of Europe. The

AIF was dissected & bits stuck onto British & other formations. They did not regain their identity until 1918.

Then of course the majority of the Light Horse went to the deserts....and that's another story.

ooRoo

[Guest dinkidi]

Tim Mk 3

If you've stuck with it thus far, there is a better "appraisal" in the PDF file added to the 8 Bn AIF thread [hi-jacked on behalf of Pompey Elliott]

ooRoo

Pat