Gallipoli Landings

[mcderms]

The first thing I would say is that everyone should go and read Mr Carlyon's excellent 'Gallipoli' as it gives one of the most balanced accounts of the campaign that I have read all the Hickey book is also worth a look...

The reason that the campaign occupies such a large space in the Australian psyche is that it was the first major action by Aussie troops led by Aussie officers and that the losses were way beyond what they had been led to expect. (I am referring to the Australians per se as the NZers seem much more accepting of the fact that it was a joint affair). It's like the Brits always go on about the 1/7/16 because of the destruction of the New Army and forget that (a) the terriers and the regulars got a panning as well and ( that there were some fabulous sucesses in the battle.

Whilst it is true to say that the landing was a cock up, the blame for this rests at all levels. Yes, Hamilton was a weak leader; yes, many of the troops landed in the wrong place and yes, many gains were lost due to a lack of support. However, looking at this with a purely Anzac hat on, some of the blame also rests with the troops on the ground. The famous gung ho attitude of the Anzacs saw many dashing off and fighting in small groups for pointless land or no gains. Also their (junior) officers had only been in uniform for the same time as the men they commanded whereas other troops had the benefit of experienced regulars with even the New Army battns being stiffened by territorials and dug outs.

It's also worth mentioning that Australia didn't have a large standing army or territorial force from which to draw experienced and disciplined officers and NCOs and that I believe that this contributed to the fragmentary nature of many of the initial assaults.

More ANZACs died on the Somme than at Gallipoli but no seems to remember this.

I could talk about this all day so had better stop here! Just in case anyone thinks I am anti-anyone, I have been to Gallipoli and have nothing but admiration for all the men who found and died in such a bl00dy awful place. I struggled to walk up Chunuk Bair so how the hell anyone did it with 56lb worth of kit and the bullets flying amazes me still. God Bless Em All.

[Guest dinkidi]

On the seventh day He created Australia and The Australians, and spent the arvo round the barbie resting amongst them. On Monday they had a Working Bee, and put up the Dingo Fence around the coastline to keep those forrunners out.

Had it happened that way, we might have had another species to dissect & analyse, but even the Echidna Koala Platypus & Kangaroo have done some sort of evolving. So where do you find the Australian who is the true holder of the national psyche or even physique? Anthony Trollope reckoned he'd done it even before they had decided to call the place Australia, and there have been constant efforts ever since.

IMHO, Mr Carlyon's work is an invaluable record of the Gallipoli experience. It does of course have the advantage of hind-sight & the ability to access vast amounts of official records, private papers & previous writings. I do not think that he claimed to have solved the enigma.

The "Australian Wall" in Hyde Park lists the birthplaces of Australian Service People. It does not attempt the birthplaces of their parents. Some members, including the true "National Hero" Simpson, might just have happenned to be in Australia at the time.

At the time of both world wars there were veterans from the Boer War still alive in Australia, and some very elaborate Boer War Memorials existed. There were many smaller memorials, even some honouring a single soldier. The die had been cast.

The AIF might even be termed a "Territorial Army" because battalions & brigades

were raised in the various states. In their own writings, the soldiers seemed to refer to other units as Vics, Queenslanders, Tasmanians rather than by battalion or even Australian.

After the Evacuation, the Infantry Battalions were literally cut in two, officers & men, half staying & half forming the new battalions. Even the Battalion colours were kept. There was therefore a critical continuum.

Every single unit going to the Western Front in March 1916 was manned by Anzac veterans. The Light Horsemen of the Middle East had direct connection to some of the most dramatic events on Gallipoli, particularly The Nek.

That having their own officers was a defining moment is too wide a topic for a 1 liner. My personal view is that they didn't have their own at the top, and even those promoted from within the ranks had to earn any respect they might be afforded. That it was a Defeat is an even wider issue, and that Day 1 was a stuff-up might draw some odious comparisons with other landings on the penninsula.

I also consider there to be a realistic appreciation of the losses at Fromelles, Poziers, The Somme generally, & Wipers within this country.

Strangely enough, I can discuss those places rationally, even Singapore Crete & Tobruk which caused great suffering during my own lifetime, but become visibly emotional on hearing the words Gallipoli Lone Pine and The Nek.

To me, Anzac Day originated within the ranks of the AIF simply as an act of respect for all their casualties during that first year of traumatic events. It has survived almost 90 years of unforseeable changes at home & in the world. It has never been Anzac Cove specific, it expanded to cover all who were affected by any australian involvement in war, and has evolved to the stage where our former enemies are usually represented in the main marches & ceremonies.

One obvious development is the repeat invasions by the younger Australians & New Zealanders each April. How can that be bad? It seems to rekindle a latent interest and many go on to visit other sacred sites throughout the world.

Garbled? Too bad ! What I'm trying to say is if you can't identify the typical Australian, how do you reach the single answer!

That peculiar Anzac Feeling is certainly alive & well. It can be discussed ad nauseum, but "you can't take that away from me" or more provocatively "Us"

ooRoo

Pat

[petrick]

good on Pat , i'll secon' that. "What an anzac put togheter let no pom part"

Pat cleary from anzacs

coo-ee

patrick

[Guest Paul_9686]

Thank you so much, friends, for this interesting string. Got a little question, though: What does "Coo-ee!" sound like? I don't think I've ever heard it depicted in any motion picture. Possibly, it was in the Peter Weir film Gallipoli, but I don't recall it.

I wish I had a copy of that movie with closed-captioning. It's a dog's life being almost totally deaf.

Yours,

Paul

[Guest dinkidi]

G'day Paul.

I'm sure there will be instances available on the net, but there are numerous myths as to its origns. To appreciate the unique sound, just imagine that you have become lost in the rugged Aussie Bush, particularly near mountains, canyons etc.

Coo ee is the call almost universally 'used' by both the victim & the searchers. It is somewhat similar to the crack of a stock whip. Thee Cooo is relatively low pitched but long drawn out. The eee is much higher pitched. It is also a favourite call ehen skylarking around caves, valleys etc where it produces a piercing echo.

There are stories of it being based on calls by Aboriginals, and being distinctively Australian, is a very handy 'rallying' call. As such it was used on recruiting posters, [Kitchener made a few enemies down here with Breaker Morant & Co]

and was the adopted name of one of the recruiting marches in which a number of men set out from inland areas and urged others to march with them to the recruiting office in the State Capital.

If you can trace a "bird call" site, it sounds similar to a coach-whip bird.

Has also been described as similar to a rick o'shea bullet.

Am almost certain it features in Chips Rafferty films such as 40,000 horsemen, Bush Christmas etc.

ooRoo

Pat

[Guest Paul_9686]

Thank you so much, Pat.

Yours,

Paul

[Edward_N_Kelly]

It's also worth mentioning that Australia didn't have a large standing army or territorial force from which to draw experienced and disciplined officers and NCOs and that I believe that this contributed to the fragmentary nature of many of the initial assaults.

While Australia did not have a large regular army (I think its toal strength was around 2,000 pre-war) there was of course the universal military service obligation that had taken in its first groups into the milita in 1912.

All males were required to serve in school cadets from the age of 14 moving to the militia at age 17 or 18 and to serve there for a further period (5 years?).

Actually how many of the First Division AIF had had service in the pre-war militia ?

From memory of Mordike's Army for a Nation (I am stealing a little time a work ), most of the senior officers and many of the junior officers were pre-war militia (some with service in the Boer War or British Army) while a fair proportion of the senior NCOs had also had long term service of one kind or another.

Command and Control was extremely difficult in the initial landings (and did not get much better for the rest of the war). Groups were split by terrain, losses on the beaches, losses to officers and senior NCOs "leading from the front", changes in plans taken on the spot by those who were unused to the pressure of warfare, and of course the odd Turk disputing "land rights".

That they got as far as they did is a tribute to them. That they were stopped from going any further was a tribute to "Johnny Turk".

By the way - I have a vague memory of an article in the Journal of the (Australian) War Memorial where the authour(s) postulated that the landings at Anzac Cove did occur where they were intended to land, that is the current was not unexpected (though it may have had local eddies which forced some boats to the north of the cove itself). Why ? They postualted with some documentary evidence that the final inspection by Hamilton, Birdwood, Bridges, et al on the day before the landings (?) dislcosed the strength of the defences in the original landing site and so it was moved north to the less well defended (but more difficult terrain) of Anzac Cove. It was difficult to ensure all personnel were aware of the change so it appears as unexpected to those involved and the curent reason was created.....

Edward

[Captain Dave]

In 1914 NZ had a population of less than 1 million. 10% of the total population served overseas.

However. Contemporary NZ accounts of the war focus on the 'percentages' of troops overseas, 'percentages' of casualtys taken etc.

NZ national psyche inevitably focuses on Gallipoli as the defining moment in NZ nationhood, and you could be forgiven for thinking that it was NZ with a few Australians that fought the whole show. Add to this the tired cliche that it was the British Generals that slaughtered trusting ANZAC's and you have the beginings of national myths built on excuses.

We have conviniently forgotten that we were but a small force in the war, that our casualtys were not even comparable to other Allied countrys and that we had our own generals that were more than capable of slaughtering us as well as any one else could. Really we looked for ways of explaining our failures and found them by conviniently blaming others.

I have always had pride in the achievements of our individuals (as any other paraochial person would have) however I have always cringed at the level of self importance we have attatched to ourselves and our one Division (in both wars).

I for one am extremely aware of the fact that we were (and are) but a small fish in a big pond and while our contribution was welcome, it's prescence not the defining factor in any theatre of operations. (Except when we nicked Samoa off Germany in 1914.)

[Terry_Reeves]

Dave

Thank you for your post. A thoughtful and well balanced approach to this particular aspect of WW1.

Terry Reeves

[Chris Henschke]

On the subject of experience within the 1st Australian Division;

The original 1st Division contained 1,308 old British regulars, 1,009 old British Territorials, 2,263 young trained soldiers, 1,555 older militiamen, 2,460 who had at some time served in the Australian militia, and 6,098 who had never served before.

Of the 631 original officers of the 1st Division, 104 had seen service in the South African and other wars, 24 had never served before; 68 were, or had been, officers of the Australian permanent forces, including 23 Duntroon graduates; 16 were officers of the British regular army, while 15 were British officers who had retired.

R.S.L. Official Year Book 1938

[MartinWills]

I for one am extremely aware of the fact that we were (and are) but a small fish in a big pond and while our contribution was welcome, it's prescence not the defining factor in any theatre of operations. (Except when we nicked Samoa off Germany in 1914.)

Dave fails to mention that this was the first capture and occupation of German territory during the Great War and as such was a major event - and one many do not even realise took place.

[Captain Dave]

Yes. But it was a fairly uneventful landing. Totally unopposed and conducted in a gentlemanly manner by all partys concerned.

Given the developments that were to shortly take place in Europe, it is no wonder that it was relegated (and rightly so) as a small footnote in history.

[duckman]

Captain Dave,

I wouldn't make the mistake of UNDERvaluing the contribution either. Surely the seizure of Samoa played a part in subsequent movements of German warships in the Pacific, ultimately leading to Coronel and the Falklands?

The little pieces always fit into bigger pictures.

[Guest dinkidi]

Yes. But it was a fairly uneventful landing. Totally unopposed and conducted in a gentlemanly manner by all partys concerned.

Given the developments that were to shortly take place in Europe, it is no wonder that it was relegated (and rightly so) as a small footnote in history.

G'day

The Germans weren't prepared to play-up when confronted by the RAN's HMASs Australia & Melbourne, with the French "Montcalm" as backup.

Pat

PS

I have just read that HMAS Psyche, light cruiser, was there too.

Edited 21 July , 2004 by dinkidi

[TimCatherall]

Interesting thread. I suppose Gallipoli is similar to The Somme in British consciousness. Both were 'defining' events and so stick in the popular memory.

Only the other day I heard someone on the tube refer to a place as being like The Somme.

Wasn't the German 1918 Spring Offensives the biggest battle in terms of men involved the biggest operation the British Army was ever involved in? A yet very few people now have even heard of it.

Ditto I suspect for Verdun - I believe the French lost many more in the first three months of 1914 but Verdun is remembered as the 'hell' battle. Gallipoli is way down the line for them in terms of losses and suffering (didn't they also withdraw early on?)

Its all about how the media report these days. Terms like 'War too end all Wars'(used ironically) and 'Useless slaughter' are banded about on TV and in the papers. Its all about how the war is remembered by people who have little or only passing interest in it.

Will stop random and rambling thoughts now!

[Guest BradStock]

Just stumbled across you all today. Am beginning a research project aimed at the entire Ottoman theater(re) of the war. Would be interested in knowing if anyone can point me to resources about alternative invasion sites that were considered, especially including any maps of those sites. I believe Alexandretta was one such site. Were there others?

[Robert Dunlop]

Are you interested in alternatives to the Gallipoli landings in 1915? Or more generally?

Robert

[Guest BradStock]

Robert, I am interested in what proposals might have been examined as alternatives to the 1915 Gallipoli landings. Did the British army give any serious thought to invading elsewhere, even if later in the war? I do not mean alternative beaches around the Dardanelles area. Basically, I am examining viable strategic or operational alternatives in general that lay further afield, but am especially interested in those which the British military thought worth looking at during 1914-1918. As I mentioned, I believe Alexandretta was one such alternative proposal that was historically considered.

Of course, another way of approaching this might be to ask the question: "Where did the Turks fear they might be invaded? What sites did the Turkish military consider strategic and vulnerable?"

Naturally, Basra is one answer. But that indeed was done. So I guess I should limit my question to the Mediteranean

[Robert Dunlop]

From the Turks perspective, there were fears of seaborne invasions on the coast of Palestine and the north Caucasus coast (Russians). The former was planned by the British and information to this effect was fed to the Turks to create a diversion. The exercise was repeated for Third Gaza, where serious effort was given to mimicking an amphibious landing to outflank Gaza. With the Dardanelles, von Sanders expected the main landings to occur north of the actual sites. I believe some thought was also given to landing west of the penninsula on the southern coast of Turkey.

Another big amphibious operation was Operation Hush, aimed at the Belgian coast in 1917. Other ideas were floated, for example landings on the north German coast, but not seriously considered.

Robert

[Guest British Frontier]

what is this about dominion superiority? were't the CEF who performed well in the great war 64% British birth and 6% other nationality? especially at vimy in 1915.

and how can the aussies be so conceited when they forget they are direct descendants of the motherland? it's in the genes dear boy. but their again all caucasians from scandanavia. western eruope to america and australia are all from the same gene pool.

and remember after the demise of the professonal BEF in 1914 (who never lost against the germans in 8 engagements) we had to rely on volunteers who were never going to be adequately trained in time. hasn't anyone considered that? as with goes the commanders too. their again german commanders were sacked and they had the crown prince reprimanded especially at verdun.

and if the gallipoli landings were not adequate then what do you expect from the war college where only certain aspects were taught and the rest a learn as you go.

let's quote Xenephon 4th cen BC "neither numbers nor strength bring victory in war; but whichever goes into battle stronger of soul. their enemies genrally cannot withstand them."

so dominion troops have soemthing to prove to the motherland for 1 thing and certainly didn't have german rivalry that britain had. maybe its the european mindset thats a bother but their again i have nothing to apologise for coz personally believe british troops were at their best in 1914 and the germans could not beat them.

http://www.expage.com/britishcombat

[larneman]

Writing on 20/8/1915 Major Morley records " Three days previously the remnant of the Royal Irish Rifles had been sent to us. It consisted of 1 Sergeant and 35 men; this was all that was left of that fine Battalion." It should be remembered that the 10th Hampshires and 6th R.I.Rifles had only landed at Gallipoli on 6th August

Trooper wrote the above quoted text. I am wondering if he or anybody else could throw a light on where exactly the 6th R.I.Rifles was fighting on the 10/11-08-1915

My greatuncle GRIBBEN(GRIBBON), Frank, b. Larne, Co. Antrim, 11149, RIFLEMAN, was killed in action at Gallipoli on the 11/08/15. I know I could buy a book but was wondering if anybody knows those days action locations.

Liam

[Desmond7]

What is all this caucasian gene pool nonsense?

There was a 20th century dictator whose philosophy of war had many similarities to Xenephon's.

Des

PS Larneman - check with CurranL ... a sound guy and with an intense interest in 6th Royal irish. Quis Separabit in the truest sense.

Edited 2 October , 2004 by Desmond7

[Terry]

I have just gone through the three pages of this thread, and really enjoyed the contributions. As a Canadian my knowledge of the Gallipoli campaign hasn't been on a par with the Western Front, but now I certainly want to find out more.

I believe that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland were all basically British in 1914, with the stirrings of nationalism still in early stages. Canada was a nation of some seven million, which had just received a huge influx of immigrants from the UK (plus others from continental Europe and the US). We were nearly all immigrants or a generation or so removed. The CEF in 1914 was indeed mostly British born, except oddly enough, the officers, who were mostly native Canadians. Perhaps one of our Australian or New Zealand Pals could correct me, but I assume that ANZAC had a large British-born percentage as well.

The feelings of my fellow Commonwealth Pals about the effect Gallipoli had on the building of their nations is entirely understandable. Certainly many more British soldiers died there than Anzacs, but the mother country was waging a war on many fronts; it is only common sense to see that Gallipoli "means" more to the folks down under. In the same way Canadians venerate Vimy Ridge but tend to forget that it was part of a much bigger battle.

All in all an excellent thread.

[Robert Dunlop]

Perhaps one of our Australian or New Zealand Pals could correct me, but I assume that ANZAC had a large British-born percentage as well.

That's correct. In New Zealand particularly, there were many English-born or first/second-generation New Zealand-born from English roots. One significant thing is that it took a certain kind of person to leave England and travel to the colonies to live. Not a superior kind of person - that is not what I am suggesting at all. But people who were prepared to leave everything behind for an uncertain future. New Zealand was a much more egalitarian society as well. Wealth-creation was difficult on a large scale, though land-ownership was much easier in the beginning. So while the gene pool may have been similar (depending on how much behaviour you like to attribute to 'genes' ), the environment and 'culture' was not the same. Not superior, just different.

Robert

[michaeldr]

Writing on 20/8/1915 Major Morley records " Three days previously the remnant of the Royal Irish Rifles had been sent to us. It consisted of 1 Sergeant and 35 men; this was all that was left of that fine Battalion." It should be remembered that the 10th Hampshires and 6th R.I.Rifles had only landed at Gallipoli on 6th August

Trooper wrote the above quoted text. I am wondering if he or anybody else could throw a light on where exactly the 6th R.I.Rifles was fighting on the 10/11-08-1915

My greatuncle GRIBBEN(GRIBBON), Frank, b. Larne, Co. Antrim, 11149, RIFLEMAN, was killed in action at Gallipoli on the 11/08/15. I know I could buy a book but was wondering if anybody knows those days action locations.

Liam

From Ray Westlake’s “British Regiments at Gallipoli”

6th (Service) Battalion The Royal Irish Rifles, part of 29th Brigade

Landed Anzac Cove 5th August 1915; 23 Officers & 743 other ranks

8th Aug; marched via Walkers Ridge & Fisherman’s Hut, advanced up Chailak Dere under heavy shell fire,

3 killed and c.20 wounded

9th Aug; continued advance up Aghyl Dere, deployed in support of firing line near The Farm

10th Aug; enemy attacked at 04.30 am, positions held for about 1 hour, then to support when 5th Connaught Rangers took over line. War diary records strength now about 270. Cassualties at this point “as far as can be ascertained” 3 officers, 42 other ranks killed, 15 officers, 274 other ranks wounded, 38 missing.

See also ‘Orange, Green and Khaki’ by Tom Johnstone pages 115>

For this action the 29th Brigade were under the command of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and at The Farm they were involved in one of the most desperate fights of the campaign. It is well worth getting to the library to do some reading in this complex action

Regards

Michael D.R.