Easterners vs Westerners; who was right?

[phil andrade]

Hi Pete,

Do you really want me to do that ? It's a tough call, but I believe I can.

And if I do manage to convince, will I be accused of justifying my self proclaimed status as a number crunching nerd ?

Watch your heel !

George,

Nice one !

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

Some ANZAC stats here

Click

Mike

PS I like this thread

[JimSmithson]

the men that bore the collective responsibility for everything that was to follow.

Thank you Pete, your book is in France so I had no chance to look out that page and quote it.

Definition of culpable is: "Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer."

So the War Council were culpable, as I said. I think George, we are differing on semantics, which is to say, not really differing at all. I actually feel good about that, but don't worry, I'll get over it! You must get over to Arras sometime and have a few beers at the house.

Jim

[phil andrade]

Phil,

To be honest if you did a really good job I'd be genuinely fascinated to see the results

Pete

This is a quick stab, Pete, which uses official sources, the Turkish one being the same that you use in your book.

Turkish, Gallipoli :

Confirmed killed in battle : 55,127

Missing in action : 10,067

Wounded : 100,177

Total battle casualties : 165,371. ( of the missing, relatively few were prisoners. The great majority were killed)

In addition, 21,498 died from disease, and 64,440 were posted as sick.

About half a million Turks served. About one in every eight was killed in battle. If disease deaths are added on, the mortality reaches more than one in six.

Verdun, French, February 21st to December 31st 1916, source French Army Historical Service ( reference 12 N 3 at the Army Archives, Vincennes) :

Confirmed Killed in battle : 61,289

Missing in action : 101,151

Wounded : 216,337

Total Battle Casualties : 378, 777

Of the missing, the majority - at least two thirds - were prisoners. Well over one million French soldiers were rotated through, seventy divisions, already, by August, with about one in ten of the men being killed.

It was a deadlier experience being a Turkish soldier at Gallipoli than it was being a poilus at Verdun.

Hope that passes muster.

Phil (PJA)

[Crunchy]

But it begs the question we were all taught in doing a military appreciation " So what?"

Regards

Chris

[phil andrade]

Well there you are then! Gallipoli was more deadly than Verdun - proof positive.

Pete

Yes, Pete, for the Turks. Proof : no, of course not. Opinion, yes, but substantiated.

Not enough is made of it, in my opinion. I'm astonished that they let themselves get served up like that. They were experienced from the Balkan Wars. They had the high ground. And of course I know that the British plan was not to fight an attritional war, but to make a break for it and knock Turkey out, which, in a sense, makes the body count irrelevant. But you might appreciate my bewilderment at that figure of Turkish dead, when I read your statement

There were simply not enough guns at Gallipoli for the Allies to have any chance against Turkish troops that were well dug in, with barbed wire, machine guns and artillery support

Well, with such inadequate means at their disposal, they certainly managed to give those Turkish troops the most terrible hammering.

Shall I shut up and go away now ?

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

Pete

If you are so confident with your view, why do you find it necessary to be so patronising and rude to people who hold a different view? Why don't you just agree to disagree? I actually agree with most of what you argue, but the delivery beggars belief. I have watched this thread with interest and wonder why you have to be so incredibly offensive to people just because they hold a different view. It really saddens me that the forum can descend to this very low level of debate. Calling people 'brain dead' and 'terminally stupid' is just extremely offensive. It is very disappointing.

MG

[PMHart]

Thank you Martin to drawing my attention to my loss of temper in this debate. I started nicely, got frustrated and lost my rag. I am removing all my posts that may have caused offense (at least when the website lets me) and I apologise unreservedly for any offence I have caused to anyone.

Yours sincerely,

Pete

[George Armstrong Custer]

As has been pointed out, there ought to be no need in 2012 amongst reasonably informed students of the Great War to 'debate' the case, pro or con, for the 'Easterner' or 'Westerner' strategies of the Great War. And the one or two on this thread who have raised the possibility of the "what ifs" which are the only possible way to discuss Easterner strategy, have produced – can produce – nothing concrete in support of their imaginings. To argue that these are valid alternative points of view, then, is itself a nonsense. For the fact is, of course, that the Easterner strategies failed and the combat war was won in the West with the defeat of the German army in 1918. The Easterner argument, therefore, is an impossible one to make beyond the realm of counterfactual history – which few here are interested in, preferring to devote our energies to trying to understand what did happen, rather than what might have in some parallel universe. What we have seen in place of a developed argument for the Easterner strategy and assorted irrelevancies on this thread are tactics aplenty.

One tactic is to insist on faux polite responses so that no one is allowed to bluntly point out that you're repeatedly havering a load of nonsense.* Instead busy people who have studied a subject and have some insight into it are expected to take the time and pains to write out an equally circuitous memo politely begging to differ point by point while repeating points they've made many times before. That way it appears to the uninitiated that any eejit with access to a keyboard is up there with those who have invested time in understanding a subject, and holding his ground in informed debate. This tactic is usually deployed after the 'Help! I'm being bullied' tactic has failed to elicit the desired moderator intervention to have the poster's nonsense ring-fenced and protected from blunt criticism, and after the passive-aggressive 'But what do I know compared to a world expert?' sarcasm has been pointed out for what it is. Things can then progress to the ludicrous extreme of self-portrayal as a martyr, pilloried by the mob and dragged like an heroic Hector through the dust for faithfully holding to bold new answers to old questions which the mob are too blind or stupid to grasp. Except they're not bold new answers, they're convoluted irrelevancies which even manage to misunderstand the fundamentals of the subject they purport to explain - in particular on this thread, the ludicrous extrapolations made from the fact that warfare between nation states is a bloody business. And the reason that the individual spouting it is a lone voice is because he is repeatedly making glaringly wrong and irrelevant points. Then, like members of a Greek chorus, practiced whingers who have contributed nothing to the discussion up to that point will emerge in support of the 'martyr' even while they concede that they have nothing to add to sustain his nonsense, but condescendingly expressing their 'disappointment' with those who have lost patience with the sustained obtuseness on display. It's this cycle of events that 'disappoints' me, rather than someone who does actually know whereof they speak getting frustrated by what often seems willful obtuseness almost calculated to annoy by its ignoring of everything sustainable that has been said to refute its position. There are too many who repeatedly use these tactics of being precious about manners in place of reasoned argument, and to complain that such behaviour eventually draws blunt criticism is itself obtuse. To me, coming on and saying you're 'disappointed' in someone in these circumstances is far more offensive in its pompous condescension than someone bluntly calling irrelevant garbage, which has been repeatedly shown to be so, the garbage it is.

• I use 'nonsense' as a euphemism throughout for the rather stronger descriptive which some of what's been spouted brings to mind.

[Guest]

George. I have to disagree. Rude is rude, however you might like to try and explain it away. All the points on this debate can be make without making personal remarks about intelligence. MG

[hazelclark]

Pete

If you are so confident with your view, why do you find it necessary to be so patronising and rude to people who hold a different view? Why don't you just agree to disagree? I actually agree with most of what you argue, but the delivery beggars belief. I have watched this thread with interest and wonder why you have to be so incredibly offensive to people just because they hold a different view. It really saddens me that the forum can descend to this very low level of debate. Calling people 'brain dead' and 'terminally stupid' is just extremely offensive. It is very disappointing.

MG

Well said! I also have been following this (and other threads that have similarly deteriorated) but being one of the "brain dead" have hesitated to voice my discomfort.

Hazel C.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Martin, my points remain regarding the cover of credibility which being forced to use a faux politeness gives to repeated and sustained inanities, which are themselves rude in their refusal to take the slightest cognisance of numerous correctives from the other clearly better informed posters. You may have the leisure to politely repeat yourself to the likes of PJA ad infinitum, others do not have that luxury

And don't be so modest about your 'hesitancy' to voice your 'discomfort', Hazel. This isn't the first time you've popped up on a thread, to which you'd previously contributed nothing, voicing your 'discomfort.' So consider yourself a fully paid up member of the Greek chorus I referred to earlier. Some people's expertise seems to lie in trawling for threads in which they concede they've nothing to offer except voicing their having taken offense at it having 'deteriorated.' I'll tell you what I think has 'deteriorated' - the GWF, which has got to the ludicrous point that someone like PJA, whose knowledge of the Gallipoli campaign is clearly minimal, can come on and posture with complete irrelevancies whilst completely ignoring the correctives to these from people who are acknowledged experts in their field, such as Chris and Pete. The fact that someone with Pete's background in Gallipoli research can be brought to the point of losing his rag after numerous attempts to correct such a person and then end up having to apologise for doing so is why people who do have something to contribute abandon giving up time to post on forums like this - to its great detriment, I would say. Well, folks, PJA has the field - enjoy the tortuous - but polite - irrelevancies which will now ensue unchallenged.The main points in answer to the redundant question set by the title of this thread have, in any case, been made by others.

[hazelclark]

Martin, my points remain regarding the cover of credibility which being forced to use a faux politeness gives to repeated and sustained inanities, which are themselves rude in their refusal to take the slightest cognisance of numerous correctives from the other clearly better informed posters. You may have the leisure to politel;y repeat yourself to the likes of PJA ad infinitum, others to not have that luxury

And don't be so modest about your 'hesitancy' to voice your 'discomfort', Hazel. This isn't the first time you've popped up on a thread, to which you'd previously contributed nothing, voicing your 'discomfort.' Some people's expertise seems to lie in trawling for threads in which they copncede they've nothing to offer except voicing their having taken offense at it having 'deteriorated.'

I am most certainly not going to debate you on this George. You quite obviously have a very different understanding of what constitutes good manners.. I "trawl" the Forum as you put it for subjects in which Ihave an interest. At the moment, for my sins, I am reading Hart's "Galipoli"; hence my interest in the threads. I hope to learn from them. As PJA put it, you and your cronies have forgotten more than I will likely ever know. Your method of delivery makes me cringe. PJA was very forbearing.

Hazel Clark

[George Armstrong Custer]

"PJA was very forbearing." Indeed, Hazel, he is a veritable secular saint, and we're very lucky to have him. However, my points about the tactics he has deployed on this thread and others to deflect criticism of his lack of grip on the fundamentals of the topic still stand. By the way, I see how this Greek chorus thing works now. You get to come on after making no contribution to the topic under discussion and castigate people as 'cronies' who 'make you cringe'. But that sort of rudeness is allowed. Got it now!

[keithmroberts]

George

Firstly, a discussion on the GWF is not a private conversation, it is a public one, and many members, and indeed non-members may follow a conversation without posting, because they are just plain interested, or even keen to learn from those more knowledgeable. There is absolutely no reason why a member who has not previously joined a thread should not comment on it, or on the nature of posts.

Secondly, it is possible, certainly for a person of your evident ability, as you have demonstrated, to refute an argument with which you disagree profoundly without resorting to abuse. It is in particular possible to concentrate on the argument not the person.

Quite simply, offensive posts demean the poster and they are not appropriate on this or any other forum. Forums, will always contain arguments which can be intellectually either indefensible or which are merely assertions based on inadequate evidence, or sometimes inadequate reasoning. It is possible to address such without gratuitous rudeness. You have shared knowledge and understanding in your comments, but it would be so much better if you could remain civil.

Keith Roberts

back to my holiday now.

[George Armstrong Custer]

To be honest, Keith, I've pretty much lost interest with this. Once again it has successfully been moved on from the nonsense being repeatedly spouted by someone, and changed into a castigation of someone who got fed up repeating the same corrections. You also say that "There is absolutely no reason why a member who has not previously joined a thread should not comment on it, or on the nature of posts." What you seem to be saying is that coming onto a thread solely to be rude about someone you are accusing of rudeness, whilst making no attempt to say anything germane to the thread topic, is ok. Well there's a certain irony in that if nothing else. I think, too, that your rules require a little more effort than many busy people are able or prepared to give. If something has been explained and demonstrably shown to be wrong several times, and these are ignored and the poster keeps coming back with the same line regardless, then I'm afraid a point will be reached where they'll sometimes be briefly and bluntly told that they're spouting total irrelevant nonsense - or words to that effect - rather than going through the whole cycle of repeating the same corrective ad infinitum through gritted teeth and with a cheery faux politeness. I suspect that, with the requirements which you stipulate in place, that some will simply choose not to bother at all, and it might be argued the forum will be a more poorly informed place as a result - but at least PJA won't have to forbear people who actually know what they're talking about.

[Robert Dunlop]

The impression is that the Ottoman Army suffered heavier casualties because of something 'Turkish'. Actually the Ottoman Army was struggling to liberate occupied territory with inadequate artillery support. There was a relative lack of heavy howitzers. Now where have we seen this story played out? By the Entente trying to liberate occupied France and Belgium in 1915, without adequate heavy artillery.

Robert

[phil andrade]

George,

The casualty statistics of the Great War interest me. I can't help it : I'm made that way. You're a keyboard Achilles, and you can't help that either. Each of us gets his comeuppance.

Gallipoli in particular engages my interest, because the invading force, for all the inadequacies it suffered, managed to deploy and engage in a manner which ensured that the Turks did most of the bleeding and dying.

The contrast with the British experience on the Western Front in this respect is most striking. Look at Second Ypres, being fought at the very same time. Here the British - like the Turks at Gallipoli - died in far greater numbers than the enemy that attacked them.

I would ask whether the very heavy British losses at Second Ypres were attributable in any degree to the diversion of men and muntions to the Dardanelles.

Jack Sheldon has drawn our attention to this aspect of the debate. Let's discuss it.

Phil (PJA)

[Jim_Grundy]

Reflecting on this thread, I do wonder why it is some people find it so very hard to accept that Gallipoli was an allied defeat. But, more than a defeat, it was a major Turkish - Ottoman - victory.

What happened to the ships that tried to force the Narrows? They got nowhere near there and some went to the bottom in the attempt.

What happened to the armies fighting on the Peninsula? They were bottled up in unsustainable and militarily hopeless positions - some barely scrapes on the shore - and had to be evacuated. Even Churchill said after Dunkirk, "wars are not won by evacuations", so the evacuation of Gallipoli can't be termed a victory, can it?

David 'Bumble' Lloyd was once lampooned during his time as England cricket coach after failing to defeat Zimbabwe in test match for saying, "We bloody murdered 'em!". Only by a similarly 'flexible' application of the English language could the allies be said to have "bloody murdered" the Turks at Gallipoli. They won. They didn't win the war but the Gallipoli campaign was as clear cut a victory as you can get.

They obtained all their strategic objectives. The allies achieved nothing but a lengthy casualty list.

[phil andrade]

the way we concentrate on the flaws in the planning and execution of the campaign tends to overshadow the proper credit that should be given to the Turks. They were fighting for homeland, race and religion against the invaders ; more of a Turkish achievement than a display of Allied lunacy, perhaps.

Phil (PJA)

Jim,

Yes, it was a Turkish victory, and a very humiliating defeat for the Entente. You didn't imagine I was claiming otherwise, surely.

Phil (PJA)

[Jim_Grundy]

You must allow some room for confusion on that point given the 'tactical disdvantages', the 'disproportionate casualties' that the Turks you claim suffered from as per your other posts. And the absolute faith seemingly placed in the myth of supplying the Russians; the boon to Orthodox morale capturing Constantinople would have in that nation too. And all the other post-hoc justifications for an operation that never had a hope of succeeding.

[Krithia]

I have come into this quite late, and after reading the first two pages there is little point reading any more. Sadly a lot of this has become unnecessarily heated for probably no other reason than passion over the subject. So let’s put my head above the parapet!

I would class myself as one of the minorities in this debate; an easterner, and I believe Gallipoli was no more daft or lunacy than events on the Western Front at this time. We are debating here with the power of hindsight, but remove this and it becomes a more of a level playing field. What we should not do is be clouded by hindsight. I am probably an easterner because I try to put my mind into those present in the period, thus examining the facts with the knowledge they had available at that time, which makes Gallipoli a viable option.

What no one has really done is put Gallipoli into context with what was happening on the Western Front during the period. There was stalemate of trench warfare and the offensives that year were all ill-perceived, ending in bloody slaughter. By 1918 the British Army had undoubtedly learnt its lesson and honed its tactics for the final victory, much helped by a weakened Germany (the military, political and economic conditions I think have already been referenced). But we are not talking about 1918 or the continued bashing heads against the German brick wall during those inter-years. We all know that 1916 and 1917, particularly, were years of attrition, but why? Without success elsewhere, or a workable Western Front strategy, the allies had to accept that the default strategy was attrition, e.g. we kill one more than they kill of us. The horrors on Gallipoli were nothing compared to the Western Front, a reality the 29th Division, RND and Anzacs soon discovered.

Gallipoli had failed, but so did every other Western Front offensive. A vineyard may have been captured in Gallipoli, and a cabbage field in Flanders, but neither campaign was any closer to victory. I am not saying that Gallipoli was the salvation, it was not, but it offered an alternative, and it doesn’t matter how ill-conceived and poorly executed it may have been, in its madness it did offer a glimmer of hope. The Gallipoli gamble in my mind was worth taking in 1915. If successful it could have contributed to ending the war early by the very nature of knocking the first pin out of the axis pack, and supporting Russia (when guns and shells could be supplied from Britain, France and the US). The WWII strategy was arguable similar, and worked!

[phil andrade]

There doesn't seem to be enough acknowledgment about what the Turks had to go through in the course of winning their victory.

That's what's inspired me to hold my ground on the importance of the casualty statistics for this campaign.

Did the British leaders who argued for this venture fail to appreciate how hard the Turks would fight ?

Under estimation of the enemy is something that might pertain here.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

. The horrors on Gallipoli were nothing compared to the Western Front, a reality the 29th Division, RND and Anzacs soon discovered.

Perhaps Martin G. might have something to say about that.

Phil (PJA)

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

With some additional research of my own and reading what's been written here I think I come down on the side of the Westerners, the war would be won or lost in France and Belgium. Knocking out Turkey etc was bad for the Germans but they would have fought on. If Germany had been defeated Austria etc wouldn't have continued.

Now I don't blame the Easterners for trying to find an alternative to the seemingly relentless bloody slaughter of the Western front, it's only human for them to do so but ultimately that could only have worked if we could have secured a genuinely easy victory and the alternate fronts proved anything but. The resources would have ultimately been better employed on the main battlefield