Guest CGI Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Not everything you see or read in Gallipoli histories is 'historically correct'. Some mistakes however, are so far away from the truth that they become funny. I know I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but if you come across one of these, why not let other members profit from your find? I'm wondering what historical nonsense this thread will generate. CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Let's try this : BOUVET REFLOATED ! The following postcard shows the French battleship Bouvet, which struck a mine during the 18th March attack in 1915 and sank within minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Now, let's take another postcard : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 And now, let's put the two side by side : What you see is very interesting : on one hand Bouvet, sunk in 1915 and on the other hand the Helles Memorial, erected in 1924. Very strange... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Interesting - are you saying these images have been "amended"? It has hard to tell from these scans what is depicted in the photo of the "Bouvet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Some beauties from perhaps the worst-ever Gallipoli history : "Poilus d'Orient" by Pierre Miquel (ed. Fayard, 1998) : About the Australians on 26th April 1915 : On p.89 : "The survivors of the 8000 men, held a beach of 800 m long and 25 m wide, south of Gaba Tepe. "The Peninsula" Hamilton notes, "is apparently a tougher nut to crack than it seemed to be on Kitchener's small map." Not surprising. 'South' of Gaba Tepe? The mistake made at the landing was so big? About the attack at Lone Pine : On p.129 : "The Australians swiftly climbed the rocks to attack the infamous position at Lone Pine." (and we who have always thought that 400 Plateau was a plateau, flat.) And for our general education, some fine Gallipoli placenames : "Oja Tchemen" (Kocachimen Tepe) "Tchounouk" (Conk Bairi) "Laia Baba" (Lala Baba) "Kevéres Dere" (Kereviz Dere) etc. Comment from the publisher on the back flap of the book : "This less well-known episode of the Great War is here told with devotion and passion by Pierre Miquel, whose publications about WWI have been a reference for years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 SOMEONE TURNED PLUGGE'S PLATEAU AROUND ! B/W pic : from 'Defeat at Gallipoli' by Nigel Steel Color pic : the way it looks now A clear case of Gallipoli Now and not Then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMHart Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 Hi, The Plugge's Plateau shot looks OK to me. You've removed the sea and the pier from the 'then' shot printed in Nigel's book. Were you standing in the sea when you took your 'now' shot. Or is it a shot from round the corner inland and you are in fact guilty of an egregious error yourself? Puzzled Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 The Bouvet may well have been refloated as were some ships in Scapa Flow. I dont think your comments are wholly justified especially place names which in the middle east/asia change phonetically depending who writes the name down. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 Drake, You wrote "The Bouvet may well have been refloated..." If you want to be sure : go and have a look at the Dardanelles, opposite ErenKeui Bay. Dive to a depth of 57 m for the top deck and to 68 m for the bottom part of the wreck. To do this on an organized trip, visit : http://www.letsgo-turkey.com/diving.html If you cannot find anything at all , it must indeed have been refloated CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanes-trench Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 Greetings all. I was amazed to read the response about Bouvet having been refloated. I feel sorry for the Turkish marine archaeologists who have been diving on the wreck for so long. One wonders what they must have been thinking. And as for the 600 crewmen who still lie beneath the waves within her mighty hull, well… And Puzzled Pete, about those Plugge’s Plateau photos. Have a look at the humps on top in both images. Surely that’s what CGI was referring to. That, or the Turks are damned good landscapers. leanes-trench Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 CGI, Thanks for the holiday suggestion,bit deeper than I'm happy with Makes one ask what the photo is actually depicting then. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 I was amazed to read the response about Bouvet having been refloated. Why??? Did you know categorically that it had not been?? Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanes-trench Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 Yes, I know categorically that it has not been refloated. So does the French Navy. leanes-trench Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baby700 Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 Dear Puzzled Pete, Look at the horizon please. There is no relation with removing the sea in the 'then' photograph. I think it is an obligation for sending the two pictures together (limitation of the picture size). And it is clear the 'then' photograph is not ok. It was printed reversly. It is not the fault of Nigel Steel or Peter Hart bien sur; although they are not field specialists. Also, look at the pages 118-119 of the Steel's other book: Gallipoli. You will see an almost identical 'now' that CGI's. And another -but this time printed correctly- 'then'. Look at the position of the officer's dugouts terrace in lower slope. And please be carefull before making such an accusation like '... guilty of an egregious error'. Dear Drake 1066; Bouvet is still in Erenkeui Bay, in 40 metres deepth. Never refloated. The place names in middle east doesn't change phonetically; this is an 'egregious error' of some ignorant authors; like Pierre Miquel (story teller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 The place names in middle east doesn't change phonetically; this is an 'egregious error' of some ignorant authors You seem very sure of yourself?? I have worked and travelled in the Middle East for several years including Turkey and would very much doubt your conviction in your opinion. As for Puzzled Peters post I see exactly what he means and he may be correct.The camera angle is not the same as the original picture and there are features that would suggest that the picture is not inverted. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 Dear Roop, I'm afraid this is getting a bit out of hand. I'd therefore suggest we might as well get a bit serious. Let's try and get things straight : 1. You doubt whether Bouvet was not refloated. Well, she was not. 2. You question Baby700's competence when it comes to linguistics. A short look at his profile might have told you more, although that would not give you but a small idea of his qualifications. 3. You doubt my remark about the Plugge's photo. Well, who am I to contradict you? Therefore two remarks: - Please help me and correct all the other mistakes at http://user.online.be/%7Esnelders/thennow/thennow1.htm - Please add a valuable argument when you claim something. This can only enhance the discussion of a historical topic. Regards, CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 16 January , 2005 Share Posted 16 January , 2005 CGI I do not dispute the fact that Bouvet remained sunk. I just wonder what the picture actually depicts given the caption, Paul Reed inferred a similar thought if I am correct. I do not rely on Turkish tourist companies as a source of historical information although they may be 110% correct. I would prefer to know from a better source. In the Arab/Middle eastern world linguistics are relative, there are many scripts and tongues all of the same group but many speak differently. ie Syria and Sudan. There is no correct spelling of any name that is of these extractions only similar phonetic names which are similarly understood as being the same location. I doubt the remark concerning the photo reversal because I do not believe it fully confirms your view that it has been reversed. I think that one could argue either way but still feel it is the same view from a different angle. No need to defend Baby700 I am sure he can defend himself His qualifications are not apparent by what is revealed in his signiture, profile or previous posts. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 18 January , 2005 Share Posted 18 January , 2005 Not quite in the Historical Blunders category But nevertheless the pics below do show how easy it is to get a photograph the wrong way around and then past proof-readers, guides, historians etc. etc. The guide-book cover is from the 2000 edition [pub by Leo Cooper an imprint of Pen & Sword Books Ltd] Have subsequent editions been corrected? Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baby700 Posted 18 January , 2005 Share Posted 18 January , 2005 A Turkish proverb: They told the camel that his neck was crooked, and he answered, ‘Is there any part of me that’s straight?’ - You are criticizing a detail, but the whole job is sloppy-(Mustafa Nihat Ozun- Turkish Proverbs, Istanbul, 1952) In the pictures above, you saw ‘The deep respect to Turkish Soldier Monument’ located in Gallipoli/Anzac sector, in Albayrak Sirti (Pine Ridge) and it is totally bidon. Major Holtz’s fault is not only to put the reverse side of the picture but the picture itself. Choosing this like a cover picture, he discredited himself and his book. The monument, erected in 80’s, was made after a full fictious evenement. After the Turkish authorities, the story told by Governor of Australia, Baron Casey who was the orderly of General Bridges during the campaign and voila: “At one point during the fighting, gunfire downed an Australian soldier in the middle of an open field, and none of his compatriots had the courage to retrieve him. A Turkish soldier got up out of his trench, and both sides froze as the Turk picked up the wounded Australian and carried him over to the enemy side. He then returned to his own trench unharmed.” (Frommer’s Turkey) This was never happened. Even Bouvet could be reflotaed (he-he) but this one is impossible. Also there are any record, any document, any first or second hand witnesses that such an incident happened. Recently the authorities had changed the plaque of the monument. Because in the first plaque, there was a some description about the incident saying that the ‘Australian officer wounded in his heart’ (nothing in the heart, but in the arm in monument), ‘Both side unloaded their bayonets’ (but a bayonet in the monument), ‘The Australian martyrs’ (can’t say a marty for a Christian people). So they tried to match the plaque with the monument made after a fictious story. But it’s not enough. Because the weapon of the Turkish soldier in the monument is a Lee- Enfield!!! The bayonet also is not a Turkish one. So this is the situation of Turkish authorities when they said 'Deep respect to Turkish Soldier'. N.B. Dear Churchill-Drake1066, first of all, Turkey is not Sudan or Syria. And the Turkish is pronounced as it spelled, spelled as it pronounced (but the Ottoman is not. There is no vowels). 'Layk dis for egzampl'. So the Europeans, tried always to spell Turkish words with their own latino-celtic system. The incorrect spelling of place names is one of the sin of Christian world. So, go to this links of CGI's web site. You can learn something before talking. http://user.online.be/%7Esnelders/plnpronun.htm http://user.online.be/%7Esnelders/plntransl.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 18 January , 2005 Share Posted 18 January , 2005 The Turkish soldier whose statue stands close to the Turkish Hospital Memorial is also carrying an SMLE - presumably captured from the enemy! How many people have read of Sulva Bay? Finally one relatively recent volume (which I won't name) contains a map showing the British Landings at Suvla bay on 25th April 1915. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 19 January , 2005 Share Posted 19 January , 2005 A Turkish proverb: They told the camel that his neck was crooked, and he answered, ‘Is there any part of me that’s straight?’ - You are criticizing a detail, but the whole job is sloppy-(Mustafa Nihat Ozun- Turkish Proverbs, Istanbul, 1952) Thank you for the wisdom of Mustafa Nihat Ozun Here is some by John Masefield [also a Gallipoli vet – see a current thread in this section] “I have seen flowers come in stony places And kind things done by men with ugly faces, And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races, So I trust, too” You are perfectly entitled to your belief that the wounded soldier incident never happened; That is your right However that is not the same as saying that “this one is impossible.” Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henschke Posted 19 January , 2005 Share Posted 19 January , 2005 If the black and white image is flipped, it seems that the original negative was printed the wrong way - not uncommon. I'm sure plenty of us have seen images SMLE's with left handed bolts. My red lines show the beginning of the gully on the left of both images, and the higher ground to the right. Now, what was the original thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGI Posted 19 January , 2005 Share Posted 19 January , 2005 Yes Chris, At last someone using a bit of common sense. I was getting desperate Here's another one, taken from Major Holt's Battlefield Guide : The caption says : "4th Battalion Parade Ground CWGC Cemetery with view over Monash Gully towards Quinn's Post". More accurate would have been : " ......with no view over Monash Gully and standing with my back to Quinn's Post". CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 19 January , 2005 Share Posted 19 January , 2005 Yes... We're looking across to Plugge's Palteau and the razor edge. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now