ANZAC Cove Destroyed !

[Jonathan Saunders]

The Minimalist idea works for me but a couple of months ago I had the good fortune to be sitting up at Lone Pine with the cemetery and the memorial all to myself.

A small bus of around 20 Australians turned up and I was very happy to share the plateau with them but I would say no more than 5 minutes after they arrived and probably less, a whistle was blown and they were being ushered back on to the bus for the next ANZAC experience.

I am not sure how this practical experience will fit in to the theoretical park and walk/shuttle idea.

[Auimfo]

Yes, that was concern of mine as well. Personal access to these sites must be maintained along with the guided tours and also access to some of the remote sites which not everyone would be aware of nor particularly want to go. i.e. My grandfather spent a great deal of time at Waldon Point between Anzac and Suvla Bay but this is not perhaps a significant site for many. I would still want access to be available without any hassles.

Tim L.

[Ozzie]

Not one copy is needed but many, to be posted to all politicans, the media and historians!!

Cheers

Kim

[Andrew P]

Here's a link to the Senate hearings on November 2nd in which Gallipoli was discussed again and Bill gets another mention.

You'll have to trawl through about 90 of the 120 pages to get to the section on Gallipoli and the Office of Australian War Grave's/Air Vice Marshall Beck.

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S8869.pdf

[Guest gumbirsingpun]

whoever says that anzac cove has not been destroyed,

he/she is a great liar,

the day beffore yesterday,i was at gallipoli,and saw a hug pills of bones scattered around anzac cove and in a small field a little way off the cemetery known as emberkation pier cem

i think the cwgc should wake up and smell the cofee

tuna

[Eceabat]

Andrew,

thanks for the link to the Hansard report on the Senate Estimates hearings. It raises an interesting point (well, I think it does anyway).

In his response to a comment by Senator Joyce that Turkey could in fact turn the battlefields into a residential area, Mark Sullivan, the Vet Affairs Departmental Secretary, sets out the Department’s understanding of the Treaty.

In his statement he clearly says that the Treaty covers the entire ANZAC sector, that all the sector was designated as a cemetery area, as opposed to just the grounds of the cemeteries in other sectors.

Now hang on, isn’t this in direct contradiction to the position of the government, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the minority report of the Libs from the Senate inquiry, the Department of Foreign Affairs and even Vet Affairs themselves? I thought they all said the treaty only covered the cemeteries. Now we have a chap who is directly involved in negotiations with the Turkish authorities saying something completely different.

Here is the relevant comment by Mr Sullivan, which appears on agout page 02 of the PDF file, the addrress of which is given by Andrew.

Mr Sullivan—The honouring of the treaty has been upheld through the maintenance of the cemeteries throughout the Dardanelles area. Those cemeteries which are old British Empire cemeteries are under the governance of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a body made up of the countries of the Commonwealth, governanced by the countries of the Commonwealth who pay a percentage fee to its running costs. Australia is a member and it pays. France also has cemeteries.

Those cemeteries are protected places under the treaty and in the 90 years or so since Gallipoli those cemeteries have been protected by Turkey. You could say this is under the treaty obligation, but in terms of ensuring implementation of a treaty you would find it a difficult process if Turkey were not willing. So it is mostly Turkish willingness. That is the formal power which includes the whole of what is regarded as the

Anzac battleground. The difference here was that, whereas the French and the British tended to consolidate their cemeteries into very large cemeteries, the Australian view was—and Charles Bean in particular put this view forward—that Australians for generations to come should be able to understand this area best if the cemeteries were where the battles were. If you go to Gallipoli and see the Nek cemetery, his view was you would then naturally ask, ‘What happened here?’ That is very much the case at Gallipoli. He requested in the treaty negotiation that rather than specifying the Australian cemeteries, the whole of the Anzac battleground, which is not the whole of Gallipoli Peace Park—or certainly not the whole of the Dardanelles area—be designated as if it were a cemetery. That was acceded to and that is in the treaty. That means that, as the Turks respect and regard the cemeteries, they regard the whole Anzac battleground in the same way, which precludes therefore development, farming et cetera. But there is an obligation in the treaty in respect of Turkey providing roads.

A lot has been said regarding this issue, both here in Turkey and Australia. Nice to see a senior Australian official getting on side and acknowledging the whole area is a cemetery.

Cheers

Bill

[Auimfo]

A very interesting point Bill and perhaps something that should be made known to some of the pollies. I wonder how the minority senators would view this. They'd probably claim it was journalistic sensationalism created by a certain freelance writer for monatary profit.

Tim L.