'The Defense of Gallipoli'

[michaeldr]

Raking around the web today I came across the following;

“The Defense of Gallipoli – A General Staff Study” by G. S. Patton, Jr., Lt. Col., General Staff, Headquarters, Hawaiian Department, Fort Shafter, T. H., August 31, 1936

See here http://www.pattonhq.com/pdffiles/gallipoli.pdf

An interesting document not only because of its author’s subsequent career, but also [in connection with another current discussion] because of the concise description and details of the Turkish defenses at V Beach – see page 27 & 28

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Orion]

Micheal, I am familiar with it, it's in my files somewhere but been a while since I read it. I'll try and have a look tonight.

Cheers,

Brian

[CSMMo]

Try to remember that Patton was in the doldrums of his career (having recently just made LTC) and was assigned to a "backwater post" of Ft. Shafter, Territory of Hawaii. This study was an exercise in what could go wrong (and right) in defending land bases from invasion by sea. Bear in mind that Ft. Shafter is in Hawaii and invasion from the sea was the only method of invasion the ground forces thought they had to deal with. His harsh words regarding the British command reflect his thinking regarding offensive operations as well as his philosophy of leading from the front. Be kind.

[The Plummed Goose]

Dear Michael,

Nice you brought this up ...

Patton, the hero of the Ardennes writing about Gallipoli when in Hawai ... I though "globalisation" was a term of the 21st C.

eric

Just printed it and will read it over the weekend

[Chris Best]

Terrific. Look forward to reading this. Thanks.

Chris

[Peter Beckett]

After reading it, I found this "gem" on page 68:

While not specifically stated, it appears that the Turks, while great water drinkers, did not use water for any other purpose. This fact, coupled with their diet of rancid oil gave them a wonderful and awful odor.

An example of this was described at the time by the following story. Some Australians who had captured a Turk had an argument as to whether a Turk or a goat smelled the worse. They asked a British Sergeant to umpire and make a decision. First, the goat was brought in and the Sergeant fainted. Next, the Turk was brought in and the goat fainted.

Peter

[Peter Beckett]

Have converted the PDF file to a word doc if anyone wants it

Peter

[Jonathan Saunders]

Thanks Pete, Have surreptitously read half of it at work. This will make it easier to read the other half

[PhilB]

"Lancastershire Fusiliers"? Wonder where George got that one from! Seems an unlikely mistake (repeated many times) to be made by someone with his experience? Like one of our staff officers badly mis-spelling an American state. Phil B

[Bryn]

Patton wrote:

"The Anzac Corps was to land in the vicinity of the Gaga [sic] Tepe and, having secured their left flank by the capture of Hill 971, were to advance rapidly on Maidos with the object of severing the Turkish communications. (In the light of present knowledge it seems that the employment of nearly half his force on an independent operation of dubious feasibility was dictated as much by politics as by strategy – Australia wanted a lone hand.)" (p13)

News to me, but then I've only been reading about Gallipoli for twenty years, so I may have missed something. Anybody ever heard anything about this aspect of the plan?

"On may 10th in the Anzac sector, the Turkish 2nd Division, which was an especially well trained unit, led the spearhead of an attack against the Anzacs which also resulted in failure with a loss of 9,000 men."

This must have been a secret attack, undetected by the Anzacs, more than a week before a similar attack which was in fact remarked upon.

"Kemal personally issued the order at the distance of 500 yards from the enemy which, according to the French account, ran in part as follows; "I do not order you to attack, but to die. If you have no more cartridges, you have your bayonets."

How would the French, who were in Asia at this time, have known what Kemal said? The quote is also different from the usual one supposedly issued by Kemal.

"The facts that the power of a force is not measured by its number. Witness the attack of fifteen Turks against the Australian brigade."

This was not a 'brigade', and Kemal's own account states that the entire 57th Turkish Regiment (a few more than fifteen men) was wiped out in this encounter.

"In making this statement, I do not wish to disparage the courage of General Bridges who, on the 26th [April], died a soldier's death."

General Bridges died on 18 May, three weeks after General Patton recalls. Even in 1936, surely it couldn't have been too hard to find out the date on which the leader of the AIF had died.

"I do, however, wish to emphasize what appears to me the most pernicious teaching of the World War, namely, that a commander should be a pusher rather than a leader."

Seems poor old Lieut. Colonel White of the 8th Light Horse Regiment can't win. He led the attack at The Nek on 7 August and died, and has attracted a lot of criticism for his selfishness in doing so. On the one hand he gets a hard time for leading from the front, while on the other, George Patton says that's exactly what he should have done. Maybe he should just have led the charge AND stayed alive, but - alas - it seems he didn't think of that.

"Before dull daylight, General Hamilton, passing down the coast, on board the Queen Elizabeth, received a signal from Anzac Cove that a successful landing had taken place at "Y" Beach. He then considered seriously the landing of additional troops of the Marine Division at "Y" Beach, finally abstaining in order to hold a floating reserve for eventualities."

Really? I'm wondering who at Anzac knew anyone was ashore at Y Beach, and had time to forget their own situation and let General Hamilton know about it. Surely, since General Hamilton was in fact 'passing down the coast' at the time, he would have been in a much better position himself to observe a landing at Y Beach than anyone at Anzac, at least 15 km away, would have been.

I could go on, but it's too depressing. This is from a very cursory reading of Patton's appreciation. I'll steel myself to look at it again later.

[bob lembke]

Peter;

I would like to comment on the Turk vs. goat odor question, which I gather was Patton's opinion, not yours.

After the fall of the Romans the Christian culture that took over in the West was certainly down on bathing. A contemporary historian, writing of Queen Elisabeth I, supposedly said: "Her magisty (sp?) is very dainty, and bathes as often as necessary, as often as once a year." My wife, an archeologist who has worked in Britian, and who has insight into women's mysteries, commented that it is more likely that she bathed once a month.

al-Islam requires that a Muslim bathe five times a day. If you visit a jamija (mosque), which I have done many times, in Turkey and elsewhere, you see elaborate washing facilities, and worshipers scrubbing up madly before prayers. al-Islam permits the devout to wash with sand before prayer, if there is no water available, such as when one is wandering over a desert.

My father served at Gallipoli, however, as a German Pionier volunteer serving with the Turks, and he told me that water was a real problem. The water they had had spent days in goat-skins on a camel's back, and it was black, and a European (like a German) could only drink it if it was dosed with oil of peppermint. I am not sure how much they had for washing.

I doubt that the Australians were very odor-free over there. However, different ethnic groups, especially with different diets, smell differently, as un-PC as that observation is. I'm not sure that an Australian, eating masses of bully-beef, smelled better than a Turk eating hublis arabie, (pita bread), and some olives and the odd cucumber. But he smelled differently.

My father, very critical of almost all soldiers who fought in the Great War, loved the Turks. He thought that they were better than all but the best German troops, such as the men of Sturem=Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr), which with he fought several times at Verdun, or his own storm unit. Of course, not technically better, but as far as spirit and bravery.

Bob Lembke

[MaureenE]

Try this

https://web.archive.org/web/20201111225415/http://www.pattonhq.com/pdffiles/gallipoli.pdf

[trajan]

On 09/06/2005 at 20:08, michaeldr said:

Raking around the web today I came across the following;

“The Defense of Gallipoli – A General Staff Study” by G. S. Patton, Jr., Lt. Col., General Staff, Headquarters, Hawaiian Department, Fort Shafter, T. H., August 31, 1936

See here http://www.pattonhq.com/pdffiles/gallipoli.pdf

An interesting document not only because of its author’s subsequent career, but also [in connection with another current discussion] because of the concise description and details of the Turkish defenses at V Beach – see page 27 & 28

Regards

Michael D.R.

Trawling back through forums I have not looked at in a while (holidays!) and so have only just seen this.

In a previous career, I had the job as on-board lecturer and guide on a small 100 pax 'cruise' ship catering mainly for USA passengers of 60+ interested in cultural cruises as organised by the MMA, etc.. Whenever we went Athens-Istanbul or vice-versa, I used to do a talk on Gallipoli and sometimes even managed to get the captain before or after the Straits to make a short diversion to see Anzac and the coast down to Helles.

Sometime in the late 1980's, after we had taken on a new group at Athens, I gave my usual talk from the bridge and shortly afterwards was warmly commended on this by one new passenger, of imposing size and stature, and bearing, and somewhat deaf, who told me how his father had written a critique of the campaign as part of his army staff work. Yes, as I discovered later, I had been addressed by none other than Maj.Gen. George S.Patton IV... And yes, he did look like his dad as I realised later - and as his wife Joanne explained, had been a tanker which was why he was so deaf.

So, perhaps it is time to download G.S.P. III's account and read that!

Julian