MYTHS

[Guest paddy]

I WAS INTRODUCED TO THIS WEBSITE YESTERDAY. THE ARTICLE UNDER BATTLES CONCERNING GALLIPOLI WAS MY STARTING POINT.

As Australians, we are used to criticisms concerning our treating Gallipoli as our affair. From uninformed sources, such criticism might be tolerated. When your web-site contains "official" articles such as the Long Long Trail item on Gallipoli, emphasising this supposed myth, I see red. As Monash once said, Australia would like to see our score on the board. That this doesn't usually happen is borne out in the above article.

Under the heading "Senior Officers casualties 25 April to 10 May 1915" there is no mention of Bridges or MacLaurin, who led the Australians and were senior in rank to most of those listed".

The real myth is that it was Australia's first action on behalf of the "Mother Country"

It was not even their first action of WW1. It is special as the foundation of ANZAC.

Most Australians and Kiwis would concede that "The Anzacs" were part of a large mosaic. I personally believe that they made disproportionate efforts for their significant achievements. I don't want to continue this "my dad was better than your dad bit", but please don't use "official articles" on your website to denigrate their efforts.

As an indication of how Australian Official Historians tell their story please visit the Australian War Memorial website and read their account of Germany's Black Day of 1918, then follow the links and compare that to the Canadian version.

[Malcolm]

You seem to have missed the point of the Long Long Trail website.

THE BRITISH ARMY in the GREAT WAR. not the AIF.

Nowhere is any attempt made to give Australian, Indian, Canadian or other Empire unit histories. Nobody would dispute the bravery of the Anzacs or anyone else involved in WW1.

but

If you want a 'score on the board' .

Prof J M Winter's , Pembroke College Cambridge, The Experience of World War 1 using several sources world wide gives approximate casualties ~ 500.000 for the Gallipoli Campaign as:

47.1% Turkish

37.5% British

8.8% French

6.6% Anzac

I would also suggest you get a look at

John North's Gallipoli, The Fading Vision

Nevinson's The Dardanelles Campaign

Compton MacKenzies Gallipoli Memories

The reason why Gallipoli seems to ' get some people ' is best summed up by quoting General Hans Kannengiesser, commander of a Turkish division there

" seldom have so many countries of the world, races and nations sent their representatives to so small a place with the praiseworthy intention of killing one another"

Dr C E W Bean and his 300 volumes of diaries and notes is responsible for the ANZAC myths of Gallipoli which get used to this day.

Aye

Malcolm

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Paddy - you seem to have taken offence where none was intended, - for example the omission of reference to Major General WT Bridges and Colonel HN MacLaurin is almost certainly entirely innocuous, and after all (as Malcolm has pointed out) the texts on this site are often written from a British perspective - that is only natural. Having said that, if you delve deeper into the content of the main site, and more especially if you trawl through the forum postings, you will very quickly find that there is a marked lack of any kind of xenophobic "Brits won the war" tone. You will also notice that contributers to the forum come from all corners, not only from the UK and the Commonwealth countries. All of these contributers have their own perspectives and dont always agree with each other - but abusing or denigrating the memory of the fighting men from any country is not on the menu - end of story. (Bridges & MacLaurin, by the way, both feature quite prominently in the British official history of the war).

What worries me about your posting is the idea that you may think that there may be some disregard for the contribution which the ANZACS and the other Dominion troops made not only during WW1 but during so many other conflicts as well. It is depressing to think that there could be a belief that this is the case, - because this is most certainly NOT true. Your countrymen's contribution and sacrifice is held in the highest esteem.

Lets not get into a "we had more casualties than you" argument. It's pointless and disrespectful.

If we can possibly be a little bit light-hearted about this, - yes we all have our own perspectives; yes we are all mightily proud of our "own" army, whichever one that might be; and yes human nature occasionally leads us to "have a pop", even at our allies. But this "Gallipoli thing" and the way it maybe rankles a bit with a Pom having a bad hair day owes much to Mel Gibson and the much admired (not) Rupert Murdoch.

Read the following in the spirit in which it is intended; have a chuckle, and then get back to business.

1981 - Director was Peter Weir - and did this wind-up the Brits, or what !? - It took all of 15 seconds to find the following review on Google >

(quote)

SYNOPSIS

"Gallipoli" relates the events surrounding the ill-fated World War I battle, in which Australian and New Zealand troops set out to capture Istanbul. But mistakes made by upper-echelon military commanders led to disaster -- in which the army grunts suffered the most. The film, however, focuses not only on epic clashes, but on the friendships that developed between the soldiers on the field.

TIDBITS

A Robert Stigwood-Rupert Murdoch Production for Associated R&R Films Pty. Ltd.

Copyright 1981 Australian Film Distribution Company.

(end quote)

That's the war according to the numbskulls. Lets get back to the real world.

Regards - Tom

[Guest paddy]

Malcolm.

Thank you, you prove my point so eloquently.

How prophetic was the Australian Government's offer to place our forces at Britains disposal in August 1914.

Yes this website is about the British Army.

I would refer you to the Official British History, the IWM, Newspapers of the day, etc. Australian and other Empire (your term) forces were invariably referred to as British. They usually were part of So & So's such & such Army or Corps.

Many of the scenes available from the IWM have replaced Bean or Hurleys captions of personally identified australian soldiers with "British troops"

By score on the board Monash, and I, were referring to effort & achievement.

You are confusing that with counting the dead.

Australians are well aware that we lost as many casualties in one night at Fromelles, at Pozieres, Ypres, Amiens, and on the Hindenberg Line as during the 8 months on Gallipoli. That does not detract from the special feeling that we, and the Kiwis, have for the word "Gallipoli".

It is a sensation which cannot be shared with the world at large; normally we don't try to impose it on anyone, but we would be letting the ANZACs down, to stand idly by and let them, and their WW1 successors, be denigrated.

If you want to reduce your argument to statistics, try some like VOLUNTEERS to total or eligible population, casualties or deaths to enlistments, ie casualty rates;

just see how we stack up. Dont forget the other side, the losers of WW1, just for emphasis.

That point I missed Malcolm???????

[michaeldr]

Paddy,

I am very sorry that your first glimpse of this excellent site has so far only managed to annoy you. I am sure that that was not Chris' original intention, nor do I honestly think that your reaction is representative. We have many forum members from the Pacific region and their contributions here all always welcomed and valued

If I may, I would like to suggest that you invest just a little more time with us and get to know us a little better. Can I further suggest to you, that perhaps a good way to start might be to insert the word "Anzac" into our search engine. You will find that it turns up six pages of items covering a host of aspects to your countrymens' contribution to the war, and I think, proving that they are by no means overlooked here.

One particular item will I hope illustrate my point. Have a look at "Anzac Day Services in the UK - There's one near you." Under that thread you will find about 27 events mentioned and an invitation to everyone to pay their respects to ALL who fought and died at Gallipoli.

On a personal note, a couple of years ago I met an Australian who was well read and owned a set of Dr. Bean's histories. He was amazed when I showed him the statistics for the other countries casualties at Gallipoli; he had previously been convinced that it was overwhelmingly an Anzac affair. Today we are the best of friends and help one another with our researches to the best of our abilities. I hope that in time you will also find Chris' site and forum a comfortable place to do research for yourself and to help others as well.

Best Regards

Michael D.R.

[Guest paddy]

Tom

I had penned my response to Malcolm before reading your concilliatory words. After this, even you may give me up as a lost cause.

The film Gallipoli "got to me";

I am 64 yo so I have experienced 'that special feeling' all of my remembered life.

My interpretation of the villian in that film was the Army Establishment, not the English nor the Turk.

Regards

Pat

[Kate Wills]

normally we don't try to impose it on anyone, but we would be letting the ANZACs down, to stand idly by and let them, and their WW1 successors, be denigrated...

I'm saddened that someone should wade into the Forum (which,as Michael points out in his admirable response, include many Australians and New Zealanders) and make the accusation quoted above.

You may like to take a look at my research interests below (which cover ALL nationalities), one in particular may surprise you, given your standpoint. I am part of a four-man team (one Welshman, one Australian and one Englishman and me, an Englishwoman researching an Englishman who emigrated to Australia aged 30).

When Chris first built this site, (his personal interest being units raised in Britain, using archive sources available HERE in the UK) he could not have imagined the rate of growth and interest, not least from beyond these shores. The Antipodean membership has enabled us to co-operate in our various researches on either side of the globe, and no-one, but no-one has expressed the type of derogatory comment to which you allude.

[Terry_Reeves]

Paddy

Welcome to the forum. I can only reiterate Michael's words. Have a look around the site and get a feeling for it. Essentially it is about helping and learning.

As far as the latter is concerned, you may may be able to help me with the question I have just posted about an Australian in the "Soldiers" thread.

Terry Reeves

[Geoff S]

Chooms,

May I suggest a few deep breaths before any forum members feel obliged into launching into Paddy attack.

I have watched with great interest this site develop and have learn't many interesting facts. I am sure if Paddy spent a little more time reading the interesting information contained within this site he would realise it was of benefit to both hemispheres.

Gallipoli will always be an emotive subject for all nations involved, particulary for us Australians, but it should never be a statistical competition.

That would be a denigration!

Regards

Geoff S

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

My interpretation of the villian in that film was the Army Establishment, not the English nor the Turk.

Paddy - If you are fearful of being knocked over in the rush to the defence of Gen Sir Ian SM Hamilton and his staff, then you can probably rest fairly easy.

But as for blaming the English and the Turk - well Johnny Turk must be to blame for the whole affair because he was the enemy - that goes without saying ( ) - but as fighters they were undoubtedly a tough bunch and were reputedly (grudgingly) respected for that by "our lot". Blaming "the English" is another matter entirely - as a Scot I'm all in favour of the English being blamed for everything and anything from the land clearances onwards !

regards - Tom

[Geoff S]

Hmm,

Perhaps the some of the ANZAC senior commanders were almost as capable of killing their own blokes as Sir Ian Hamilton military vagaries. i.e. Godley

But perhaps Braithwaite was the real villian here.

Geoff S

Enough for tonight

[Guest paddy]

Terry

Thanks.

Re the Queensland soldier of 9 Bn AIF, he Might be identified from one of the (unofficial) unit histories or diaries that were written. I have seen them in the Melbourne Public Library, which is on line, and has an ask the librarian service.

I will check the forum during my travels, and would gladly follow up, if still needed, when on home ground.

A brilliant account of the 9ths post Gallipoli experiences, is in an audio tape released by the ABC (about 1980) Harney's War. Bill Harney was unique, but typical, and listening to him might dispel some preconceptions about "our" attitudes

ooRoo

[Terry_Reeves]

Paddy

Thanks for your reply and your offer of help. With regards to preconceptions, there are many people on this site with an interest in the ANZACS, and very knowledgable they are too. You will find many posts from members robustly defending their positions whatever the subject. It all goes toward making the forum interesting.

Best wishes

Terry reeves

[ianw]

Yes , welcome Paddy. I would endorse all the comments about how fair minded and international are all the members of this forum . Members will argue their point of view strongly but with courtesy. Your continuing input will be looked forward to.

As regards our respect for the efforts of Australian troops at Galipoli and on the Western Front , it is boundless.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Paddy

Welcome to the forum. I do not want to get into this debate but I would like to take the opportunity to remember one of my relitives, Cpl. Daniel William, Trow, who Died of Wounds on 9/8/15 (I missed doing this on the 9th Aug., brain not in gear), with the 9th Worcs, on Gallipoli. He as no known grave and his name is on the Helles Memorial.

Remembering those of all nations who did not return home

Annette

[Guest stevebec]

Paddy old mate,

Don't get to worked up about who's is bigger.

While on exchange with the British Army I was with the Blue's and Royals at Windsor when it came time for Anzac Day.

We planned to have a dawn service and gunfire breaky.

The Brit's throught we were mad.

But we did it and some of them came out at to take part and purhaps remember there were many countries in the war and all lost someone they knew or loved.

If you get a copy of Robin Confield's book "Dont forget me cobber" its the story of the 5th Australian Division at Fromelles.

It exploses the many Myths about the British sending our men to their deaths. Remember we were just as good at killing our men as anyone else.

S.B

[Guest paddy]

To the convenors of this site I genuinely say thank you for your efforts and the opportunity to express an opinion. I respectfully mention that my "view" resulted from following the prompts on the Home Page to "Forget the Myths", over a map of Fromelles, only to be reminded of the ANZAC myth on the Gallipoli explanation, and to find no comment on the 5th Divisions near annihalation at Fromelles.

To Doctor Bean, I wish I could have said thanks for the monumental task he did in recording australian involvement in the Great War, in accordance with his charter from the Australian Government. And a very special thankyou for his personal effort in creating the Australian War Memorial.

To Dr Bean's detractors I say if you want to assess his work do so within the parameters he had. Leave the myth making nonsense out of it. Hardly any Australian home was untouched by the war. Relatively few homes had any access to Beans works until well after that special feeling had been firmly entrenched.

His abiding legacy is that ANYONE may reach their own conclusion on a diverse range of topics, by accessing the data accumulated from friend and foe by HIS AWM.

To those interested in his "history" , may I recommend the abridged version contained in his "Anzac to Amiens" as a starting point.

To those Australians quick to assure their friends that they're not like me I say Whats new?

To those who took the time to welcome me I say thanks

To those,who like another Patrick, disagree with what I said, but defended my right to say it, What can I say?

To those whose graves I visit on this pilgrimage, I will continue to say Thanks for what YOU did.

To those who have persevered, and read this far, I finally say Good Bye ee

[Guest paddy]

Steve.

Have been overwhelmed by your responses to questions posted on the ALH site.

Please check this current "discussion" for the query on a member of 9 Bn AIF; I reckon there'd be no hope of me beating you to the answer. Funny that you weighed in on a discussion on Bean. My criticism of his work is that he almost ignored the 13th ALH.

Hope to meet up one day

Pat

[Andrew P]

Hi Paddy

As one of the Aussies on this site I can say that most people on this forum are helpful and since I've been here there hasn't been any noticeable anti Australian bias.

In regard to your point about Bridges not being included in the bracket 25th April to May 10, he was mortally wounded on the 18th of May which may explain this discrepancy.

Cheers

Andrew

[Guest paddy]

Andrew

Woops; Whose face is red now

OK So nobody's perfect

ooRoo

[Guest stevebec]

Paddy.

With regeard to Bean I could not more agree with you. He started Australian Military History for all of us and as a young tacker I remember reading My Grandad's copies with great delight.

But in the modern world there has been a rethinking of much of his works and the time in which he wrote. And purhaps the many vetern Officers in postisions of power he was trying to get funds from for the AWM and the History.

But it his a better work then the British Offical history as Edmonds and Falls had there problems also.

Cheers mate have a beer on me maybe we'll we can have that beer if your up in Brisbane.

S.B

[Frank_East]

Stevebec

You have good rational observation of the debate.

Looking at Edmonds Official History of the War.How does this official account compare with Bean's official works on the Austalian involvement in the Great War.

With both accounts it has to asked what was the validation process of these historical reflections by the Governments of this era.

There is one thing for sure that there would not be anything critical related to any leading personality who still had power and influence either in Great Britain or Australia.

It is only when information is made readily available to the public that real debate can proceed and then different accounts are usually produced by historical researchers depending on where "they are coming from". Hence the continuing debate on Haig,Lloyd George and Churchill to name a few.Will we ever know these people for what they really were in history?.

I am not aware of Australian Public Records availabilty and transparency.Here in the UK we have some WW2 information not available to the public and will remain under cover up to 75 years after the end of that war.It is going to stave off debate and perhaps avoid embarassment to someone.

Regards

Frank East

[Terry]

Hi Paddy,

As a new Canadian member on this site, I would repeat what several other Pals have said and suggest you stay with it. I have been really impressed by the level of expertise displayed by members of the discussion forum, and perhaps even more important, the willingness to help out with questions I have posed.

I have not seen any sort of bias (anti-Australian, anti-Canadian, anti-anything) on the site. My own particular area of interest is the CEF, and while replies to my queries have sometimes come from Canadian Pals, many others have been from UK-based members.

We all look at the events of 1914-18 with our own particular slant on events. To be honest, I think that sometimes we Canadians and Australians build up the accomplishments of own national corps so much that we tend to forget that the vast majority of the Empire troops on the Western Front, at Gallipoli,etc., were British. I suppose it is similar to all of us English speaking types overlooking the contributions of the French army, or some US enthusiasts being convinced the war started in 1917!

I know how much pride is felt in Australia about some of the battles you mentioned, just as here in Canada Vimy Ridge has reached the level as the creator of modern Canada. It is tough for Canadians to realise that Vimy Ridge was in reality just a part of a much bigger picture, and that while a great success of itself, didn't really do much of anything to change the history of the war.

Stay with us... you will enjoy yourself!

Cheers,

Terry

[Guest stevebec]

Your right mate,

Without going to far into this subject what you say is correct to my understanding.

There were many powerfull Generals with strong Polictical conections which made the accesment of their Military skills anything but objective.

This can be said for both the British and Australian Armies.

Bean had a number of problems with these as he was dependent on their good will for funds and conections for his AWM and the Military History he was writting.

I surpose the princible difference in our two Offical histories is the size. Bean had only to write about Five Divisions in France while Edmonds and Falls had Fifty Five.

So there can be more detail on what is going on by the smaller history then larger.

I think there was some rethinking of all these works some time ago and I'll try to find some old notes I had on this.

S.B

[Andrew P]

Bean had an eye for the future. He knew when he wrote the histories he would have to leave some parts out as privately Bean was very critical of many occurences in the AIF & British forces in general.

But he knew by leaving a full account in his personal diaries, the future researcher would be able to see the info that he left out of the Official History and make their own conclusions.

In regard to Edmonds, I can never forget the quote I saw in Robin Corfield's book on Fromelles. Edmond was writing to Bean about an aspect of Fromelles which reflected badly on Haking and Edmonds wrote something like 'I'd leave that part out, what good does it do writing about it even if it is true'.