The woman sniper of Gallipoli

[Bryn]

I find this section interesting:

"I saw one woman sniper who had been caught by the New Zealanders. I don't know what was done with her; but as the men came back they told us they had bagged her in a dug-out, where she had a machine-gun and a rifle, and that she seemed to have been doing a very good business in sniping…"

Unless the New Zealanders who caught this sniper walked her over to Suvla from their own area, it's difficult to see how someone in the vicinity of Chocolate Hill would have seen her. Also in such a case, since the writer claims to have seen this 'as the men came back', there's no way the NZ soldiers would not also have been carrying the captured machine gun.

No New Zealand unit history or any of the personal NZ diaries I've read contains any account of the NZEF capturing a woman sniper, much less a woman sniper and a machine gun, or a machine gun in the vicinity of Chocolate Hill, or, in fact, any New Zealand activity in the vicinity of Chocolate Hill.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Tunesmith

Mate, an excellent find. This is the best story I have seen yet within the female sniper of Gallipoli genre. This one has everything in it. Sex, naked trysts, nests of snipers and a lone naked woman armed with a rifle and machine gun secretly blasting away at the Enzeds, surreptitiously mowing them down with a specially adapted sniper machine gun. I am glad you predicated your extract with: "I don't suggest all or any of this is either true or untrue."

Let's first deal with the machine gun toting, kiwi killing, semi-nude, sylvanian bint. This event was alleged to be personally witnessed by 9246 Private John Frank Gray, 5th Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment [although I notice he later becomes 24067 Private John Frank Gray, Hampshire Regiment] so we should at least be able to pin it down.

Here is the extract: "I saw one woman sniper who had been caught by the New Zealanders. I don't know what was done with her; but as the men came back they told us they had bagged her in a dug-out, where she had a machine-gun and a rifle, and that she seemed to have been doing a very good business in sniping…"

Seems we have something here. The vague, unknown Enzed unit that wandered out of its position to move north to the Chocolate Hills and capture a female sniper au natural. To date the only accounts I have of Enzeds and Chocolate Hill is of them witnessing the attacks on 7 August from miles away. A quick check of the War Diaries for August 1915 indicates not one Enzed formation was within cooee of Chocolate Hill. So while we have a named individual giving this account we have mention of a vague Enzed formation in action that could never have been witnessed by him.

But even if Enzeds were in the area, the author of the extract demonstrates a poor understanding of the use of machine guns and their usage at Gallipoli. Bob has already alluded to very real circumstance that the Turks had a great shortage of machine guns at Gallipoli. Every Turkish infantry regiment [equivalent to a British Brigade] had only 4 machine guns. No Turkish battalions had machine guns. A machine gun company was deployed by Regimental HQ to where it was felt to be most effective rather than at the beck and call of the individual battalion commander. So with such a shortage of machine guns, the likelihood of such a weapon being secreted in a burrow for the personal use of a semi nude female sniper begins to look a little thin indeed.

But then we have the additional problem of machine gun usage. They are most effective as an indirect weapon. Training at that time placed machine guns at an oblique angle to the firing line rather than front on which was totally ineffective. For maximum effect, the machine gunners were trained to fire in 5 second bursts and then move the gun angle followed by another 5 second burst.

Two obvious factors arise in this situation.

The first is the consumption of ammunition - it is tremendous and this semi nude woman would not only be sprayed by hot shell casings from spent ammunition but also had to feed the gun as a solo effort, an extraordinary feat considering most teams employed a minimum of four men for efficiency.

The second factor is the muzzle flash. Any sustained use of the machine gun gave off a clear muzzle flash which was easily spotted. One technique employed by the Allied troops was to employ a sun helmet as a shield and thus reduce the muzzle flash. This required one brave soul putting the hat over the barrel and moving it around as the material disintegrated and thus suppressing the muzzle flash visibility to the Turks.

In essence, even if that brave, semi nude, woman had wanted to use a machine gun, as a solitary affair, it would have been near impossible. Yes, it might have been possible but highly improbable.

But, to date, I have never seen any sniper training include the use of a machine gun, the total antithesis of the stealth required for sniping. The aim is not to disclose the position rather than to blaze away in a mad minute of glory.

So here is the check list on the story:

1. 9246 Private John Frank Gray, 5th Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment was a real person who appears to be in the general vicinity of the areas of action he records.

2. No Enzed formation is named.

3. No Enzed record, formal or informal, exposes the story of the capture of a semi-nude female sniper, replete with machine gun, at Chocolate Hill.

4. The methodology of sniping as opposed to the use of the machine gun undermines the credibility of this "personal witness" report.

Here I have only examined the "eye witness" account rather than the corpus of other claims.

Having established the reliability of Gray's personal witnessed statement, the balance of the extract is not something he claims to have witnessed. Again, vague formations are mentioned with no corroborating evidence supplied.

Despite all of these weaknesses, I have to agree with you that this is "it is at least a detailed account by a named eyewitness belonging to a named unit." Veracity is another issue.

Cheers

Bill

[Tunesmith]

Bryn & Bill,

If no records exist of NZEF units operating in the Chocolate Hill area then it's pretty certain that none did. But Gray didn't claim he saw an NZ unit. He just said he saw New Zealanders.

Apparently John Hargrave saw New Zealanders at Suvla too:

...The traffic about "A" Beach was always congested. It reminded you of

the Bank and the Mansion House crush far away in London town.

Here were clanking water-carts, dozens of them waiting in their turn,

stamping mules and snorting horses; here were motor-transport wagons

with "W.D." in white on their grey sides; ambulance wagons jolting

slowly back to their respective units, sometimes full of wounded,

sometimes empty. Here all was bustle and noise. Sergeants shouting

and corporals cursing; transport-officers giving directions;

a party of

New Zealand sharp-shooters in scout hats and leggings laughing and

yarning; a patrol of the R.E.'s Telegraph Section coming in after

repairing the wires along the beach; or a new batch of men, just

arrived, falling in with new-looking kit-bags...

Ch XX 'At Suvla Bay' - J. Hargrave.

Do you consider Hargrave credible? Is it possible NZ countersniping detachments were sent to deal with Turkish snipers at Suvla? Were the movements of detachments like these always recorded in unit war diaries?

Of course, whether or not any of the Turkish snipers they may have killed or captured were female, dressed or undressed, with or without machine guns, is another matter....

Tunesmith

[Bryn]

Hi Tunesmith,

I've read accounts of small groups of Australians being detached for duty to Suvla, (and the Royal Australian Naval Bridging Train operated there as well), so it's quite possible the New Zealanders also sent such parties. I'll keep checking.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Tunesmith

Mate, the Enzeds cop it all the time - anything that is going, it had to be the Enzeds.

Here is a transcript from a FGCM held at 3rd LHB HQ 1 December 1915. It related to the theft of 20 gallons of rum from 3rd LHB stores and the consequent results of its rapid consumption.

Here is the sworn testimony of 503 Tpr Egan.

Dec 1st 1915

Summary of evidence

In the Case of No 503 Tpr Egan, FP of D Squadron, 9th LH Regt charged with drunkenness on Active Service.

Statement by Accused No 503 Tpr Egan, FP, 'D' Squadron 9th LH Regt on oath states: - I am a member of 'D' Sqdn 9th LH Regt and am at present employed as Roadman on the Brigade Staff. On the morning of the 28th Nov between 1000 + 1100 I was shovelling snow from the Bridges on the Road below Brigade H'Qrs. A soldier carrying a jar came up the road from the beach. He said to me "You look about beat" + I replied "That I was". he then asked me to have a drink of Rum which I did. He then asked me to have another + I did. He then told me that he had got the rum from the beach + if I liked to come along with him he would be able to give me some. We then proceeded in the direction of the Brigade H'Qrs. He appeared to belong to the New Zealanders as he was wearing one of their uniforms. I do not know how far I went with him. The next thing I know was that I was in a Bivouac at Regt H'Qrs. I could not recognise the man again. I remember nothing about having any rum in my possession.

So he he alleges under oath that he got the rum off an Enzed soldier.

Do we believe him?

I don't know. It could be true, or it might have been a pack of old cobblers. Who knows. We will perhaps never know.

There is nothing recorded in the Enzed War Diaries about a lonesome Enzed soldier passing rum off to weary Australian soldiers.

The amusing factor in this story was the sergeant ordered to investigate the theft gathered up all the evidence he could and then promptly consumed it resulting in himself being subject to Court Martial while the evidence was now tainted, so to say.

Was Egan's Enzed one of the Enzeds who caught the woman sniper? Heck, he was on the beach. He was an Enzed.

What I am getting at is that it is a pointless exercise in suggesting that a particular Enzed fellow might have been in a particular area - ha ha, see I caught you out. We do not have the slightest idea as to the dispositions of individual soldiers over the broad area of Gallipoli and more specifically Anzac and Suvla. I am not about to embark upon an adventure to vet every claim that a person makes to have seen one or another soldier in their sector. It happened. Men did move up and down. Nothing in my statements suggests otherwise. My statements relate to organised - in the sense of organised at a unit level and recognised as such in the War Diaries and the Routine Orders. That in itself does not rule out individuals or small groups being assigned to different areas because they had some skill or product that would be useful. Sappers and signallers would be prime candidates.

So to get back to your fellow - Who knows if he is reliable witness? What is he actually witnessing that I should take note of and forensically analyse the statement? None of it is particularly relevant to the topic.

Cheers

Bill

[AlanCurragh]

I've found this story which may be of interest - I make no judgment at all as to whether it is can be relied upon any more than the other evidence cited in this thread.

Alan

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar...9&bolum=101

ANZAC letters point to female soldiers in Gallipoli 19th March 2009

Director of the Atatürk and Battles of Çanakkale Research Center (AÇASAM) Mete Tuncoku has said he came across letters and diaries of Australian and New Zealand soldiers that mentioned Turkish female warriors fighting against them during the Battle of Gallipoli, which was won by the defending Ottoman army in 1915 and laid the groundwork for the Turkish War of Independence and the foundation of the Turkish Republic.

Tuncoku, speaking to the Anatolia news agency, said nearly 500,000 people died during the Battle of Gallipoli and that more than 200,000 of them were Turkish soldiers. It is not widely known that women also fought during the battle, he said, causing him to research the issue in the Australian and New Zealand archives. He said he was surprised to see letters and diaries of foreign soldiers mentioning “Turkish female warriors” and “female Turkish sharp shooters.” He stated that he had first linked the references to the imagination of the soldiers who suffered from drastic wartime conditions such as hot weather, a fear of death, water shortages and plagues. “However, when I compared the times, locations and the events mentioned in those letters, the possibility of their accuracy was strengthened. I think there are still some aspects of the battles of Çanakkale that should be studied by historians,” he added.

Tuncoku discussed his research on female warriors in the battles of Çanakkale in his book titled “Çanakkale 1915: The Tip of the Iceberg.” In one of the letters, Australian soldier J.C. Davies wrote the following to his family: “A Turkish girl sharp shooter was fighting while waiting in an ambush on May 18, 1915. She sniped the whole day and killed many of our soldiers. I was still upset to see that she was shot dead before sunset by one of our soldiers.”

[Bryn]

So now the myth is being solidified into what many people will regard as fact through academically-fraudulent phrases such as, "It is not widely known that women also fought during the battle", which presents as a fact something for which there is no evidence.

[T8HANTS]

The tale is now wagging the academic dog.

PRODUCE THE BODY!

Gareth

[phil@basildon]

I have just come across this forum and have come to the following conclusions. The evidence is that local inhabitants did rob bodies of soldiers. There were no female snipers, there is no evidence to prove the case. There is the possibility of a bit of "free enterprise", shooting of allied soldiers for the purpose of robbing the corpses, unlikely as there was plenty to choose from and this would be murder. Allied soldiers may have captured snipers or locals robbing bodies and may have "disposed" of them, they would be unlikely to report this as this would be a war crime and before anyone wants to castigate me about that statement it would be understandable in the circumstances.

[bob lembke]

To reinforce what Phil has concluded, I am studying Gallipoli. mostly from the Turkish/German side, and I recently read in a German source how the Turks sent out night-time patrols of volunteers, only armed with trench-knives, to slither about in no-man's-land, and how they always had lots of volunteers wanting to go on these dangerous patrols, as the pickings (wallets, watches, boots, food, etc.) were so good. But I have to say that in my readings from the Central Powers side I see nothing to indicate that there were civilians in the combat zone, and a number of things mentioned that suggest that there were not. The bulk of the civilians that were in the area were Greek, they were generally doing a lot of things, out of pay or conviction, for the Allies, including espionage (just read a source that said that Greek laborers actually did the bulk of the actual mining work at Gallipoli, the Brits/Aussies generally just supervising), and if the Turks found a (Greek) civilian wandering about the combat area they probably would have shot them, and rightly so, probably.

Bob Lembke

[MelPack]

Here are the only four entries from the war diary of the 5th Wilts during the relevant period that mention snipers:

5th Wiltshire Monday 20th September 1915 Gallipoli, Lala Baba

(20 - 24)

Orders to take over lines of trenches from 53rd Division. We take over portions of lines of 1/7Cheshire Regt. (T.F) and 1/5 Welsh Regt. (T.F). Lines inspected of 18th September and dispositions decided upon. 40th - 39th Brigade in Firing line. 38th Bde in reserve at point 117 L 7-8. Trenches in moderate state of defence but extremely clean. Enemy trenches now between 300-400 yds distance but their snipers show great enterprise and approach & establish themselves within 12 or 15 yards of our sap heads.

Gallipoli 1: 20,000

SECTION C (13th Division Vice 53rd Division)

From N of KUCHUK ANAFARTA OVA to L of SULAJIK

Position of our trenches approx 118R to 118 W6

Improvements of trenches carried on. These required much attention; parapets being badly constructed, loopholes foolishly sighted etc. This carried on with the help of RE, Sandbags appearing if not plentifully at least in fair quantities.

Increased shelling (Supra) continued from Sept 21st - 24th on which latter day our fire support trenches were subjected to a severe bombardment lasting 30 minutes.

5th Wiltshire Tuesday 23rd November 1915 Gallipoli, Lala Baba

Fire trenches

Weather continued cold. 4 braziers issued for use in fire trench. Pte GRANT 'D' Coy killed by snipers while fetching water from 'A' well. Fire had been kept up on new Turkish trench the night before and no wire is yet placed in front but loopholes have been made.

5th Wiltshire Wednesday 24th November 1915 Gallipoli, Lala Baba

Fire trenches

A few shrapnel fired by enemy on working party on new Bn. H.Q. Lt C.F. CRAN wounded by snipers and one man Pte HILL in another trench by shrapnel. Artillery activity has increased directed by enemy chiefly on trenches of 38th Brigade in front of CHOCOLATE HILL

1 officer Lt Inman and 2 men patrolled to find if enemy were wiring in front of new trench and were fired on machine gun and rifle fire directed on enemy trench during night.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Alan

Thanks for the link.

I have written to Professor A. Mete Tuncoku via Today's Zaman with the suggestion that he might read my essay on the subject located at:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...r-at-gallipoli/

While he may be with the Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi (ÇOMÜ) and director of the Atatürk ve Çanakkale Savaşları Araştırma Merkezi (AÇASAM), when making sensationalist claims designed to generate publicity, he needs to be mindful that he has done all the possible research. His astounding findings were made public on 19 March 2009 and advertised as such throughout the global academic internet community. Many different academic sites have picked up on this and cataloged the information accordingly. A quick look at my essay, put on the net on 24 May 2008, might have given him cause to pause in his search for a quick headline.

I did a quick edit of the essay to allow for the addition of his information contained in “Çanakkale 1915: The Tip of the Iceberg.” where he cites the letter of an Australian called J.C. Davies. It reads:

A Turkish girl sharp shooter was fighting while waiting in an ambush on May 18, 1915. She sniped the whole day and killed many of our soldiers. I was still upset to see that she was shot dead before sunset by one of our soldiers.

Two aspects of this claim clearly stand out.

The first relates to the actual author of the letter, J.C. Davies. The possible candidates are:

15523 Sapper John Campbell DAVIES, 2nd Divisional Signal Company, 16th Reinforcement;

8062 Private John Charles DAVIES, 1 Australian General Hospital 1-6 Special Reinforcements and 2nd Australian General Hospital, Special Reinforcements; and,

5499 Driver Joseph Cecil DAVIES, 1st Field Artillery Brigade, 11th Reinforcement.

An examination of the Service Files from these members of the AIF reveals that no such soldier by this name served at Gallipoli, let alone on the date mentioned in the letter, 18 May 1915. Unless the name on the letter is incorrect, then the letter cannot be attributed to a person by the name of J.C. Davies. I am aware that the enlistment papers might show the name as just "John Davies" but it is up for Professor Tuncoku to clarify this information rather than for me to second guess him. I can only take Professor Tuncoku at his word and with that no person by the name of J.C. Davies served in the AIF at Gallipoli during 1915.

Secondly, the War Diaries of AIF units serving at Gallipoli are totally mute on this story.

It is a no brainer. This is a case of chasing a cheap headline with a chimera. What I find a tad bit difficult to swallow is the fact that Professor Tuncoku is a high profile academic and as such should have been a bit more cautious before attempting to gain traction for whatever he is doing in Turkey by the transmogrification of a patent myth to something that appears to have official blessing.

Cheers

Bill

[Bryn]

Thanks for that, Bill. I'd ask to see a complete reference to the supposed diary, but have just realised that Professor Tuncoku is the same person who wrote the paper suggesting the Turks knew all about the planned allied evacuation of Gallipoli but 'let' it happen.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bryn

Thanks for that mate.

As for Professor Tuncoku:

"Groan."

So this fellow makes a reputation for rehabilitating hoary old chestnuts that were well and truly destroyed in the fire. We have dealt with that question of the "Turks turning a blind eye" on this site over many different threads. The first articulated reference to this theory in history emerges in May 1916 when an essay to that end was peddled around the various newspapers. From there, like the female sniper, it grew legs and ran its own race. People still hang onto it despite there being little to no evidence to substantiate the story. If Professor Tuncoku is one such person who makes his reputation on reviving the corpses of canards, then I have taken him too seriously. However, his stories should be challenged rather than to be accepted as orthodoxy by default.

Cheers

Bill

[2ndCMR]

 

Quote

Hello, I saw this about the use of Turkish women snipers, perhaps I can add a few words.

I remember that I was in Izmir in Turkey during the Independence day (over the Greek army) celebrations when I was fifteen (well over 30 years ago).

Leading the parade were perhaps 15-20 elderly ladies with many medallions and later I learned that they were the snipers used by the Nationalist forces.

I also remember the Turkish coins from the same time period had women who were pregnant and were carrying cannon balls to the Turkish troops up cliffsides.

I am very certain that there had been women snipers not only in the Nationalist army but before in the Ottoman army, not as inductees, but as volunteers.

This is a common Turkish tradition dating from Central Asia whereby the mother of Gengis Khan was Turkish and his wife Dilara would lead battles when he was not able to.

Islam did nothing to abate this tradition. To this day, the laws of the country are clear in that all the border regions have to undergo mandatory training for women over the age of 18.

The same tradition was also used by the Finnish women when the Soviet Union invaded in 1938-39. My father was there and he told me and I have several Finnish friends who confirmed their grandmothers had indeed been the snipers hiding in the snow.

Hopefully, I hope I have somewhat answered this.

Nermin

2004 and forgotten already...

 

[Bryn]

If this is supposed to be regarded as 'proof' then some people are way too easily convinced:

"I am very certain that there had been women snipers not only in the Nationalist army but before in the Ottoman army, not as inductees, but as volunteers."

Why the certainty? Based on what evidence?

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bryn

Mate, there is much in what Nermin has to say. Yes, the Nationalists did employ female snipers during the war of 1919-22. That issue is well evidenced and I have no contest on it. My researches have disclosed this with many different substantiated examples. They were well and truly part of the Independence Day celebrations.

That is the real stuff.

The rest is just conjecture based upon the post hoc ergo proctor hoc conclusion, or as the Chinese say: "Waiting for the rabbit".

The fact that the Nationalist forces employed female snipers does not necessarily follow that the Ottoman Army used female snipers at Gallipoli. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary. However, since it is impossible to prove a negative, so the story will keep hanging around. Like the Easter bunny who is about to visit my grandchildren ...

Cheers

Bill

[2ndCMR]

If this is supposed to be regarded as 'proof' then some people are way too easily convinced:

"I am very certain that there had been women snipers not only in the Nationalist army but before in the Ottoman army, not as inductees, but as volunteers."

Why the certainty? Based on what evidence?

Why don't you ask the poster?

Let's use our critical faculties for a moment. If it has apparently been established that women snipers were used less than 10 years after Gallipoli, was there any reason why they would not have been used there?

The real question is, why given the well-known proficiency and use of women as snipers in other 20th Century European theatres of war, does the scoffers club find it so hard to believe that they were also used at Gallipoli?

The tone of this thread is really amusing, it amounts to a sort matey, nudge, nudge, wink, wink round the pub table sort of male-bonding exercise, the high brow equivalent being the comfortable consensus of 'peer review', 'oh, yes, quite so, I do agree..., I rather think so...'

What people will do for that cosy little sense of belonging to the group...

[Bryn]

Bill, my issue was not with whether there were women in the Nationalist army - my issue here is the senseless assumption that that means, by extension and with no evidence, that they were also at Gallipoli.

2ndCMR : You were the poster. It's illuminating that you find it 'amusing' that others insist on more evidence than none, as are your perceptions of peer review. 'Might have been' is not proof.

PS : Wasn't the 2nd CMR a 'group'?

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

2nd CMR

Critical thinking time - you produced the conjecture, now produce the evidence to substantiate it.

Don't ask Bryn or myself to prove your case for you.

Rather than playing the cheap game of quotation without accountability, it is time to pony up with the evidence. I would love to see it.

Cheers

Bill

[2ndCMR]

Bill, my issue was not with whether there were women in the Nationalist army - my issue here is the senseless assumption that that means, by extension and with no evidence, that they were also at Gallipoli.

2ndCMR : You were the poster. It's illuminating that you find it 'amusing' that others insist on more evidence than none, as are your perceptions of peer review. 'Might have been' is not proof.

PS : Wasn't the 2nd CMR a 'group'?

No, the original poster is one "Nermin", I'm afraid I can't read his mind, so if you require more details I suggest you ask him. I re-posted his comments from 2004 as he claimed to have actually been in Turkey, and to have actually seen a number of decorated female veterans who were described to him by the locals as “snipers”. Can any of the scoffers report on their first-hand investigations in Turkey?

It's quite clear from my post what I find amusing; no point trying to twist it to serve rhetorical purposes.

No evidence? There is all kinds of evidence, you simply choose not accept it. You can insist on whatever level of "proof" you wish. The world I fear, will not stop turning. For most people, and most historians I suspect, it comes down to a matter of probability when dealing with events at this distance of time and space.

The accounts of those who were actually there remain. Some no doubt are merely rumours repeated, but to suggest they all are is stretching the bounds of credulity to the point of absurdity, in light of the use of women snipers by the Turks only a few years later.

Are we to believe some magical cultural transformation occurred in Turkey in those years that allowed women to serve where they had not been before? "Senseless" indeed.

In the face of so much evidence of Turkish women snipers only a few years after Gallipoli and in light of so many reports from that campaign, it might make more sense to ask if there is any “proof” that they were NOT used?

Knocking down The Daily Mail photo strawman doesn't mean much I'm afraid. I've thought that photo was a fake from the first time I saw it. It might not be of course, but most likely was. A simulation for the photographer probably of what could not be photographed in the heat of battle, for obvious reasons.

If 'Nermin' saw a number of these women veterans, who the locals described to him as "snipers" in one city, how many more were there in others? It seems this must have been quite a common phenomenon.

So all of these 'women sniper' accounts at Gallipoli, both first and second hand, are figments of the writer's imaginations?

Where I wonder did this idea of women snipers first originate? Was it invented in some 'black propaganda' office?!

Like most people would I suspect, I find it "senseless" to think that women snipers would not be allowed to serve at Gallipoli when they were apparently allowed to serve in considerable numbers only a few years later. That assumption is utterly illogical.

However, I recognize that we have long passed the point of logic on this subject, as so many of the participants have 'nailed their flag to the mast', and emotions take the lead at that point, whether if be in the pub or academia.

The average person coming at that this subject devoid of prejudices one way or the other would probably conclude based on the evidence, that there is a very high degree of probability that Turkish women snipers did serve at Gallipoli. Simple as that, and that happens to be my conclusion.

[2ndCMR]

Bill, my issue was not with whether there were women in the Nationalist army - my issue here is the senseless assumption that that means, by extension and with no evidence, that they were also at Gallipoli.

2ndCMR : You were the poster. It's illuminating that you find it 'amusing' that others insist on more evidence than none, as are your perceptions of peer review. 'Might have been' is not proof.

PS : Wasn't the 2nd CMR a 'group'?

Peer review, as you may know, has come to exert a rather suffocating effect in scientific and academic research, particularly with the onset of 'political correctness'. Many academics have written and spoken on this, it is no secret. I'm not going to get into the psychological dynamics of the matter; they are well known, and timeless, since the psychological makeup and behavior of humans hasn't changed one iota since the 'consensus of scholarly opinion' was that the world was flat.

As I mentioned, there is considerable evidence of the use of women snipers. If it does not meet your criteria of "proof", so be it.

To scoff and sneer and say "it never happened", because your standard of "proof" is not satisfied is to claim that your standard is universal, which strikes me as just a tad presumptuous.

However, as long as you apply this same standard of "proof" to every other point of the historical record, no one will fault you for inconsistency.

[2ndCMR]

2nd CMR

Critical thinking time - you produced the conjecture, now produce the evidence to substantiate it.

Don't ask Bryn or myself to prove your case for you.

Rather than playing the cheap game of quotation without accountability, it is time to pony up with the evidence. I would love to see it.

Cheers

Bill

Dear Bill,

As historical matters go, I have very little interest in the question of whether women snipers served at Gallipoli. Based on the evidence I've read I think it highly probable that they did.

Had I unlimited time I might make a study of the matter, but for what purpose? To attempt to satisfy a few scoffers? Let them study the matter themselves if they wish to try to find the truth. If they can't be bothered, that's fine too. It's not my job to convince anyone.

I'm arguing for what I consider a logical view of the evidence, an attempt to arrive at the most probable explanation for a body of evidence, nothing more.

I know what I think, based on what I have read, and I only have to satisfy myself you see.

If someone can prove that women snipers did not serve at Gallipoli, wonderful! It will make not a shred of difference to me. Again, based what I have read, I am convinced that it is entirely logical and highly probable that some did.

What interests me more, is the group dynamic by which this discussion, and to some extent this entire forum, operates.

Until next time...

[Bryn]

"I only have to satisfy myself you see."

Fair enough, and as it seems that's already been taken care of, you won't mind if I continue to insist on my own standard of proof which involves, as a starting point, the existence of evidence.

[2ndCMR]

"I only have to satisfy myself you see."

Fair enough, and as it seems that's already been taken care of, you won't mind if I continue to insist on my own standard of proof which involves, as a starting point, the existence of evidence.

Not in the slightest, old chap.

There is a great deal of evidence, which while it may not meet your "standards of proof" will at least in part, be considered credible by many, probably most other people.

Your refusal to accept it as "proof", does not I'm afraid, cause it to cease to exist.

Just wanted to clarify that point.

Your rigour is admirable I must say, but I can't help thinking it must be a very time-consuming process to attempt to prove from photographs, original & official documents, signed and notarised depositions from original witnesses, or other acceptable "proofs", every salient detail of the historical record. Or is a certain relaxation of standards permitted in a few cases?