The woman sniper of Gallipoli

[Bryn]

Like you, I'm not attempting to prove anything. On the contrary, what I'm saying is that nobody has produced anything to prove women operated as snipers at Gallipoli. The documents and photos you imply exist do not in fact exist. As it follows logically that no time at all can be wasted in examining something that is not there, you'll probably agree that I waste none of my time, apart from in answering posts claiming that, because something is possible, it probably happened.

[bluedog]

Bill & Bryn

Having followed this thread with interest but having done no research

as to whether or not there were in fact Women snipers at Gallipoli, due

to the fact that many far learned Pals are checking into it, the only time that

I have in fact heard of a Woman sniper was in the BBC production of

"All The Kings Men" about the !/5th Norfolks when during the movie a

Turkish female sniper was captured, raped and killed, or so it was

insinuated.

Was this based on War Diaries or just the Director's licence?

Regards

Peter

[Bryn]

No idea Peter, and as I've said, I'm not even interested in looking into it. But since you mention the Norfolks, it was also claimed that a UFO got them. Since it's never been proved a UFO did NOT get them I'm sure there are people whose concept of evidence extends no further than stories who will believe it, or who will at the very least claim it's possible because it's never been proved it did not happen.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Peter

Thanks mate for your note.

You will find that this particular gem was forensically dealt with by my essay. Here is a quote from the particular paragraph:

However, that does not mean that there are no references in the Diaries of a female sniper. There is a remarkable entry in the War Diary of the 1/4th Norfolks Battalion recorded on 15 August 1915:

lt was decided that our first line should be relieved by the Essex brigade. I, from my ridge, was to give covering fire.

The 1st Battalion Essex advanced well and lost few men. The other battalions, who had delayed, suffered more severely. All we could do was to keep down the fire of the snipers by shooting into the trees. Rumour has it that some of these snipers were tied to trees, with water and food within reach. Women snipers have been caught within our lines with their faces, arms, legs, and rides painted green.

The key word in this particular entry is "rumour". There is no complementary entry in the 1st Essex Battalion's War Diary stating that they captured any women snipers - as the above entry is in the plural. Nor do any other diaries make claims at capturing copious numbers of women snipers.

The essay is available at:

The legend of the female sniper at Gallipoli

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

Hope that answers your thoughts.

Cheers

Bill

[bluedog]

Bill

Great essay mate.

The mystery deepens as I have now taken more than a cursary glance

at the thread.

It is interesting to note that, on the site you posted that under the section

headed "British Angle"that a Cpl. Semmenence stated from hospital in

Egypt that he was wounded on 15-08-1915 at Suvla.

I have just this morning finished flicking through a brief summary of the

1/5th. Norfolks and found that a Captain E. W. Montgomerie, Acting Commander

of the 4th. Norfolks wrote in his diary dated 15-08-1915 regarding the captue of

Women Snipers.

Coincidence in the dates.

Peter

[T8HANTS]

There are several letters from the 8th Hants, also of 163 Brigade published in the local papers at the time, all convinced that there were female snipers, one even mentions that they were painted green from head to foot, rifle as well.

What is missing is any evidence of a body, dead or alive. If one was captured where did she go? Or are we to believe she then just vanished. I suspect she would have been taken back to the Battalion officers mess first, and everybody would have had their photo taken with the trophy.

If one was killed in ground that we occupied long enough I am sure a photograph would have been taken, these guys were not that squeamish.

The Turkish army was under the guidance of competent German officers, as well as Turkish. They would have know of the existence of female snipers, and again out would have come the camera. Would it have been too much for German sensibilities to permit official female snipers in the units they were training? If officially they had to accept the existence of a female sniping corp, I am sure one would have mentioned it, to date nothing has surfaced that I know of.

The long-bow was used by the British Army prior to WW1, a long-bow was used during the retreat from Dunkirk in WW2. You cannot assume that long-bow was used at any time between. To assume makes an ass out of u & me.

Gareth

[bob lembke]

I am probably repeating myself, but -----

Most of the Pals interested in Gallipoli study it from the Allied perspective, and tend to criticise the idea of the woman sniper from a lack of concrete evidence on the Allied side.

I study Gallipoli quite a bit, but mostly from the Grman/Austrian/Turkish side, mostly reading material in German, a bit of French, some Turkish material translated into English, and even spent three horrible days partially translating about three pages of Turkish, a real nightmare. I have studied the Middle East for over 50 years, have been to Turkey several times, last time staying privately with some Iranian friends in Istanbul, and I feel I have some grasp of Turkish history, current affairs, sociology, etc. Not an expert, but knowledgable.

First of all, these Central Power sources have never mentioned a word about such a thing, but, of course, often odd or unplesant things are not mentioned in most sources, I admit. Additionally, they repeatedly mention that the civilian population had been evacuated. (Some of the "woman sniper" stories feature the little old widow who happens to live in a little cottage on the battlefield, and turns out to have, in her spare time, to have sniped 140 Aussies and nailed their noses to her living room wall.) So the idea of the civilian opportunistic female sniper has been well discredited, I hope.

But it seems that people are suggesting that female volunteer snipers were employed in a military context. Again, knowing a fair amount about the Turkish Army there (my father served in the Turkish Army at Gallipoli as a volunteer, he talked about the Turks, didn't mention Turkish woman soldiers there), Ottoman history and culture, the idea of the Ottoman Turks employing woman soldiers there is absolutely over the top, for many reasons. Perhaps the strongest reason is that the battalion Imams, who were very influential, sometimes leading battalions in combat effectively when regular officers were lost, and who probably knew about everything going on in the army, would have gone absolutely ballistic about such an idea. According to the German officers there, they were very, very influential. There are other good reasons why this would not have been done.

I am envisioning some Turk, sitting in a coffee-shop, without a word of English, insisting that the machine gun companies in the British Guards regiments wore hoop skirts and carried parasols in combat, challenging everyone to prove that it was not true. In the period, women had some roles in national defense. In the War of Independence artillery ammunition was moved several hundreds of miles by columns of woman volunteers, some nursing mothers, either driving ox-carts or where necessary carrying shells on their back, for miles, in mud.

Someone claimed that, since there were known instances of female participation in defense activities in the 1920's, there must have been the same at Gallipoli in 1915, claiming, I think, that there was no big change in Turkey in the 1920's. (I should be less lazy and scroll back and find this quote.) When Atatuerk took over there were fundamental, revolutionary changes. Didn't Turkish women get the vote before American women did? The role of women in the 1920's was radically different than in the 1910's.

Can someone absolutely prove that British MG companies did not wear hoop skirts in combat in the Great War?

I'm wondering if some of the supposed proponents of this theory are privately having a good laugh at our repeatedly putting down this tall tale.

Bob Lembke

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

Mate, interesting post. However your conclusion leaves a little to be desired. The logic of your proposition reads like this:

"The moon is made of green cheese. Prove me wrong."

In reality, the person putting forward the proposition has the obligation to prove the case. It is not up to the audience to make the case for the person putting forward the proposition.

So getting back to your comment: "Can someone absolutely prove that British MG companies did not wear hoop skirts in combat in the Great War? ", you should ask the question more correctly: "Can someone absolutely prove that British MG companies wore hoop skirts in combat in the Great War?" or if you are actually putting up that proposition; "I can absolutely prove that British MG companies wore hoop skirts in combat in the Great War. Here is my evidence." Then you have a proposition well founded in logic. It only requires you to produce the evidence which apparently you feel you have on this matter.

Cheers

Bill

[bob lembke]

Bob

Mate, interesting post. However your conclusion leaves a little to be desired. The logic of your proposition reads like this:

"The moon is made of green cheese. Prove me wrong."

In reality, the person putting forward the proposition has the obligation to prove the case. It is not up to the audience to make the case for the person putting forward the proposition.

Bill

Bill;

This is exactly my point, 100%. I put up the "hoop skirt" hypothesis to underline what I see as really ****-backwards "logic". To me there is no reliable evidence of women snipers at Gallipoli, and 50 good reasons why the basic idea and also the few specific vague references to it happening is enormously unlikely. But we get repeated calls of: "Prove me wrong", without anything concrete to prove wrong.

Bob

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

For a minute I thought you were going all bloshy on me but we are both singing from the same hymn book, same page.

Gareth

Exactly mate. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Cheers

Bill

[Tunesmith]

There are several letters from the 8th Hants, also of 163 Brigade published in the local papers at the time, all convinced that there were female snipers, one even mentions that they were painted green from head to foot, rifle as well.

Gareth,

Do you know which newspapers these letters were published in?

Tunesmith

[T8HANTS]

Isle of Wight County Press through much of September 1915, I have them all on file.

[Tunesmith]

Many thanks, Gareth.

Tunesmith

[johnshep]

Wasn't it G K Chesterton who said its easier to believe the impossible than the improbable?

John

[2ndCMR]

I am probably repeating myself, but -----

Most of the Pals interested in Gallipoli study it from the Allied perspective, and tend to criticise the idea of the woman sniper from a lack of concrete evidence on the Allied side.

I study Gallipoli quite a bit, but mostly from the Grman/Austrian/Turkish side, mostly reading material in German, a bit of French, some Turkish material translated into English, and even spent three horrible days partially translating about three pages of Turkish, a real nightmare. I have studied the Middle East for over 50 years, have been to Turkey several times, last time staying privately with some Iranian friends in Istanbul, and I feel I have some grasp of Turkish history, current affairs, sociology, etc. Not an expert, but knowledgable.

First of all, these Central Power sources have never mentioned a word about such a thing, but, of course, often odd or unplesant things are not mentioned in most sources, I admit. Additionally, they repeatedly mention that the civilian population had been evacuated. (Some of the "woman sniper" stories feature the little old widow who happens to live in a little cottage on the battlefield, and turns out to have, in her spare time, to have sniped 140 Aussies and nailed their noses to her living room wall.) So the idea of the civilian opportunistic female sniper has been well discredited, I hope.

But it seems that people are suggesting that female volunteer snipers were employed in a military context. Again, knowing a fair amount about the Turkish Army there (my father served in the Turkish Army at Gallipoli as a volunteer, he talked about the Turks, didn't mention Turkish woman soldiers there), Ottoman history and culture, the idea of the Ottoman Turks employing woman soldiers there is absolutely over the top, for many reasons. Perhaps the strongest reason is that the battalion Imams, who were very influential, sometimes leading battalions in combat effectively when regular officers were lost, and who probably knew about everything going on in the army, would have gone absolutely ballistic about such an idea. According to the German officers there, they were very, very influential. There are other good reasons why this would not have been done.

I am envisioning some Turk, sitting in a coffee-shop, without a word of English, insisting that the machine gun companies in the British Guards regiments wore hoop skirts and carried parasols in combat, challenging everyone to prove that it was not true. In the period, women had some roles in national defense. In the War of Independence artillery ammunition was moved several hundreds of miles by columns of woman volunteers, some nursing mothers, either driving ox-carts or where necessary carrying shells on their back, for miles, in mud.

Someone claimed that, since there were known instances of female participation in defense activities in the 1920's, there must have been the same at Gallipoli in 1915, claiming, I think, that there was no big change in Turkey in the 1920's. (I should be less lazy and scroll back and find this quote.) When Atatuerk took over there were fundamental, revolutionary changes. Didn't Turkish women get the vote before American women did? The role of women in the 1920's was radically different than in the 1910's.

Can someone absolutely prove that British MG companies did not wear hoop skirts in combat in the Great War?

I'm wondering if some of the supposed proponents of this theory are privately having a good laugh at our repeatedly putting down this tall tale.

Bob Lembke

Well, knocking strawmen down in rows now, eh?! I'd almost forgotten your linguistic accomplishments, family antecedents, etc., etc...could we make it a 'sticky' perhaps?

The older I get the more I am reminded that most people can study a field all their professional lives without looking over the edges of their cubicles, considering the idea of doing so, or even realizing the possibility exists. (Take Egyptology for example...)

Now, we have an account of a traveller in Turkey being spontaneously told that a number of female "veterans" he saw were decorated ex-snipers who saw combat a few years after Gallipoli. Now, thinking logically, one might wonder how it would be that these women snipers would be fighting in a "civil war" a few years after purportedly not fighting in a situation much more likely to have roused the kind of passions and all out resistance in which women generally do appear in combat: an invasion by foreign powers against whom there is a strong religious or ideological antipathy!

This is not an academic or a government spokesman speaking on the record trying to present an image. These are locals in a rural area volunteering information to a traveller. Which is more credible?

No body...no triumphant photos of same? I'll let you in on a little secret chums: dragging the corpses of dead enemies about for photo ops wasn't favourably regarded at the time. Much less would a woman's body have been. That may come as a surprise to those whose perceptions are shaped by Hollywood I know.

Has anyone suggested that these women were officially enrolled in the Turkish army? It seems more likely they were 'francs tireurs', partisans who found their own way to the scene of action as they invariably do in most other conflicts.

How many photos do we have of the very numerous Turkish "snipers"? One, probably staged at that? So, why isn't everyone hopping up and down insisting there were no Turkish snipers at all? Where's the evidence? Oh...wait a minute...preconceived notions say, "male snipers, OK; no further evidence required, female snipers, poppycock, no proof, couldn't have happened!" Ah, yes, why didn't I see that?

No German sources mention female soldiers or snipers? Do we have any authority for that statement as I rather doubt that anyone has reviewed, much less collected, the letters written by Germans in Turkey at the time.

"Someone claimed that, since there were known instances of female participation in defense activities in the 1920's, there must have been the same at Gallipoli in 1915, claiming, I think, that there was no big change in Turkey in the 1920's. (I should be less lazy and scroll back and find this quote.)"

Yes, I think you'd better have another look; the "must" and "claiming" is in your imagination.

The imam's wouldn't have liked it, eh? I guess they didn't like women getting the vote or taking off their hijabs...and so that didn't happen either then?

The trouble with bending over backwards is you end up seeing the world upside down. We have a body of evidence, "anecdotal, hearsay, second hand", call it what you will, with no logical or likely explanation other than at least one or more incidents such that it recounted.

Notwithstanding that, the scoffers club insists it's all nonsense and no one can prove it isn't. Again, I for one don't need to. No one has proved that women snipers did not serve at Gallipoli in some form, and in the presence of evidence that they did, and numerous supporting cases from other wars and theatres of war, it remains IMO, 'probable, but not proven'.

I'm beginning to suspect that gender insecurities play a part in all this. War being the ultimate male refuge, even if only on the internet! As shown here: http://www.aosoc.org/Webmistress_Choices/W...archingHome.htm

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

2ndCMR

Ordinarily I would leave your incredibly rude comment alone. Indeed, nothing in it should be dignified by a response but I suspect by your following comments that you must be somewhat callow when it comes to the science of rhetoric. Let me take a minute to enlighten you.

One principle is that the person making the assertion must prove their assertion. It is not the role of the listener to do the work of that person making the assertion. Hence asserting: "The moon is made from green cheese. Prove me wrong." is fatuous in the extreme. Yet it is that very line of argument you are endorsing in your comments. Substitute "women sniper" for "green cheese" and you will see what I mean.

Next principle is that of "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" which you again have endorsed. In its simplest form the argument goes like this: "The sun comes up because the rooster crowed." In your case, historically women fired guns therefore half naked, machine gun wielding, female snipers gaily slaughtered allied soldiers and gathered their money and dog tags.

Finally, ad homs are an admission by a person that they have no argument. Your use of "I'm beginning to suspect that gender insecurities play a part in all this." If you can't mount a cogent argument, attack the individual. If anything demonstrates the bankruptcy of a post, it is the use of the ad hom.

I hope this helps you understand how disturbingly offensive and yet banally stupid your last post was to most people who read it.

Cheers

Bill

[ian turner]

This is becoming a bit like the Western Front - no side being able to deliver a knockout blow. However, unlike the WF, emotive posts are likely to attract force majeure intervention by a moderator.....

[dinkidie]

I hope this helps you understand how disturbingly offensive and yet banally stupid your last post was to most people who read it.

Bill

It probably won't, but it will illustrate just who holds the crown on those particular counts.

Dinks

[SiegeGunner]

Next principle is that of "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" ...

In fact it's 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

I don't actually care one way or the other about the presence or otherwise of female snipers, but I've much enjoyed the discussion on this thread and would be sorry to see it degenerate into a slanging match

[Bryn]

2ndCMR wrote: "I'm beginning to suspect that gender insecurities play a part in all this."

I see. It's not the lack of evidence or the fact that 99% of all records - even those such as diaries that mention snipers constantly - are silent on the presence of women snipers at Gallipoli, but 'gender insecurities'.

[Myrtle]

This link may be of interest.

Turkish Women

Myrtle

[dinkidie]

"...the fact that 99% of all records - even those such as diaries that mention snipers constantly - are silent on the presence of women snipers at Gallipoli, "

Bryn

Might I invite you to show how such a FACT was established?

Dinks

[bob lembke]

This link may be of interest.

Turkish Women

Myrtle

Myrtle;

With all due respect, and totally setting aside the all mention of the Armenians, which is likely to ignite World War III if discussed, almost everything in that report is clearly factually incorrect, and beyond that much of it is internally inconsistent. Consider the source, the Russians, who were in the process of invading Turkey and were attempting to exploit ethnic differences in the area.

Just consider the statement that the local commander had over 200,000 troops, but were unable to control a crowd of half-naked stone-throwing women (are we sure that they were not snipers, were they painted green?), who were able to force him to send a telegram?

I know a lot about the Germans in Turkey at the time, rather than "being everywhere, and controlling everything", there probably was not a single German within 200 miles. But there were important propaganda purposes to associate the Germans with the ethnic fighting and massacres in the east of Turkey. The important Christian missionary community in the east of Turkey, who had been trying to unravel the Turkish Empire for 40 or 50 years, largely thru propaganda, might have had their fingers in this.

Bob

[Myrtle]

Bob

It is interesting to read your views on the link as I posted it as just another piece of information that is available, illustrating propaganda or otherwise. I have not formed an opinion one way or the other as regards the "Woman sniper of Gallipoli". I do know, however, that many women throughout history, fought disguised as men. I would be interested to hear more about the Turkish women fighters who appeared in the 1920s. I wonder when and where they gathered their experience.

Myrtle

P.S. The same report was published in The Times 14th December 1914.

[bob lembke]

Myrtle;

What is not understood here, especially by "2ndCMR", is that after WW I the social/political changes forced thru by Kemal Atatuerk compressed 500 years of change into 5 years, and in particular in the matter of the position of women and the power of the mullahs. 500 years of attitude, of course, could not change in 5 years, but 500 years of reality on the ground. Like going from the period of Elizabeth I to that of Elizabeth II in five years. What was possible in 1923 was light-years from what was possible in 1915 or in 1918. Also, the fighting at Gallipoli was intense, crowded West Front-style trench warfare, the fighting in Anatolia ca. 1922 was guerilla warfare, ethnic cleansing.

Another parallel. In 1915 Gertrude Bell was a civilian one day and a British Army major the nest day. This was in the Middle East. How many British women majors served on the West Front during WW I? WW I period trench warfare was not a great place for a woman to secretly pass for a man. Things like enforced mass bathing, 24 hole latrines without modesty screens, and "short arm" inspections. Irregular warfare was quite another situation. In the German Army an entire battalion, 800 men, men and officers, would sit nude having lunch in one room while their clothes were deloused. A woman might be noticed.

Bob