The woman sniper of Gallipoli

[Sue Light]

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 WW1?

Bob

Are you suggesting that Gertrude Bell was a commissioned officer in the British Army? Or do you mean that she held equivalent rank? If the former, I would be interested in sources for this, and if the latter, then she was one of many thousands of British, Canadian, Australian, American and South African women in a similar position during the war.

Sue

[bob lembke]

Bob

Are you suggesting that Gertrude Bell was a commissioned officer in the British Army? Or do you mean that she held equivalent rank? If the former, I would be interested in sources for this, and if the latter, then she was one of many thousands of British, Canadian, Australian, American and South African women in a similar position during the war.

Sue

Hi, Sue!

I just read a recent long biography written by a British woman, and she flatly stated that Gertrude Bell was sent to Cairo as a major, where she worked with Lawrence and others, mostly Middle eastern specialists who instantly became officers. I am not an expert on the British Army, but Lawrence was made a Lt.-Col. or something overnight, so I assumed the same was done with Bell. Were there "majors" and majors, and "colonels" and colonels? Was Lawrence a "colonel" or a colonel? What is "equivilant rank"? The biography seemed exhaustively researched and I assumed that the author knew what she was writing about.

Bob

[Sue Light]

Bob

I'm no expert in the British Army either when it strays from hospitals or women, so perhaps we need another view as to whether this actually happened. However, even female doctors working with the Royal Army Medical Corps were denied commissions during the war, and if Gertrude Bell was a 'real' Major, then presumably her name will appear in a copy of the Army List as such. .

Nurses working in hospitals under the auspices of the War Office, including those of other Commonwealth countries were not actually commissioned, but they were afforded the same conditions as officers of an equivalent rank, and received allowances, servants, etc., as appropriate to their position. In addition, Canadian nurses wore the badges of rank of officers, although to all intents and purposes they were not addressed by rank when working, and their conditions of service were as those of the other nursing staff, though their Government chose to pay them more.

But I am unaware of any British women who held commissions during the war, and also unaware of any British women who wore the insignia of commissioned rank on their uniforms until the Second World War. As to women being granted the privileges of officers, and being treated as such, yes, that was a pretty common experience in all theatres.

Sue

[Sue Light]

... and although I've referred to nurses, officer status was also afforded to senior members of other organisations such as the British Red Cross Society and the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, Women's Air Force and Navy etc. ...

Sue

[2ndCMR]

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

Funny Bill, I didn't notice you getting all upset over our friend's little sneer about "defective Anglo-Saxon language genes", to name merely one. However, perhaps you have no identity that would offend? I notice also that your reply above did nothing to address the arguments that made up 90% of my post.

However, if I may attempt to ameliorate your outraged sense of fair play, I did include a couple of emoticons to indicate that the comment was of humorous, though definitely ironical intent! Self-advertisement is traditional in certain countries of course, and one should make allowances I suppose, though after a dozen or so repetitions it does become a tad boring.

Well, the Cambridge Latin Courses are on parade today! , I won't waste much time going around those bushes, but let me simplify it into the good old weltsprache as it has a power of precision and description “uber alles in die Welt!”

I haven’t noticed anyone insisting that it is proven that Turkish women snipers served at Gallipoli, but there seems to be a positive compulsion in some quarters to insist that they did not.

Were there not a single letter or account suggesting the opposite, such an assertion would still be unprovable.

However, there are numerous accounts, some more credible than others. There is evidence that women snipers served in Turkey a few years later. It is proved that women snipers have served in many other countries and wars.

Therefore poor ordinary folk like your humble servant, are inclined to think that there was probably some fire where all that smoke was seen.

Proven in a court of law? No, but not much of history is, is it?

[SiegeGunner]

Well, the Cambridge Latin Courses are on parade today! , I won't waste much time going around those bushes, but let me simplify it into the good old weltsprache as it has a power of precision and description "uber alles in die Welt!"

Cambridge German course too. That should be "über alles in der Welt" ...

Apart from the Monty-Pythonesque (and apparently staged) pic of a sniper disguised as a bush, what methods of concealment/camouflage did Turkish (male) snipers actually employ?

[dinkidie]

Although a certain person claims to be an OZZIE, his particular bent is diametrically opposed to normal Aussie values. ... a tad nauseous...

In yet another instance of íf you can't beat them join them, Pat Gavan has joined us once more, in yet another instance of...

Edited 21 April , 2009 by Kate Wills

[dinkidie]

Folks

I am slightly bemused by the repeated emphasis that is placed on the picture of the 2 Aussies with their captured sniper. We can hardly expect an action shot of him falling from the tree. Even if it does smack of the hunters and their trophy, it is one of those iconic shots which depicts one of the myriad aspects of Gallipoli.

Dinks

[Bryn]

Bryn

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

Dinks

You might.

[Bryn]

2ndCMR wrote:

"I haven’t noticed anyone insisting that it is proven that Turkish women snipers served at Gallipoli, but there seems to be a positive compulsion in some quarters to insist that they did not."

I'd like to comment one item at a time.

Nobody can insist it's proven that Turkish women snipers served at Gallipoli because - it's not proven. So I fail to see how that even rates a comment, let alone is presented as some kind of virtue.

Pointing out that there is no evidence to support the presence of women snipers at Gallipoli is accurate - to label it a 'compulsion' of any kind is opinion and an attempt to bludgeon argument with the hammer of political correctness - exactly as the previous comment regarding 'gender insecurities' was.

I fail to see why the fact that I do not believe there were women snipers at Gallipoli gets some people so flustered. As soon as someone produces actual evidence I'll believe it, but why is that of any concern to anyone but myself?

However, I'll just reiterate - there is no evidence that there were women snipers at Gallipoli, and I don't believe there ever will be.

[bob lembke]

I really don't think that this argument is really about the history of the Gallipoli campaign per se, but rather fueled by subjective considerations and the love of verbal close combat and convoluted logic. As such I don't see a point to continue the historical debate.

Funny Bill, I didn't notice you getting all upset over our friend's little sneer about "defective Anglo-Saxon language genes", to name merely one.

I assume that "our friend" is yours truly. I picked up the fret about a supposed "defective Anglo-Saxon language gene" from British Pals years ago. My wife has bought foreign-language books for a world-class library for almost 30 years, they have books in 293 languages, and she has bought many of them, and she has to have some sense of material in the language to identify the book correctly from a professor's scribbled note, be sure that there is not a copy in the university's 16 libraries, find the right foreign dealer, negotiate with the dealer, etc. She has formally studied 11 European languages, but can work in many more, ande is given the African language material, indigenous Central American languages like Mayan and its dialects, etc. These is a native Russian-speaker on the staff, but she sometimes takes Russian orders to keep her hand in. She has several ancient languages, such as Latin, Anglo-Saxon, and Old Norse (i.e., Viking-Speak).

Megan's family have their records back to 1480 in the Midlands, and they came to Boston in 1634 and have farmed in New England for 375 years. Some American Indian, Irish, and possibly German has crept into the gene pool, but I would think that you would consider her Anglo-Saxon. So I think that she disproves the rumors.

I myself am English and Scot to a fair extent, the rest being German and Danish. My wife and I speak German a fair bit, but sometimes suddenly I can't understand her; the vixen has slipped into her excellent Danish, using the vocabilary and grammar, but pronouncing the Danish in German pronunciation, rather than the rather different Danish pronunciation. She has fairly good Norwegian and Swedish, but her Old Norse is wobbly. But she is not Scandinavian at all, unless some visiting Vikings left some seminal material behind, which has been rumored.

I don't think that I have made the "defective gene" jibe in years, at least on this forum. Our '2ndCMR' has a memory for slight like an elephant, it seems.

Bob

[2ndCMR]

2ndCMR wrote:

"I haven’t noticed anyone insisting that it is proven that Turkish women snipers served at Gallipoli, but there seems to be a positive compulsion in some quarters to insist that they did not."

I'd like to comment one item at a time.

Nobody can insist it's proven that Turkish women snipers served at Gallipoli because - it's not proven. So I fail to see how that even rates a comment, let alone is presented as some kind of virtue.

Pointing out that there is no evidence to support the presence of women snipers at Gallipoli is accurate - to label it a 'compulsion' of any kind is opinion and an attempt to bludgeon argument with the hammer of political correctness - exactly as the previous comment regarding 'gender insecurities' was.

I fail to see why the fact that I do not believe there were women snipers at Gallipoli gets some people so flustered. As soon as someone produces actual evidence I'll believe it, but why is that of any concern to anyone but myself?

However, I'll just reiterate - there is no evidence that there were women snipers at Gallipoli, and I don't believe there ever will be.

The quote you give refers to earlier assertions that some contributors were insisting that women snipers did serve at Gallipoli. Very simple, I thought. Now where does “Virtue” come into it, the poor old dear!?

Asserting that there is no evidence of women snipers serving at Gallipoli is either evidence of early onset amnesia or a semantical game by which it is pretended that the numerous contemporary accounts are not “evidence”.

We’re all free to define “evidence” as we wish of course, but pretending those accounts are not “evidence” so as to avoid having to deal logically with the question of their existence & origin strikes me as a rather feeble tactic.

I can’t quite see what “compulsion” has to do with “political correctness”...could you explain? I thinking more along the lines of “compulsion” as a pyscological/emotional phenomenon.

Getting flustered? Not me anyway; I’m having lots fun! Or are you attempting to portray your opponents as emotionalistic? Before jumping into the deep end of the rhetorical pool old chap, why not practice a little at the shallow end first...

I will insist however, on pointing out the falsity of assertions that “there is no evidence”, as that is a piece of hubris, up with which I will not put, as old Winston would say!

[Bryn]

Good on you 2nd. You define evidence as you want.

I'll spell out the allusion to political correctness for you old bean. You are implying that it is 'gender insecurities' (your expression) that cause some people to discount the notion that women served in the Ottoman army as snipers at Gallipoli, and that this amounts to a compulsion.

[Signals]

I can see people are having issues with some fellow users of this forum, or threadjacker. So if this the case and you are confused about the credibility of the perpetrator then here is some good insight. Two steps to credibility, STEP 1, go to the search engine of this forum, punch in The Blucher, Firing on survivors, then check out the remarks about HMAS Sydney. STEP 2, go to the internet and find the official site dealing with the inquiry into the loss of HMAS Sydney and view statements and photos from her wreck. The difference, one is based on facts, the other is based on a flawed and outdated book that fits the view for those wanting to believe that such atrocities did in fact occur. I took particular offence to these comments that the Germans machined gunned HMAS Sydney's survivors as fact which was stated on that thread, and the current inquiry about Sydney's loss proves this chap has little credence to comment on matters that are still hurtful and in living memory to relative that lost their loved ones, and that looking over the cubical wall is not for everyone one would seem. In fact here is a comment from this women sniper site, Yes, I think you'd better have another look; the "must" and "claiming" is in your imagination.

Another comment made elsewhere was the Red Baron was nothing but an opportunistic trophy hunter, well that was his opinion and fair enough if that how one feels, but to be fair and balanced lets look at Brown shall we, a Canadian that kept his opportunistic lie going till the end. When you make continual insults to others and belittle their views when they don't fit in your narrow views, and check the history on the forum, it is easy to do when you hide behind a pseudo name, no bravery award there old chap and very un English one must say.

[peterhogg]

Not to wade too deeply into this but I think 2ndCMR fails to take into consideration that the existence of some "evidence" is only the starting point of any analysis as to whether a certain point has been established as possible or probable. Put another way, is the evidence worthy of any weight: timeliness, context, primary or secondary source, any motives to distort or mislead etc..

That sort of analysis is not restricted to a courtroom scenario, it is used in a court as it makes practical sense, whether in a court, in academic circles or in everyday life to weigh all evidence in order to conclude whether an assertion is, in all the circumstances, fact-based or likely, whatever the ultimate onus of proof.

It is not the mere existence of any evidence that is significant, rather the weight such evidence can be given is the crucial point. For example, are there any independent corroborative sources that would tend to support the assertion in a material or meaningful fashion? And let me hasten to add two dodgy sources don't add up to one good one. I mean, the fact two sources repeat the same rumour doesn't mean anything more than bootstrapping. One can point to all types of second-hand sources, hearsay and rumour and suggest that these/this constitute(s) evidence. The point is whether such evidence is worthy of any weight or can be persuasive. In the case at hand, and I am only going by what I have read on this thread, the evidence of female snipers would seem to be fanciful or speculative at best.

I am not suggesting that the person making the assertion that certain evidence constitutes "a fact" must be put to a criminal onus (beyond a reasonable doubt) but rather that the evidence marshalled would tend to support a reasonable inference or a probable one that the assertion if factually likely as opposed to a rumour. Anyway, great discussion but I am retreating from this field and heading back to the Somme but will continue to follow the thread. as someone recently noted in a post, the forum is addictive.

Cheers

peter

[SiegeGunner]

I take a much simpler view and just assume that someone, perhaps even several people, saw something that they took to be a woman – maybe a sniper dressed in loose-fitting camouflage with a head covering – and set off a rumour that grew into a myth, which is what the stories will remain unless/until someone produces convincing evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, I can't see why pals need to fall out about it.

[peterhogg]

I agree completely Siege Gunner. What I meant was that there may be some "evidence" (if one wishes to put it that way) of a female sniper in the form of rumour or second-hand accounts or what have you, but it is simply not worthy of any weight and cannot be seriously despositive or supportive of the assertion such snipers probably existed. (of course anything is possible, but for serious consideration there must be some indicia of probability.) okay, enough blather from me, i now flee, this time for sure.

cheers

peter

[2ndCMR]

I can see people are having issues with some fellow users of this forum, or threadjacker. So if this the case and you are confused about the credibility of the perpetrator then here is some good insight. Two steps to credibility, STEP 1, go to the search engine of this forum, punch in The Blucher, Firing on survivors, then check out the remarks about HMAS Sydney. STEP 2, go to the internet and find the official site dealing with the inquiry into the loss of HMAS Sydney and view statements and photos from her wreck. The difference, one is based on facts, the other is based on a flawed and outdated book that fits the view for those wanting to believe that such atrocities did in fact occur. I took particular offence to these comments that the Germans machined gunned HMAS Sydney's survivors as fact which was stated on that thread, and the current inquiry about Sydney's loss proves this chap has little credence to comment on matters that are still hurtful and in living memory to relative that lost their loved ones, and that looking over the cubical wall is not for everyone one would seem. In fact here is a comment from this women sniper site, Yes, I think you'd better have another look; the "must" and "claiming" is in your imagination.

Another comment made elsewhere was the Red Baron was nothing but an opportunistic trophy hunter, well that was his opinion and fair enough if that how one feels, but to be fair and balanced lets look at Brown shall we, a Canadian that kept his opportunistic lie going till the end. When you make continual insults to others and belittle their views when they don't fit in your narrow views, and check the history on the forum, it is easy to do when you hide behind a pseudo name, no bravery award there old chap and very un English one must say.

Well, hello again Darren! Perhaps you should start a thread of your own for this kind of thing, but if the Mods are happy, I'll gladly reply, though you are hijacking this thread.

If someone wants to read my previous posts there is much simpler method: search for my posts by user name. Really quite simple.

Darren, I'm sorry to say, but I noticed at the time of our exchange by PM and in in those threads you refer to, that you have trouble remembering quotes accurately or following the line of an argument. This you demonstrate again here.

I'm afraid we can't reopen HMAS Sydney, Richtofen etc in this thread, but you're welcome to post in those threads again and I will reply if I see any reason to. I stand by all of my comments, which you should perhaps re-read before attempting to regurgitate them.

Our exchange was quite civil IIRC, so I'm not sure what you're raging about here.

Your comments about Roy Brown are completely at odds with the facts by the way. I suggest you look into the matter a little further.

[Guest]

It would seem that most know not much about this topic, that it is all hearsay and personal conclusions.

Each is entitled to their view, and given the lack of "hard" evidence, then debate, with good manners, is what is required on this forum.

Have a think about that before you post again.

So, has anyone uncovered any new evidence as to there was/ was not women snipers at Gallipoli, .. without rehashing the old and without having a go at each other???

Cheers

Kim

[SiegeGunner]

Forgive me if this has been covered already (I couldn't see it), but is it known if there were actually any women present at all, in any capacity, in the Turkish forward areas at Gallipoli ?

[michaeldr]

is it known if there were actually any women present at all, in any capacity, in the Turkish forward areas at Gallipoli ?

At the risk of running this in circle, then see post No.93 above

from 'The Incomparable 29th and the River Clyde' by George Davidson MA, MD., Major RAMC, published in Aberdeen, 1919

page 115, refers to c.June 28th and the Gully Ravine area

"The whole fight was on our extreme left, with a front

of not much over half a mile. This must have been very

thoroughly ploughed up, and a large number of Turks

blown to pieces. One woman was found among the

dead, but it is believed that many of them had their wives

with them. Many of their underground dwellings were

so elaborate that they had evidently made up their minds

that they were to spend the coming winter here."

[joad]

It seems to me this is an myth that comes round from time to time.

The following has been taken from http://www.guadalcanaljournal.com/guadalcanal2.html Journal Entries by Pfc. James A. Donahue (1921-1998) "Harry M. was shot last..... by Jap snipers. We kill the women snipers as quick as the men."

I have lived on Guadalcanal for the last five years and researched the battle, there has never been any evidence to categorically confirm or deny the rumours, so they persist

Adam

[bob lembke]

Forgive me if this has been covered already (I couldn't see it), but is it known if there were actually any women present at all, in any capacity, in the Turkish forward areas at Gallipoli ?

Mick,

I think that there were a few German nurses at Gallipoli, and one was killed by shell-fire, and I believe was married to a Turkish officer. I would not think that they were in the real "Turkish forward areas". She may have been killed by long-range naval gunfire. I can look up more on her if you wish, I think that her grave may still exist, but may have been moved to the Istanbul area. I understand that all civilians had been transferred out of the area, perhaps to Aisa. In Turkish society up to the reforms of Atatuerk in the mid-1920's, sometimes in emergencies young girls might perform nursing activities, but absolutely no one who had entered puberty. Since the Gallipoli front was well-organized and densely held the social norms would have prevailed, as opposed to what may have happened in occasions of civil war or ethnic cleansing in remote areas of, for example, the Turkish Balkans, where, incidentally, most of the population was not Turkish.

A lot of the assertions in this thread seem to be from people who either know nothing about Ottoman society and realities, or really don't care. Sort of like opening one of the Brit tabloids with page 3 covered with mammalary glands, one of those, and reading: "It is not widely known in England, but in Mecca many prominent Imams employ naked Ukranian women as chauffers. If you dispute this, prove that it is not true."

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

is it known if there were actually any women present at all, in any capacity, in the Turkish forward areas at Gallipoli ?

At the risk of running this in circle, then see post No.93 above

from 'The Incomparable 29th and the River Clyde' by George Davidson MA, MD., Major RAMC, published in Aberdeen, 1919

page 115, refers to c.June 28th and the Gully Ravine area

"The whole fight was on our extreme left, with a front

of not much over half a mile. This must have been very

thoroughly ploughed up, and a large number of Turks

blown to pieces. One woman was found among the

dead, but it is believed that many of them had their wives

with them. Many of their underground dwellings were

so elaborate that they had evidently made up their minds

that they were to spend the coming winter here."

Michael;

Interesting. The text of the quote that you have posted is familiar to me, but I don't think that I have ever heard of the source. (I may be wrong.) Is it a quote from Davidson, or is he quoting someone else? Is this a case of a rumor being passed about, in writing?

The last two sentences, to me, on several counts, is absolutely nonsense. "Perhaps" one woman was found, blown to pieces (admittedly the text does not say that she was blown to pieces, cheap shot on my part.), but perhaps "it was believed that many of them had their wives with them.", but they certainly didn't have wives there. Also, the idea that the Turks were building, in June, cozy, elaborate "underground dwellings" that supposedly were suitiable for both a comfy winter and domestic life with their wives is absurd. T he Turks were hanging on by their fingernails, not building luxury winter quarters. Did the Allies advance so far as to reach and examine rear-line quarters. Or were the Turks building villas in their front line?

I have read a number of allied memoirs from seemingly responsible on-the-spot narrators, like colonel MOs, a NCO who later rose to Brigadier, etc., and an extraordinary number of patently untrue things are cited, ranging from the dinasours helping the Egyptians building the Pyramids, sea monsters eating "Diggers" bathing at Gallipoli, to many references to Turkish weapons that did not exist.

The writer was a colonel MD MO. From the way he stated the thing about the "woman" it really reads that he was repeating a rumor, not something that he saw, or examined professionally. This is sort of like horny sailors mistaking porposes or manatees for sexy women.

Bob Lembke

[michaeldr]

The book can be down-loaded from the archive site

regards

Michael