The woman sniper of Gallipoli

[Guest]

Asked a mate in Turkey about this, here was his reply. (Names of Turkish historians in quote deleted by me, as I have not as yet asked their permission to use their names in this quote.)

Mate - "In my time looking at the Turkish side I have never found anything to support

the suggestion there were women snipers at Gallipoli. Both ***** and *****

have never heard of such a thing in their extensive research, which in both

cases included reading contemporary material in the original Ottoman script as

well as post war material. In fact, both have laughed over the idea.

The civilian population of the main battlefronts in and around Cape Helles and

Ariburnu (there were a few) were removed long before April 25. While civilians

remained in the two Anafarta villages, they were removed when the British

landed in August. I have seen an account from a Turkish officer marching to

the front at Suvla, with civilians from the villages of Buyuk and Kucuk

Anafarta flowing the other way.

I honestly don't think it happened but I hope this helps."

I have a great deal of respect for these three men, and would be guided by their findings.

Cheers

Kim

[Bryn]

... In fact, both have laughed over the idea.

I know how they feel.

[Guest]

Bill, considering you did not bother to address my post on this forum, but deviously took it to another, (wonder why?), your put down of published historians, and an Order of Australia recipent, leaves a lot to be desired. How you can class these historians with out my even having named them, speaks volumnes as to your methods.

Maybe you should research your contact a little more before placing him above those you have so arrogantly dismissed.

If you haven't got the decency to post the answer here, don't skulk off and post a reply to this thread, elsewhere.

Would you care to re-post here?

Kim

[Guest]

????

Kim

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Kim

Like many, I either gloss over your posts or ignore them. This was no exception except I realised that you genuinely are confused. So I thought you need just a bit of explanation else you will remain befuddled.

Here's the deal.

On 14 April 2006 you said: "So, using the term "where there is smoke, there is usually fire", I think there may be something about this that we may never know."

In essence, your hypothesis was that if someone said something, then there was a nub of truth in it. For example, for many years people have been telling kids that the moon is made of green cheese. Thus by your hypothesis, their is a basis for this popular belief, regardless of all the space exploration, because at the heart of your hypothesis, is the concept that "where there is smoke, there is usually fire".

Three years have elapsed and you have offered not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis. You have not produced a body. In that same time, my research has been online, either on this site or on the ALHSC Web Site. To date, you have not taken the time to argue against the conclusions. In other words, you have not done a shred of personal work towards your hypothesis.

Then we get your classic name dropping exercise. These prominent historians put forward a proposition that agreed with my original proposition.

Since, however, you posted your thesis upon the ALHA forum, that was the place that I took the comments to test whether you still hold to your original thesis. Or now that some new guru has said something, and because you are fundamentally too intellectually lazy to do the work yourself, you agree with that proposition. Name dropping is easier than thinking it through for yourself.

However Kim, you can't have it both ways. You can either have the moon made of green cheese because "where there is smoke, there is usually fire" or it is made of rock as ascertained by men of science over the last hundred years. But your comments indicate that you want it both ways, again the sign of poor thinking.

You will notice that I never quote other historians. I research my idea and post it accordingly.

Same with Bryn, which is why he is able to put forward the ideas he does. Indeed, I have a great deal of respect for Bryn's undoubted ability as a researcher. So do the historians whose letter you have quoted. They have relied extensively on Bryn's work regarding Gallipoli. Just follow the citations and you will see what I mean.

So in essence, these historians have just fed back the conclusions that have been on this site for the last three years. They have known of them and also the work that Bryn and I have done. At the end of the day, despite your reticence to admit it, what you say about your Turkish historians is what you have said about us. My challenge was to get you to understand that. I hope you do now.

Just one other thought on name dropping. I don't care how many degrees a person has, they are just MacDonnald Book Club stickers to me. Show me the substance. If someone with ten degrees speaks a crock, the number of degrees will not alter the fact that it is a crock. But for you it is different. The more degrees, ergo the more profound. When you find that name dropping is the art of the intellectually lazy then you too will understand the statement: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still is a pig."

Bill

[Auimfo]

What a load of drivel Bill.

Quite clearly three years ago, Kim posted on the Light Horse Forum that she didn't take a position on this topic and that both sides appeared to have a point to make (something you omitted to mention above). She simply expressed the possibility that perhaps it was a case of where there was smoke, there was fire, but did not actually support any such notion nor form any kind of 'hypothesis'.

Over the past three years she 'may' have formed an opinion but it's hardly relevant to compare something she simply mused over three years ago to her viewpoint now, given that there has been a vast amount more brought to light about this topic in the interim.

Your post on the LHF to resurrect a three year old thread and your post above have no intention of discussing the issues with Kim and were clearly designed to antagonise and belittle her. Your condescending tones in both posts are plainly evident for all to see and are more a condemnation of your attitudes to others you think beneath you than anything else.

In fact, I would go as far to say that your entire tone and referral to Kim as 'intellectually lazy' is showing disgraceful disrespect for another GWF member.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Guest]

It seems that in asking help from Turkish historians to sort out the smoke from the fire, to ask for their views, gets you a lecture on intelligence, amongst other things.

Bill, If degrees don't matter, why do you list so many on your resume, Cir vit thingy? (whoops, I am sub intelligent.) Comparing many of your posts on the forums that you contribute to, some of your boasts that you have made in the above thread, do not seem to add up.

Tim, I thank you for your response, but we both know it will fall on deaf ears.

Cheers

Kim

[Auimfo]

Oddly Kim, when forum member 'Eceabat' happened to make this comment back in post 31 of this thread:

"I know that whatever I say isn't going to kill this debate off, but having discussed this with some of Turkey's best experts on the campaign, such as Sahin Aldogan, Kenan Celik and Gursel Goncu, all of whom dismiss the tales, I can say there is nothing in the Turkish accounts that support this."

our friend above seemed quite at home with him having 'dropped' these names. Even more strangely, these are the very same people to whom you referred.

I wonder how they would feel to know that Bill has now made reference to their studies and degrees as:

"I don't care how many degrees a person has, they are just MacDonnald Book Club stickers to me."

Further to that, given that they are of Muslim faith, I'd suggest they might take very great offence to his comment about their degrees as:

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still is a pig."

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Petroc]

Dear all,

If I may add a comment or two, which I hope the Moderators will accept is valid with regard to aspects of this thread without necessarily detracting from its principal thrust and intentions.

First, whilst no expert by any means in the Gallipoli campaign, I've been reading this thread with a great deal of interest for awhile; a fascinating topic, well worthy of discussion and good-natured, informed banter. However, in agreement with the previous GWF member, I think that there has been a distasteful tendency for certain members to express views that run counter to the ethos of the Forum and border (if not overstep that border) on the downright rude; I trust that this type of behaviour will either rectify itself or result in a 'slap on the wrist' for the individual concerned.

Second, and with a direct connection to the first point, I personally take offence that degrees and academic qualifications are some form of certificate of membership to the Mickey Mouse Club; many members of this Forum undertake academic study and research for their own sense of worth, as an agjunct to their own interests, for career development of from a simple love of the Discipline of History. It might be worth Bill noting that most Universities do not teach the Great War as a 'degree', but that various institutions include it as an optional part of a broader scheme of study. The aim is to educate undergraduates in the wider aspects of history, to enable them to gain an appreciation of global events, the wide variety of periods in which humans have shaped the nature of the planet which we inhabit and to provide them with options for further study and research. The skills gained may thus, should the individual wish to pursue them further, be honed by study at Masters level, the instruction of which builds upon teaching at Bachelors level and acts as a useful bridging gap to ease a student into first-hand research based upon the caveats taught as undergraduates. Beyond this, as Bill is well aware, is Research Degree, MPhil or PhD, where the student chooses his or her own researh project. Whilst this can often be as specific as, for example, the topic being discussed on this thread, Research Degrees often require the full application of the historical skills and knowledge gained during the course of previous studies.

So thanks, Bill, for managing to denigrate the eight years of PhD studies which I undertook whilst holding down a six-day-a-week full time job to the level of a bus-ticket.

Now may you all return to the subject itself? I'd like to read some more!

Regards,

Andy

[Bryn]

Petroc wrote:

"I trust that this type of behaviour will either rectify itself or result in a 'slap on the wrist' for the individual concerned."

I'd first of all point out that there's more than one 'individual' involved - the bating is not one-sided.

Second, Bill's point seems to be being made here, if all a PhD has to contribute on the entire topic is to complain that he thinks his PhD is being 'dissed'.

Meanwhile, on topic:

There has been a suggestion that we should accept eye-witness reports at face value, or at least that we can not dismiss them without knowing more about the person making the report, and I agree with the the second part of that. But that's as long as they are eye-witness reports, and I personally am not convinced that any of these are. But even if they were, it still does not guarantee accuracy. I could quote numerous eye-witness and 'eye-witness' reports from soldiers at Gallipoli that are inaccurate. The 'women sniper' reports are just other instances of this.

[razu]

Well, William Shakespeare was not a university-educated writer,that did not stop him to be the greatest writer in English language.

Mate!

(not trying to say that Bill is a "writer") in the above case.

Andrei

[Auimfo]

I'd first of all point out that there's more than one 'individual' involved - the bating is not one-sided.

That's not correct Bryn.

Only one person baited. Others have simply responded.

Bill deliberately chose to ressurect an old thread and place his 'baited' post about Kim's comment on another forum because he knows there is less moderation there.

Kim responded by asking him to re-post his thoughts here in the current conversation where she had made the comment he referred to.

I'm sorry, but anyone who intentionally goes back over three years to find something so petty to purposely belittle another is baiting them and I don't blame Kim one little bit for standing up for herself.

Second, Bill's point seems to be being made here, if all a PhD has to contribute on the entire topic is to complain that he thinks his PhD is being 'dissed'.

That's not correct either.

Bill was denigrating people with degrees in general terms. Andy has never made any claim that his PhD gives him any greater insight into the debate about women snipers at Gallipoli and was only responding to Bill's gross generalisation. Bill's point is not being made by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd be far more concerned about people who claim to have degrees and qualifications that they don't actually possess.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Bryn]

And this endless carry-on (baiting) has what to do with the topic of this thread?

[Auimfo]

Admittedly, absolutely nothing at all Bryn. But might I suggest you should be directing that question to the person who initiated the pointless carry on purely for his own personal self-gratification.

Other than that, I'm happy to let the matter drop.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[auchonvillerssomme]

So after 9 pages does anyone have an answer to the original question?

Yes or No? Obviously that will be a challenge to many of the poster's... just answering with one word.

Mick

[peterhogg]

Yes. There were no women snipers. (smiley-face thingy)

[auchonvillerssomme]

Cheers thats summarised the 9 pages for me

Mick

[Jeff Pickerd]

We may as well turn another page.

NO, but there are some good yarns about her/them, and some rather interesting pages of argy bargy!

Jeff

[Petroc]

Tim & Bryn,

I hope & know you will both accept my rant for what it was; it was, in my opinion a valid message. But as I said, I also hope that this thread goes forward in the original manner intended and informed opinion can validate or refute claims to the 'female sniper'

Andy

[auchonvillerssomme]

But surely it is validated fact we need, the problem has been the attempt at validating opinion.

Mick

[Guest]

Since I bought this topic up on another forum, and it was bought over to this one, many opinions and sources have been raised and sited.

It has been an interesting journey.

I, for one, appreciate all that has been contributed, and until firm fact is produced, then this seems to be one that will be one of those elusive furphy's that soldiers began, and has been taken on the rounds of debate, and will for a long while yet, I would think.

Cheers

Kim

[Bryn]

There is no proof at all that there were women snipers at Gallipoli, only a very few unsubstantiated statements which I believe are rumour and rumour repeated.

But the argument's been interesting; Andy I agree - let's move on with some informed commentary; Mick, you're right - but it seems opinion, or even wishful thinking, is sometimes regarded as fact, and if answering with one word was enough, it'd be settled by now. Kim, the lack of 'firm fact' is, as you say, the problem. A rumour should not be regarded as a fact without any sort of proof, especially when all circumstantial evidence is against it.

What I think would be useful (and instructive) would be a compilation of all reports of women snipers at Gallipoli, if only because this would demonstrate that these are usually so vague on detail as to be almost useless for any sort of analysis of details such as where, when, and just who is claiminng to have been an actual eye-witness.

[ShirlD]

What I think would be useful (and instructive) would be a compilation of all reports of women snipers at Gallipoli, if only because this would demonstrate that these are usually so vague on detail as to be almost useless for any sort of analysis of details such as where, when, and just who is claiminng to have been an actual eye-witness.

Yes, I agree, I would find such a list very interesting. It might be quite a task to detail such references in letters, diaries etc, a fascinating project nontheless

Cheers

Shirley

[SiegeGunner]

Numbers of myths and received wisdoms about the Western Front have been dispelled, or at least clarified, by deeper probing into German sources, often prompted by anecdotes emerging from personal material (letters, diaries, etc, from both sides of the line) that have come to light with the growth of interest in family history. So something to explain the genesis and persistence of this particular myth may yet emerge one day from Turkish or German sources. In the meantime, though, people should stop beating each other up about it, because the general proposition, whilst improbable, is not impossible, so there is scope for several bodies of opinion to continue to exist until a definitive resolution is reached (or isn't).

Personally, I'm disappointed that it couldn't be resolved for us by Bob Lembke's father – "Had a couple of days rest behind the lines. After a bath and a good feed, we watched a display of belly dancing by some of the Turkish women snipers ..."

[peterhogg]

Numbers of myths and received wisdoms about the Western Front have been dispelled, or at least clarified, by deeper probing into German sources, often prompted by anecdotes emerging from personal material (letters, diaries, etc, from both sides of the line) that have emerged with the growth of interest in family history. So something to explain the genesis and persistence of this particular myth may yet emerge one day from Turkish or German sources. In the meantime, though, people should stop beating each other up about it, because the general proposition, whilst improbable, is not impossible, so there is scope for several bodies of opinion to continue to exist until a definitive resolution is reached (or isn't).

Personally, I'm disappointed that it couldn't be resolved for us by Bob Lembke's father – "Had a couple of days rest in the support lines. After a bath and a good feed, we watched a display of belly dancing by some of the Turkish women snipers ..."

Who says the Forum can't be funny too once and a while!!