Graeme Heavey Posted 12 June , 2006 Share Posted 12 June , 2006 Dear all, As I have stated in another entry on the forum, my wifes family didnt know there were British forces at Gallipoli. My wife, an Aussie, has lately only really accepted there were more Brits there than ANZACS, the annoying thing is she's been to Gallipoli too!! I dont want to start an argument here but can anybody give me the breakdown on numbers please? ie how many Brits, ANZACS, South Africans etc there were? 9 apologies to those I havent mentioned! ) Come on Australia in the world cup today!!! Thrash those Japs!! Graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campaign Posted 12 June , 2006 Share Posted 12 June , 2006 Hi Graeme - yes, wasn't that the thread I started about POMS (prisoners of the motherland) stuff? I don't know the figures re Gallipoli but I've a relative in Brisbane (Qld) who has done the tour - he may know more - I'll mail him and get back to you if any other info forthcoming........as for the 'footy' ?? is that those Japs who invest so heavily in Aus ?? Lyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birkettm Posted 12 June , 2006 Share Posted 12 June , 2006 Dont have the numbers to hand but from highest to lowest did it not go: British French Australia / NZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 12 June , 2006 Share Posted 12 June , 2006 What about Indians? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Heavey Posted 12 June , 2006 Author Share Posted 12 June , 2006 Lyn, yes they do invest in Queensland primarily and arent liked very much for it. And who cares about investment, we're talking football here ( proper football, not that Aussie concoction!! Go the Crows! ) Anyhoo, my wife aint gonna be chuffed to find out there were more French's there either, although it will provide me with essential fuel at the next family barbecue. Im interested in the numbers out of interest. My mrs wants to know too!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lembke Posted 12 June , 2006 Share Posted 12 June , 2006 There were other people there as well. My father was there, a volunteer from Brandenburg; as best I can figure out he was busily digging mines under the ANZAC lines. There was a company of volunteer Pioniere there as well. Let's not forget the Huns, your happy hosts for the World Cup! Bob Lembke, your Hunnish contributor. PS: Just downloaded 60-70 pages of a 206 page Turkish article partially on Austro-Hungarian involvement at Gallipoli and elsewhere. (Boy, is that a headache to translate!) My father saw the battery of two 24 cm Austrian mortars that the Austrians sent to the ANZAC bridgehead. Pop told me that they were an interesting addition to the mix, and I have a quote of Birdwood to Bean on how he feared that they were going to be blown off the beaches. So lets not forget the Austrian contribution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campaign Posted 12 June , 2006 Share Posted 12 June , 2006 Hi Graeme - had a quick look through - there is a heading in this thread (Other theatres) called: Gallipolo Casualty figures, from around Jan 2003 - they seem give some numbers here ! Lyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Heavey Posted 13 June , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Thanks everyone. Bob, I hope your dad was OK and got home. My wife, who started this argument in our house, her family came originally from Brandenburg before they left for Australia in the late 1800's, Lutherans originally I believe. She's not too happy abut the other thread re: South Australian Germans and conscription!! Lyn I'm going to have a look now!! Cheers!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Heavey Posted 13 June , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Well I have to say I have looked into the casualty numbers and the difference between the nations is staggering. There are a few versions of the numbers but I have gone for what we can see on the forum. UK - 29134 AUS - 8520 NZ - 2806 Turkey - 86000+ I didnt think it was that drastic, even allowing for differences of opinion the numbers appear to be all in the same ballpark. Having a gt gt uncle who survived this is even more compelling for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Heavey Posted 13 June , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Oh, and the French lost just under 10000!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lembke Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 When the Pioniere=Kompagnie first got to Gallipoli they quickly incurred 80% casualties, including a lot of seriously sick; I think my father was in a group of replacements sneaked in through Romania. They then were more cautious with the use of these skilled guys; there were lots of very brave Turks for the dust-ups. But he got malaria, as his father did the same year in the swamps of Russia. When he got back there seems to be a mysterious period of inactivity (perhaps recovering from the malaria), and then he joined the flame-thrower regiment and got wounded four times. Then he joined the Potsdam Freikorps and fought the communists in Berlin with the flame-thrower at the well-known battle at the Vorwaerts building. He was one of those nutty guys who really, really liked the war; the civil war, less. He was clearly quite a thug in his early years (I have about 50 letters between him and his father to assist that judgement, and a lot of oral history) but was a great, gentle dad, quite different. Bob Lembke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 I have a note, copied from the Official History a long time ago, that total casualties in the Gallipoli campaign were 115,000 plus 90,000 evacuated sick. I can hardly believe it - can anyone confirm it? It gives the following casualty figures:- Helles, 25-30 Apr 4453; Anzac, 25-30 Apr 4686; 1st Krithia, 2000; 2nd Krithia, 6500; 3rd Krithia 4500; Gully Ravine 3800; Achi Baba Nullah 3100; Helles, 6th Aug 1905; Suvla & Anzac, 6-10th Aug 18000; Kiretch Tepe Ridge 2000; Scimitar Hill 5300; Hill 60, 21st Aug 1300; Hill 60, 23-28th Aug 1100. That totals 58644 and doesn`t count all the minor actions. Are the OH figures gross overestimates? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Graeme, add to your list above Indian: 1,891 Newfoundland: 45 Ceylon: 4 Zion Mule Corps: 14 Greek Labour Corps: 11 Guides & Interpreters: 3 Maltese Labour Corps: 1 figs from Patrick Gariepy as published in the journal of The Gallipoli Association in 2001. At that time Pat informed that another 102 possible casualties were then under investigation Pat's figs are for the allies only and they do not include the French who are currently researching the matter themselves. As I understand it from a recent copy of 'The Gallipolian' the French think that their casualties [including the Senegalese] comes to more than the combined Australian & NZ figure. regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frev Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Hi Graeme According to The Macmillan Dictionary of the First World War: "About 480,000 Allied troops had taken part in the Gallipoli campaign, including substantial British, French, Senegalese, Australian, New Zealand, and Indian Army forces, as well as contingents from Newfoundland, Russia and the Syrian Jewish community. Total British and imperial casualties of 205,000 included 43,000 dead, 90,000 evacuated sick, and more than 33,600 Anzac losses (one-third killed). French and French colonial losses of about 47,000 included some 5,000 dead. Turkish casualties are estimated at 250,000 with perhaps 65,000 killed, although some Allied sources presume much higher figures." As to the 'footy' (soccer) - it was a great match - especially the last 8 minutes - they made it worthwhile sitting up till 1am this morning to watch. Now if we can do the same with Brazil............... Even my hubby (a 'pom') enjoyed it more than watching the England / Paraguay match (which he only just managed to see out - 'boring' - I have to admit I nodded off somewhere before the end of that one) Cheers, Frev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Phil It may be that the difference in the "casualty" figs is down to the question 'what is a casualty?' The figs which Graeme and I quote above are for those Killed. They do not, for example, include wounded As time has gone by and better research has been carried out so we get different figs presented, each time representing a refining of the information For example another (early) set of figs was given in the report of The Dardanelles Commission 1915-16 "Our casualties amounted to 31,389 killed, 78,749 wounded and 9,708 missing, making a total of 119,846." regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Heavey Posted 13 June , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Great reading guys thanks for all your replies!! I hope I offended no-one by omitting any nation that had its sons there, I, as you can probably guess, had a bit of a 'blue' with the wife on this issue and I primarily focused on the ANZAC vs British numbers. I do get annoyed when I get this part of the war thrown in my face by my wifes cousins, some of whom have never even left South Australia. It happens every time we visit, someone brings it up for some odd reason. Having said that, I dont want this turning into an anti-this and anti-that discussion. I am now acutely embarrased because I didnt even realise the French were there. How silly of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frev Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Some more figures to throw into the mix: From “Anzac & Empire” (J. Robertson, 1990) “Casualty figures for the forces on Gallipoli are not precise, and there is now no chance of obtaining complete accuracy. Kannengiesser claims that the Ottomans committed 310,000 men (probably an underestimate) to the campaign and the Allies 539,000 (most likely an overestimate). By far the greater proportion of these were contributed by the British Empire – 468,987, according to one source. Several thousand Germans also participated in the campaign or manned the Dardanelles forts or gave logistic support of some kind. One Turkish estimate is that its Gallipoli army suffered 289,000 casualties (killed, wounded, ill, missing and prisoners), but this figure seems excessively high, at over 90 per cent of the total committed, if Kannengiesser’s figure is accepted. A more official – although not necessarily more accurate – Turkish estimate still puts the total loss at well over half, 186,829 men, of whom 100,177 were wounded and 21,498 died from illness.” “Turkish official accounts grossly exaggerate the Allied losses, at 216,000 British and 115,000 French. A more reliable figure is that 5,053 British Empire officers and 114,676 men were killed, wounded or taken prisoner, a casualty rate of about 25 per cent. Of this, the numbers (probably quite an accurate estimate) for Australian losses are 7,594 dead (compared with 2,431 New Zealanders), and total casualties of 27,594. About 50,000 is the commonly accepted figure for the number of AIF personnel who served on Gallipoli. Thus over half were casualties – many of them lightly wounded or sick – while just over 15 per cent died. If the above figures are correct, the AIF suffered a casualty rate twice that of British Empire forces as a whole.” “French losses amounted to some 27,000, of whom 3,706 died, heavily concentrated in the first three weeks of the fighting. About 79,000 men served at Gallipoli in French units, so their death rate was about one-third that of the Australians.” Graeme - Might I suggest you buy your wife (& her family) a book (or 2) on the Gallipoli campaign - that covers the whole story. Cheers, Frev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birkettm Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Graeme - Might I suggest you buy your wife (& her family) a book (or 2) on the Gallipoli campaign - that covers the whole story. Except you may find that they are not interested in knowing the facts..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 13 June , 2006 Share Posted 13 June , 2006 Ah, the ladies! Who was it said "If the facts get in the way of the legend, print the legend"? So, if the facts get in the way of a lady`s predetermined view - the words "flog", "dead" & "horse" come to mind! Do the figures for British men who served and were casualties at Gallipoli include the navy men? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frev Posted 14 June , 2006 Share Posted 14 June , 2006 Ah, the ladies! Who was it said "If the facts get in the way of the legend, print the legend"? So, if the facts get in the way of a lady`s predetermined view - the words "flog", "dead" & "horse" come to mind! Ah, the generalizers! Some of we Australian ladies - even though you've gotta love the legend - believe it or not Phil, are far more interested in the truth. Besides, who was it that said "the truth is stranger than fiction...............? Anyway, at the risk of boring everyone with more figures - this is the result of Ron Austin's research (re deaths) in "Gallipoli Encyclopedia": Australia 8,709 (19,000+ wounded) Great Britain 25,000+ (52,000+ wounded) India 1,358 Newfoundland 49 New Zealand 2,721 (4,852 wounded) France 17,000+ Turkish 87,000+ Cheers, Frev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill Woerlee Posted 14 June , 2006 Share Posted 14 June , 2006 Michael G'day mate Graeme, add to your list above Indian: 1,891 Newfoundland: 45 Ceylon: 4 Zion Mule Corps: 14 Greek Labour Corps: 11 Guides & Interpreters: 3 Maltese Labour Corps: 1 Just a quick note for those interested in trivia, the Maltese person mentioned above was : Labourer 913 GIUSEPPE CAMILLERI Maltese Labour Corps Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill Woerlee Posted 14 June , 2006 Share Posted 14 June , 2006 Phil G'day mate Quote Who was it said "If the facts get in the way of the legend, print the legend"? On this forum, it was Steven Becker at the following address: It derived from a John Wayne movie called "The man who shot Liberty Valence" when a reporter is told the truth about his killing by Jimmy Stewart, he makes the statement: "When the story becomes legend, print the legend." Hope this helps you. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 14 June , 2006 Share Posted 14 June , 2006 Bill, Many thanks for adding the name GIUSEPPE CAMILLERI The G W F has at least one Maltese member who I think will also be pleased to see it Earlier in this thread it was suggested that a book would be helpful I would like to recommend 'Gallipoli' by Les A. Carlyon (2001) It is reviewed elsewhere on the G W F, but briefly it is a very detailed coverage of the campaign, running to c.750 pages, but is nonetheless an easy pleasure to read having been written in a journalistic style rather than a dry accademic one. Carlyon's take on the casualties puzzle is on page 645 "We cannot be sure of all the figures even today. About 1,000,000 men from both sides served at Gallipoli and between one-third and one-half of them became casualties. The Turks put their losses at 251,309, including 86,692 dead. This suggests a degree of precision; everything else suggests the Turks were not counting that carefully. The French weren't counting carefully either and admitted it with round figures: 27,000 casualties, 10,000 of them dead. British losses came out at 73,485, including 21,255 dead. The Australians lost 8709 dead and 19,411 wounded. The New Zealander figures were frightful: of the 8556 who served at Gallipoli, 2,701 died and 4752 were wounded (the latter figure includes those wounded more than once). In all, the Allied casualties were worse than 140,000. This was a modest figure by the standards of the stalemate in France; it was a very bad figure for a defeat." Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lalor Posted 14 June , 2006 Share Posted 14 June , 2006 It has been my experience that the average Australian is fully aware of the real story of Gallipoli. Discussions such as this current exchange often stem from leg-pulling, or a hazy demarcation between the history of the Dardanelles Campaign and the remembrance of Anzac Day. The overall campaign is usually understood as a multi-national affair, but the Landings at Anzac Cove, and the holding of that beachhead with its immediate area, soon to be designated Anzac battlefield, was predominately an Australian & New Zealand enterprise. The April commemorations in Australia are based on the unique status given the Australians who served on Gallipoli. It originated on the first anniversary in 1916 with special church services, parades and sports carnivals within the Anzac armies and at home. The AIF petitioned for, and was granted the right to identify evey Gallipoli veteran with an "A" badge to be worn on his colour patch. To the best of my knowledge, no other country honoured the survivors of any battle or campaign in this way during that war. Over the years there have been various shifts in the internal and external emphasis placed on the Anzac Day celebrations. Like the trade cycle, these have distinct lows, such as the anti-war depressions of the 1960's, and the current thinking seems to be that it must be all-inclusive. The unique respect generated between the Turks and Anzacs during 1915 has been one of the constants, but now ever participant must be included, or one is accused of blatant jingoism. That is almost equivalent to requiring the members of a football club to give equal time to all other clubs in their association every time they wish to discuss their team's history and tradition. The 11th day of November was set aside for Armistice Day commemorations amongst the Allies. Australia still honours that day and red poppies are literally everywhere. Gt Britain found that inconvenient, and makes a token gesture on a convenient Sunday. Australia, and New Zealand should not be forced to water down Anzac Day to suit the requirements of the wider world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 14 June , 2006 Share Posted 14 June , 2006 To the best of my knowledge, no other country honoured the survivors of any battle or campaign in this way during that war. Old Contemptibles? Got their own medal! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now