Gallipoli - how many in each team?

[Guest lalor]

Old Contemptibles? Got their own medal! Phil B

The Anzacs wore their gold A on their uniform every day, quite distinct from a medal, I believe.

[PhilB]

But not from a medal ribbon, I believe! Phil B

[birkettm]

Australia, and New Zealand should not be forced to water down Anzac Day to suit the requirements of the wider world.

No one suggested that - possibly the rest of the world gets sick of hearing about the Austalian Heroes at gallipoli to the degradation of other nationalities who fought and died in greater numbers.

And lets not forget Gallipoli was still only a minor sideshow instigated by Winston Churchill hence the trouble getting numberrs of men in sufficient quantity (at any one time) from the divisions in or earmarked for France. Hence there would have been sense of need to "honour" the Gallipoli landers.

[Guest lalor]

I see no value in dying in greater numbers.

[Malcolm]

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.

I wouldn't call Armistice Sunday at the Cenotaph or any of the many Remembrance Parades in the UK that day a token gesture!!

Aye

Malcolm

[bob lembke]

A couple of comments triggered by recent posts.

As to how accurately the Turks "counted", I have some points, but no hard certain answers. But I have to point out that the Turks were hard-core bureaucrats. They had an empire that lasted over 550 years, one that conquered 60 nations. The mechanism of the Turkish Empire was a magnificent organization that ran well for hundreds of years after the sultanate, once brilliant leaders, became almost totally ineffective early in the history of the empire; don't have the date at the tip of my fingers. (The precise point of debasement was when, if memory serves, Sultan Suliman the Magnificent was convinced by his (probably) Christian wife Roxanne to murder his splendid son, bringing her son, Selim the Sot (the word states all), to the throne. This event is sometimes (quite non-PC) titled the "feminization of the sultanate".

I believe it was Kannengeisser who mentioned how the German advisor officers complained about the book-keeping burden on the Turkish officers; I think that a Turkish company commander had to produce 146 reports on the status of his company, so much that the Germans, themselves champion record-keepers, felt that this was much too much.

I think that there can be a sub-concious attitude that some people like Turks and other Fuzzy-Wuzzies were not up to detailed record-keeping, while the reality is that these people were able to run a great empire that could project giant armies even up into southern Poland, at a time when the only ANZACs were either running after game with stones wearing banana leaves on their privates, or hopping about with their family riding in their pouchs.

(Sorry, guys, I think that the Aussies and New Zeelanders are great {despite my father having gone to some effort to kill some of them}, but I tend to get carried away with a cute turn of phrase, even if I p**s some people off. I hope that I am an equal-opportunity offender.)

It is also important to realize that, besides serious shortages of materiel, like shells that actually would explode on contact, the Turks were at almost all times outnumbered at Gallipoli, as well as being out-gunned, out-shelled, etc. After leaving Gallipoli my father joined the German storm-troops, fought thru the war, wounded four times, and then fought in the German civil war in 1919. His unit went up and down the Western Front attacking where needed. He felt that the Turks were the best soldiers that he encountered (not technically, but in spirit, bravery, etc.), with the narrow exception of the German troopers of the best storm units.

Having said that, I am very moved by the generally wonderful feelings between the ANZACs and the Turks. (I suspect that there is a general opinion that they were more screwed up by the British leadership than by the Turks.) I have not been to Gallipoli yet, but have sailed by it twice, and the first time was at dawn, and someone read Kemal Attaturk's poem about the Turks having adopted the young ANZAC fallen as their own sons, and I must confess that I cried.

Bob Lembke

PS: Two days ago I made my first attempt to translate Turkish, part of a 206 page article on Turkish/Austro-Hungarian cooperation during WW I that a Turkish pal linked to on another forum. What a bear! Turkish constructs words in such a fashion, with not only prefixes and suffixes, but infixes, that the simple application of even a good dictionary does not cut it. The inclusion of Arabic and Persian into Turkish does not help, either.

[Terry]

With all the emphasis placed on Gallipoli down under, I wonder how the ANZAC Western Front survivors felt? Similar sitaution here in Canada I would think, where so much emphasis is placed on Vimy and little or no mention made of much more important victories which the Canadian Corps won. Vimy must have been relatively easy compared to Courcelette, Regina Trench, Passchendaele,etc., and the "Hundred Days" battles of summer,1918, were certainly more vital to the war effort, but Canadian history books harp on Vimy and it has attained the mythological status in Canada that perhaps Gallipoli has in Australia.

[PhilB]

I`ve wondered that, Terry. What did the WW1 veterans who`d "only" been at Pozieres, Fromelles, Broodseinde, Villers Bretonneux etc feel about the Gallipoli men being lionized? Phil B

[Guest lalor]

I wouldn't call Armistice Sunday at the Cenotaph or any of the many Remembrance Parades in the UK that day a token gesture!!

Aye

Malcolm

Aye Malcolm

I DID!

As an Australian, I am quite used to being told that I am wrong, or that I simply do not understand.

Seeing that I do not have an English spouse to educate me, I would like some one from over there to explain why the Remembrance Parades at the Cenotaph are not held on the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

There are many Cenotaphs. The one in Sydney is right smack in the centre of the city. At 11am on the eleventh of each and every November, one of the largest cities in the Southern Hemisphere IS inconvenienced by the Remembrance ceremonies.

[Guest lalor]

Bob

It comes as no surprise to you that the ancestry of the AIF would be very similar to that of most European North American armies.

It is rather surprising to learn that your relative would consider himself a Storm Trooper at the time he commenced action outside Turkey.

You, and others, make much of the death statistics from Gallipoli. There appears to be very little consideration as to how many of the Turkish, Ottoman & their allies were inflicted by the various sections of their opponents.

[Guest lalor]

Phil B.

The very point of the A for Anzac badge, was a recognition of the survivors by his peers within the AIF.

The badges were not issued posthumously. They were asked for by the rank and file.

Almost all the A men went on to fight on the Western Front, or resumed their careers as Lighthorsemen.

Those who went to the Western Front were almost annihalited in the Battles you mention, and others such as Bullecourt. Many of the volunteers who re-inforced the origional, the composite, and the new Battalions joinrd up in the belief that the losses on Gallipoli could not be wasted.

[Guest lalor]

No one suggested that - possibly the rest of the world gets sick of hearing about the Austalian Heroes at gallipoli to the degradation of other nationalities who fought and died in greater numbers.

The rest of the world only need to read the British Establishment accounts of the Great War. Australian Heroes, achievements or sacrifices are not mentioned.

The only mention of Australians in the Gallipoli chapter of "The First World War" by Hew Strachan, was that a New Zealander considered the Australian commander should be charged with dereliction of duty.

[bob lembke]

lalor;

You said:

It is rather surprising to learn that your relative would consider himself a Storm Trooper at the time he commenced action outside Turkey.

When my relative (actually, my father) finally got back to Germany from Gallipoli (he and his Pioniere comrades were "kidnapped" and put to work building naval facilities on the Dalmatian coast, delaying their return) he joined up with the Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment (Flammenwerfer), which was the first and largest German storm troop unit formed during WW I. He fought with this unit for the rest of the war, except for 18 months' hospitalization and recuperation from his worst wound, which was suffered at Verdun. (I still have a piece of his upper left arm bone blown out on that occasion.) He was wounded twice at Verdun, and twice at Reims in 1918. While at Verdun, several times he was lent to the famous Sturm=Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr), the best-known storm unit, also a Pionier=Abteilung; which was the second largest, and the second storm unit formed, to provide flame-thrower services for attacks by that unit.

So he certainly was justified in considering himself a "storm trooper", as he fought in the two most important storm units over a 2 1/2 year period.

You, and others, make much of the death statistics from Gallipoli. There appears to be very little consideration as to how many of the Turkish, Ottoman & their allies were inflicted by the various sections of their opponents.

Not sure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that there is little consideration of how many Turkish casualties were inflicted by ANZAC forces, and, on the other hand, by the British and French forces at Gallipoli? I'm afraid that I do not have a handle on that question, although I think that that an estimate of that figure could be worked out.

Bob Lembke

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

I must say thats its a pleasure to see that the true figures are now being used by most authors of books about the Great War.

I have noticed this in the last 10 years that many of the tragic losses during that war are being reassesed.

Like many we have tried to give the Battles there true facts and to tell the most uptodate figures of casulties which in the end can only help in the understanding of all that happened.

Many have tried to subvert this by holding on to the old beliefs even when its plan that they are incorrect, now it mite suit someones sence of the legand that we should believe that battles like say the Somme cost the British 60,000 men in one day but even the figure now used of 57,000 was a terrible loss.

Its good to see that now days we are looking at battles and campains like Gallipoli and see that the deaths were spread across the board to all, that their young men died by there thousands like our young men.

It gives me satisfaction that works in the coming years will continue this and present the true cost of these tragic battles and to represent all who suffered.

Cheers

S.B

[PhilB]

Phil B.

The very point of the A for Anzac badge, was a recognition of the survivors by his peers within the AIF.

The badges were not issued posthumously. They were asked for by the rank and file.

A recognition of what exactly? What was there at Anzac that seemed to require recognizing that wasn`t at Pozieres (or Helles for that matter)? Phil B

[Guest lalor]

Phil

Helles, especially 2nd Krithia where the 2nd AIF and a NZ Brigade were misused by Hunter -Western did qualify.

This is not a very good explanation but is available from the AWM

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/badge.htm

Do you have an equivalent reference for the Old Contemptibles. I was given a trio and miniatures years ago.

peter

[PhilB]

Do you have an equivalent reference for the Old Contemptibles. I was given a trio and miniatures years ago.

peter

I actually meant all the men at Helles, eg the 1 Lancs Fus.

The following is from Gordon`s British Battles and Medals:- Phil B

[michaeldr]

Steve Becker

Well said Mate!

My sentiments entirely

Very best regards

Michael D.R.

[Auimfo]

No one suggested that - possibly the rest of the world gets sick of hearing about the Austalian Heroes at gallipoli to the degradation of other nationalities who fought and died in greater numbers.

'to the degradation of other nationalities' - surely you can't be serious.

Of course we Aussies are proud of what the ANZACS achieved and why shouldn't we be? Are you suggesting we tone down the pride we have for these men and our nation. If other countries choose not to sing the praises of their countrymen and loudly as we do, that's hardly our fault.

I really do get annoyed when being told by 'the rest of the world' how Australian and patriotic I should be. My suggestion is that 'the rest of the world' catch up.

And although you are correct about 'greater numbers', I'd be interested to compare the casualty figures converted into relative terms both per men enlisted and also per population. I think you'll find the percentage of Australians killed is near the top in both these categories.

Tim L.

[Bob Doneley]

A recognition of what exactly? What was there at Anzac that seemed to require recognizing that wasn`t at Pozieres (or Helles for that matter)? Phil B

Even the Australians who enlisted after Gallipoli, and then endured the Western Front, admired the original men who wore the brass 'A' on their colour patches. George Mitchell, himself a Gallipoli veteran, recorded in his memoirs (Backs o the Wall) that he and his men in late 1918 came across the bodies of a group of diggers recently killed. Most wore the A on their colour patches. Mitchell recalled how his men were silent while they contemplated the irony of having survived Gallipoli and then France, only to die at the very end of the war.

I'm sure that British soldiers would have felt the same way about Old Contemptibles dying at the same time, if they could have identified them as such.

The average digger looked up to the Gallipoli men as veterans who had joined at the very beginning, and were still soldiering.

Bob

[Guest lalor]

Phil B

Well, I must have been confused.

I thought you meant that the Old Contemptibles were given a SPECIAL badge similar to the A for Anzac.

It now SEEMS that this was (merely) a Campaign Medal.

Those getting the A badge also qualified for the Gallipoli Star etc. All British troops at Helles would get that.

All campaign medals earned by the AIF were British.

The A badge was instituted internally by the AIF, paid for by the units themselves until belatedly financed from Army coffers.

The only reference to subsequent veterans, Poziers etc, being disgruntled that I have read is in the AWM link posted above.

It does seem rather strange why such animosity is now stirred by any reference to Australian 'uniqueness' during WW1. I still believe the A badge to be UNIQUE. If people recognise that the AIF did have different attitudes to their participation in that War, they did really believe that original Anzacs should be "recognised" INTERNALLY, then perhaps every Australian version of events may not automatically be seen as 'Would-be- Heroes blowing their own trumpets.

If I decide to give one son a reward for a job well done, it seems almost ludicrous that I would then be rquired to spend the rest of my life justifying that decision, or worse still, downgrade that award by giving it to all other sons. Remember the parable of the labourers in the Vineyard

Peter

[PhilB]

the Gallipoli Star etc. All British troops at Helles would get that.

Peter

Are you sure about that? Phil B

The Contemptibles were awarded a special medal, the 1914 star, with a further refinement of the under fire bar or rosette to wear on the ribbon sewn to the uniform. I don`t see a great difference between that and a sewn on A? Like the Anzacs, they were all volunteers. Unlike the Anzacs, they faced and stopped a huge standing German army despite the Kaiser saying he would send some policemen to arrest them because they were such a small force.

Having said that, there`s no reason why the Aussies shouldn`t award themselves whatever badges they fancy. Plenty of British Regiments have adopted visible reminders of previous battles. .

[Bryn]

Phil B wrote:

"A recognition of what exactly? What was there at Anzac that seemed to require recognizing that wasn`t at Pozieres (or Helles for that matter)? "

The 'A' was awarded for service at Helles. As it was also for 'base' and 'lines of communication' service.

Regarding another sub-thread here, the accuracy of Turkish figures. It's often claimed that the Turks, in fact, kept good, even 'meticulous' records. I always want to ask the authors of such statements, "compared to whom?" Can we go and retrieve, for example, the complete service record of a private of the 72nd Arab Regiment from the Archives in Ankara? I suspect that 'accurate records' are based on very relative perceptions.

Has anyone ever done something like that? How about the service dossier of a bimbashi in the 57th Turkish Regiment? It's just that I've never heard of anyone - Turkish or otherwise - having done anything like that. The reason is obvious. If such records ever existed at all, they have not been 'kept'. Of course that makes it easy to say that they were in fact kept - the old argument that, since none now exist, they must have existed at some time in the past.

[Bob Doneley]

Are you sure about that? Phil B

The Contemptibles were awarded a special medal, the 1914 star, with a further refinement of the under fire bar or rosette to wear on the ribbon sewn to the uniform. I don`t see a great difference between that and a sewn on A? Like the Anzacs, they were all volunteers. Unlike the Anzacs, they faced and stopped a huge standing German army despite the Kaiser saying he would send some policemen to arrest them because they were such a small force.

The big difference between the 1914 Star and clasp and the 'A' is that the 'A' was being worn before the end of the war. It made it possible to distinguish between an 'original' and a reinforcement (in the AIF known as 'the hard thinkers' and 'the fair Dinkums') before 11/11/18. An important point when you are comparing 'peer recognition'.

Putting aside obvious national bias, I also find it difficult to distinguish between the Old Contemptibles and the original New Army (is that the correct term?), and those men of the original AIF 1st Division.

I can still recall, in my youth, seeing the 'Old Contemptibles' contingent marching in Brisbane on Anzac Day. I recall the clapping and cheering they recieved as they marched down the street. If only I knew then what I know now... I've met men who landed at Anzac on the 25th April, men who faced the shelling at Pozieres, men who survived Passchendaele. But, in my ignorance, I never bothered to meet one of those Old Contemptibles - and the loss is mine.

I would say that those original Anzacs and the Old Contemptibles would have more in common than differences. Great (unique?) men all.

[Guest lalor]

Are you sure about that? Phil B quote]

ANSWER : NO, I'M NOT SURE.

[ Unlike the Anzacs, they faced and stopped a huge standing German army despite the Kaiser saying he would send some policemen to arrest them because they were such a small force.

So you agree with Haig when he told the AIF that the time of fighting bushee batooks was over and that now [1916] they would have to face real soldiers????

Strangely enough, on the third Anzac Day they stopped the last big push by the the huge mobile German army at Villers Brettoneux.

Peter