Gallipoli - how many in each team?

[PhilB]

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.

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

I believe the ribbon of the 1914 star was actually worn well before the end of the war. In fact, it`s questionable which would have been seen first! I would appreciate more information on the Gallipoli Star earned by British troops at Helles.

The Contemptibles were of course almost all pre-war regulars. I would think the Anzacs more closely compared with the Kitchener New Army men. As one told me, fingering the silver plate in his head, (memento from a machine gunner at Serre) "Two years in the making, ten minutes in the destroying".

But, as you say, great men all.

[Guest lalor]

I believe the ribbon of the 1914 star was actually worn well before the end of the war. In fact, it`s questionable which would have been seen first! I would appreciate more information on the Gallipoli Star earned by British troops at Helles.

The Contemptibles were of course almost all pre-war regulars. I would think the Anzacs more closely compared with the Kitchener New Army men. As one told me, fingering the silver plate in his head, (memento from a machine gunner at Serre) "Two years in the making, ten minutes in the destroying".

But, as you say, great men all.

The Anzacs did not really compare with either. The AIF part was raised specifically for WW1 and certainly did not have 2 years training before hitting that beach. The Landing did not destroy them, it MADE them.

[PhilB]

What were Anzac casualties on 25/4/15? Phil B

[Guest lalor]

Nobody knows!

But the main issue is not in counting the dead, it is in appreciating what happened.

[Guest ceyhun]

Mustata Kemal Ataturk the founder of Turkiye (he was also the commander of a division in Gallipoli Wars ) has said for ANZACs;

Those heroes that shed their blood

And lost their lives…

You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.

Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies

And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side

Here in this country of ours…

You the mothers,

Who sent your sons from far away countries

Wipe away your tears,

Your sons are now lying in our bosom

And are in peace

After having lost their lives on this land

They have become our sons as well.

Ataturk 1934

[Graeme Heavey]

This has gone exactly the way I didnt want it to go, slinging off.

There are many inconsistencies in doing this. Remarks such as ' Britain finds it inconvenient ' dont help. I started this thread because my in laws, AND MY WIFE, and other families in Australia that I know of are not even aware of any other participants. None of them wear poppies, none of them or their neighbours observe 11 November. Not one in the whole district. Thus I am forced to say that wherever our Aussie pals on this thread are from, they have the right attitude and should feel very proud but i fear its not as widespread as you think. ANZAC day is your day and is nationally paramount. Quite correct!

I have also been told, that the award of a Gallipoli medal was canned because Australia didnt want any other nation to get the award ( how true this actually is is another matter ).

So you see the argument goes both ways. You guys get fed up with people saying you should do X and Y, and we get fed up by not being recognised as anything else but the people to blame.

I have now decided to leave this thread as I have lost my temper.

Bob, sorry to correct you but the great blokes you refer to marching through Brisbane are not old contemptibles!

[Guest lalor]

This has gone exactly the way I didnt want it to go, slinging off.

I have now decided to leave this thread as I have lost my temper.

Bob, sorry to correct you but the great blokes you refer to marching through Brisbane are not old contemptibles!

Bob

Taken his bat and ball and gone home.

Sorry about you not being able to explain about the Old Contemptibles marching on Anzac Day in most Australian Parades, but he did get to learn about the French etc etc etc. Bet his in-laws are awaiting his emigration out here to crow eater land.

[Graeme Heavey]

Couldnt resist!!

Australia refused me emigration despite having a wife from that fair land and a son with dual nationality, a job waiting etc and deported me when my wife was 7 months pregnant. On her own with a 2 year old while I made 2 appeals from the UK which were turned down because I'm diabetic.

Oh, and our daughter died the day she was due to arrive while I was still in exile in the UK. Good decisions there I believe.

Now, I've got me bat and me ball, wheres the bales............

[Guest lalor]

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,

G'day Grae!

remember my opening quote?

When you open a can of worms, well anything can happen.

most people have unfortunate experiences during their lives, it may be no consolation to you but believe me nobody takes pleasure in your particular bad luck.

Chin up cobber!

Pete

[birkettm]

So you see the argument goes both ways. You guys get fed up with people saying you should do X and Y, and we get fed up by not being recognised as anything else but the people to blame.

Hit the nail on the head....

Bob, sorry to correct you but the great blokes you refer to marching through Brisbane are not old contemptibles!

To be awarded the 1914 star and therefore be an old contemptible a soldier had to serve in France Aug - Nov 1914 - principally the British professional army and territorials.

I would not have thought any members of the AIF would have qualified. Can anyone show a service record to a member of ANZAC showing the award of a 14 star?

[Guest lalor]

No but I can give you the Australian address of one "Old Contemptible" who lived near us.

He, and many of his mates & their descendants marched in several Anzac Day Parades.

[Auimfo]

I would not have thought any members of the AIF would have qualified. Can anyone show a service record to a member of ANZAC showing the award of a 14 star?

123 members of the Australian Volunteer Hospital Unit were awarded the 1914 (Mons) Star. The unit landed in France on the 29 Aug, 1914 and treated casualties from the Battle of Mons and the subsequent retreat.

Approximately four Australians were awarded the clasp to the 1914 Star.

An AIF officer serving with the Royal Warwick Regiment

A Lighthorseman serving with the RFC

An officer from Goulburn, Queensland (not sure what he was doing)

Australian nurse, Catherine Tully, born in NSW and serving with a British Red Cross unit.

And my Great Grandfather was an 'Old Contemptible' having served with the 2nd Highland Light Infantry. He moved to Australia after WW1 and marched on Anzac Day's with a few other OC's.

Tim L.

[Bob Doneley]

Just replying to a few things in the last couple of posts:

Anzac Day march organisers have always allowed contingents from Allied countries to march under their own banners on Anzac Day. Perhaps someone should have explained to the group of elderly gentlemen wearing 1914 Trios while carrying a banner reading "The Old Contemptibles" that they weren't who they thought they were? I don't mean to sound rude, but I know what I saw - members of the old 1914 army who had emigrated to Australia and who were getting together every Anzac Day - and marching separately from the old AIF battalions and regiments.

The Anzac 'A' was first authorised, I believe, in late 1916-early 1915 by General Monash, GOC 3rd Australian Dibvision. Initialy it was embroidered, then became brass. Originally issued at unit expense, by the end of the war it was officially adopted by the AIF and issued at Government expense. The following is extracted from the Australian War Memorial's site:

The History of ANZAC badge "A"

In November 1917, AIF orders authorised the wearing of a small badge in the form of the letter "A" on unit colour patches to denote that the wearer had taken part in the 1915 Gallipoli campaign. It was later prescribed that the badge would be a brass letter three quarters inch high. A further order, in January 1918 extended the eligibility to service "on the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and Tenedos, on the transports or hospital ships at or off Gallipoli or these islands or in the AIF line of communications units from Egypt". It is interesting to note that this final addition embraced the work of the Australian Army Nursing Service so that both men and women were acknowledged as "the ANZACs".

The wearing of cloth colour patches on the sleeves of jackets was adopted in 1915 as the means of identifying units of the AIF shortly before Australian battalions began to be embarked for service on Gallipoli. The system was retained by the Australian Army after the war and remained in use during the Second World War. ANZAC veterans who were again serving in uniform in the latter period were again able to wear the ANZAC "A".

The ANZAC badge has a hazy origin. Generals Gellibrand, Monash and Birdwood were among those variously given credit for its introduction. It seems most likely that the badge was the culmination of several ideas proposed in early 1916 to give recognition to the Australian veterans of ANZAC. General Monash recorded one expression of such an idea when he paraded his brigade on the celebration of the first ANZAC Day in 1916: "Every man who had served on Gallipoli wore a blue ribbon on the right breast, and every man who, in addition, had taken part in the historic landing on 25 April 1915, wore a red ribbon also. Alas how few of us are left who were entitled to wear both".

Birdwood – himself a central figure on ANZAC – evidently favoured the idea of some permanent distinction to be worn by ANZAC veterans. In August 1916, he told the five Australian divisions that he had no objection to them adopting an "A" badge for their colour patches. There was a mixed reception to the suggestion. Those divisions containing most ANZACs (1st and 2nd Divisions) favoured the idea while the commanders of the 4th and 5th Divisions were initially opposed to it. It was left to each division to make its own arrangements about the provision and adoption of the badge. By November 1916, Monash (3rd Division) was able to report: "All who have a right to be called "ANZACs"among us are now wearing a metal "A" on the colour patches on the sleeves."

In early 1917, convalescent ANZACs began to arrive in Australia wearing the ANZAC "A" and the status of the badge, not previously seen in Australia, was queried. Finally deciding that formal adoption was necessary, AIF Order No. 937 (November 1917) authorised the badge for the whole force and ordered that it be supplied by Ordnance instead of regimental funds. Subsequent orders made the wearing of the badge compulsory and clarified the eligibility rules.

There had been some resentment to the adoption of the badge, particularly in the early years. Survivors of Pozieres and Mouquet Farm in 1916 had, quite reasonably, felt that their experiences were comparable to those of the ANZACs.

Badges – Gallipoli Service

Australian Imperial Force Orders by Lt Gen Sir W.R. Birdwood, Headquarters, Australian Imperial Force. 6th November 1917.

937.Badges – Gallipoli Service

The following Military Order, issued by the Department of Defence, Melbourne, is published for information: "Members of the Australian Imperial Force who served on Gallipoli will be entitled to wear over their Unit "Colour Patches" on both sleeves of the Service Dress Jacket and Greatcoat the letter "A" as an indication that the wearer had taken part in the operations on the Gallipoli Peninsula."

The provisions of the above will apply in all units to all members of the Australian Imperial Force who come within the scope of the Order.

OC Units will indent on ADOS, Administrative Headquarters, AIF, 130 Horseferry Road, London, for necessary supplies.

(Authority: DAG, AIF, 15/86 of 29.10.17).

The Gallipoli Star was manufactured at his own expense in 1990 by Mr Ross Smith, a former Australian Army Warrant Officer and Vietnam veteran, who had them made from the original designs, (which were not approved for issue by King George V) to present to surviving Australian and New Zealand Anzac veterans.

So the Gallipoli Star was never an official medal. My understanding is that Australia proposed them and the English Government was against them, not wanting a distinction made between Gallipoli veterans and the rest of the army.

It is thought that approximately 2,000 Australians were killed or wounded on the 25th April, 1915. The numbers are unclear, because of the confused nature of the fighting.

I hope this clarifies a few things.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

birkettm

G'day mate

Every AIF joiner, who didn't subsequently desert during 1914/15, received the 1914/5 Star - these are clearly entered upon their service records.

The above is an illustration from a service record to indicate that this man who volunteered on 2 October 1914 received his 1914/5 Star.

My proviso was quite serious as there was quite a high incidence of desertion in 1914. This was cured later on at the point of embarkation but still remained a major problem with the troops in France and England. There was quite a trade in falsified documents and the like which enabled men to desert. When a man disappeared from the system through desertion, his entitlement to the 1914/5 Star was cancelled.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

G'day mate

You said: "Anzac Day march organisers have always allowed contingents from Allied countries to march under their own banners on Anzac Day."

Sadly mate, this is quite mistaken. Indeed it is only just recently that this boon has been grudgingly granted. There are still some die hards who want to ban the descendants from marching with the medals. The RSL has proved to be one of the most obdurate and xenophobic bodies holding up social movement within Australia. It is by sheer chance and recognition of the inevitable that the RSL even moved on this issue of Allied nations marching.

Cheers

Bill

[Bob Doneley]

Bob

G'day mate

You said: "Anzac Day march organisers have always allowed contingents from Allied countries to march under their own banners on Anzac Day."

Sadly mate, this is quite mistaken. Indeed it is only just recently that this boon has been grudgingly granted. There are still some die hards who want to ban the descendants from marching with the medals. The RSL has proved to be one of the most obdurate and xenophobic bodies holding up social movement within Australia. It is by sheer chance and recognition of the inevitable that the RSL even moved on this issue of Allied nations marching.

Cheers

Bill

Bill, as a paid up member of the RSL, I resemble that remark! :-)

But in Brisbane for at least the last 25 years there have been Allied contingents marching under their own banners - Brits, Kiwis, Poles, even Americans. Germans and Japanese still not allowed... but moves to allow Turks!

But, having said that, the die hards in the RSL - WW2 men for the most part - are simply repeating what the WW1 men said & did to them!

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

G'day mate

Regarding the RSL business, I need go no further than my father and his comrades who were barred from the RSL from participating in any activity related to their war service. It is only in the last decade that in WA the RSL has been grudgingly compelled to recognise other service personnel. The Fremantle War Memorial now recognises the participation of my father and his comrades in WW2. Now he is able to openly celebrate the lives of the men who served with him at Karrakatta as they now do anually. Because of the abuse - and I mean that in every sense of the term - received from the RSL for the first 50 years after WW2, they have little desire to participate in anything organised by the RSL. They feel quite alienated by that body.

Cheers

Bill

[triv1207]

This is part of the 1935 Anzac Day March in Sydney, compliments of Picture Australia.

St James underground station is on Queen's Square, Very very Australian!

[Auimfo]

And here's another from Melbourne in 1944

[triv1207]

It appears that rosettes of red, white & blue were worn by Anzac veterans on leave, before the A badge was introduced

[PhilB]

Thanks for the warning, gents.

I`ve always wondered why the Aussies make so much of Gallipoli when their Somme and Fromelles experience seems to have been so much worse and the demands made on the men so much higher.

Is it simply that Gallipoli came first?

Quote:-

At its peak, the German bombardment of Pozières was the equal of anything yet experienced on the Western Front and far surpassed the worst shelling endured by an Australian division thus far. The Australian 1st Division suffered 5,285 casualties on its first tour of Pozières. When the survivors were relieved on 27 July, one observer, Sergeant E.J. Rule said:

"They looked like men who had been in Hell... drawn and haggard and so dazed that they appeared to be walking in a dream and their eyes looked glassy and starey."

Phil B

[Guest lalor]

I`ve always wondered why the Aussies make so much of Gallipoli when their Somme and Fromelles experience seems to have been so much worse and the demands made on the men so much higher.

Is it simply that Gallipoli came first?

Quote:-

Phil B

It is definitely NOT simply that! And it is definitely not simple.

Many experts have tried to explain IT, but without success.

In fact Gallipoli was not Australia's, or New Zealand's first 'campaign' of WW1.

A separate force the "Australian Naval & Militiary Expeditionary Force", and a NZ equivalent, were sent to the Pacific Territories of Germany to destroy Radio stations, coaling facilities etc etc.

A true understanding has to appreciate that the "Anzac Spirit" was born amongst the men themselves, almost like a secret society. It was not a case of the veterans big-noting themselves, it was an AIF & NZ Army wide phenomenon.

Another unique feature is that the ANZAC Divisions did not return home until well after the war, and that no home leave was granted unless it was for recovery from serious wounds. On evacuation to Egypt the no of Divisions was doubled, with the veterans being spread throughout. Soon afterwards a new Division, Monash's 3rd, was raised in England, and this was treated almost with derision by the other 4, until such time as it proved itself in action.

The closed shop attitude may partly be explained by the fact that "the Battalions" were truly their homes. This is another aspect not widely understood in that the oft-quoted Mutinies of 1918 were the men refusing to allow their heavilly depleted Battalions to be disbanded. Some facing Court Martial defied Monash to employ them, without Officers, in the last battles against the Hindenburg line, so that the issue would be clearly resolved.

Gallipoli was special in that their main area of operation was clearly defined and designated Anzac. [although severe casualties were sustained at Krithia]. Their efforts were 'measurable' and they were self-supporting. On the Western Front they were deliberately fragmented into different Armies, Corps, etc. It was not until September 1917 that 2 of the 6 Divisions actually attacked side by side. It was 1918 before the Anzacs came under Monash's control.

Whilst the folks back home supported them and added to the special "Spirit", the creation of that spirit was INTERNAL.

PS

Graeme,

Drongo was my nickname as a kid.

Water off a duxback!

Goodonyer!

[Guest lalor]

Couldnt resist!!

Now, I've got me bat and me ball, wheres the bales............

Bill has pointed out that trying to be Mr Nice Guy would fool nobody, so reverting to type....

Grayboy

Couldn't resist either....

as a concession they are pommie not aussie.

[Bob Doneley]

Thanks for the warning, gents.

I`ve always wondered why the Aussies make so much of Gallipoli when their Somme and Fromelles experience seems to have been so much worse and the demands made on the men so much higher.

Is it simply that Gallipoli came first?

Phil,

A difficult question to answer. The media made much of Australia's 'baptism of fire' on the 25th April, 1915 - 'the Making of a Nation'. Certainly, Gallipoli was all that, and more. But, compared with what was to come, casualties at Gallipoli were relatively light, making the 'sacrifice' easier to share around back home. (Unless it was your son dead, it was easier to bear Australian losses as a 'price to be paid'.) The reports in the media were also optimistic, highlighting the uniqueness of the Anzac warrior, his humour, his irreverence, his gallantry, his humanity and so on.

France was different. No longer unique, no opportunities to shine as they had at Gallipoli, the tremendous number of casualties - the chances of arriving in France in 1916 and coming home in 1919 unscathed were virtually nil. France was gloom and doom, mud, blood and more blood. It was more like a serious illness - something that had to be endured.

So memories of Gallipoli were, in comparison to France, full of bright light and optimism. As such, it was much easier to enshrine in the new Nation's memory and folklore. And, going back to the original thread, it was an experience that the new Australia didn't want to share with anyone, except maybe the Kiwis. And so the British and French contributions were forgotten and downplayed, only to be resurrected when convenient e.g. the enduring myth that the British soldiers landing at Suvla were all making cups of tea on the beach - yet another opportunity to compare the fearless Australians to their more effete British forebears.

Memories of the mincing machine known as the Western Front were quietly put aside, to be dwelled on only by those who who had endured, or who had lost someone there. The awfulness of France was something best not thought about, other than an afterthought for speeches about Australian sacrifice.

That's my take on it anyway. Just one opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree.

Bob

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

G'day mate

Just to encapsulate your good reply, at Gallipoli there was a chance to demonstrate dash, elan and derring do. In contrast, the western front was a massive industial mincer where the courage of one man made not one ounce of difference to the slaughter. Heroes do heroic deeds but heroic deed need to be witnessed to be heroic. It is hard to witness anything heroic when you are up to your armpits in slush save for the heroism of being there in the first place.

So Gallipoli takes its premier place.

Cheers

Bill