Terry Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 I'm sure that this information must be available somewhere, but perhaps one of the Pals might have it handy. What were the numbers of troops killed during the Gallipoli expedition, by country? I am looking for : UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 From the first book to hand - 'Gallipoli Then and Now' UK 21255 France 9874 Australia 8709 India 7594 New Zealand 2701 Total 50133 No doubt there will be variations. Plus about 55000 Turks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 In the Gallipoli thread in Chit-chat Marco provided a link to a page in his website. Here it is again : http://www.xs4all.nl/~aur/layout/frames.ht...ndends/myth.htm (First number = total casualties ; second = killed) Australian 26,094 / 7,594 NZ 7,571 / 2,431 Brit. (excl Anzac) 171,335 / 119,696 French 47,000 / 27,000 Turks 251,309 Well, it appears that these numbers are very different from Terry's. Don't ask me why. I will have to think about that. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 For many years now Patrick Gareipy, an American member of The Gallipoli Association, has devoted himself to researching the killed at Gallipoli, including those who later died of their wounds in such places as Egypt, Malta and Britain. Because of the scale of the task he has had to limit his researches to others than French or Turkish. The latest figure which I have seen from him appeared in the Spring 2001 edition No.96 of 'The Gallipolian' British 29,134 Australian 8,520 New Zealand 2,806 Indian 1,891 Newfoundland 45 Ceylon 4 Others 29 Total 42,429 "Others" comprise 14 Zion Mule Corps 11 Greek Labour Corps 3 Guides & Interpreters 1 Maltese Labour Corps As of Spring 2001, Patrick had a further 102 possible casualties which are the subject of further research and verification Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 The figures I gave were simply from the first reference book I had on my desk. Michael's look more accurate and are broadly similar although the Indian totals are at great variance. I suspect those quoted by Michael are nearer the truth as there are only 1521 Indian names on the Helles Memorial and few actual Indian burials on Gallipoli although there are many 'Unknown Nationality' burials. However, I also seem to remember the higher figure being quoted on a display at the IWM a couple of years ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted 5 December , 2003 Author Share Posted 5 December , 2003 So, we can say that the ANZAC total is around 11,000, the Indian total is perhaps 2,000; and the UK total is possibly 25,000. I have wondered about numbers. As has been seen from other threads, Gallipoli has in some ways come to be considered an ANZAC battle, which is unfair to the huge numbers of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish soldiers who died there. Again, the power of movies such as Gallipoli can be seen. I realize that when taking national populations into consideration,the ANZAC totals were terrible and made perhaps a greater impact on the folks back home, while the families in the UK were more involved with the Western Front battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 We should always remember the French, as noted in this thread they had more dead than Australia. And Terry I am not saying you do not, your first post mentioned French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted 5 December , 2003 Author Share Posted 5 December , 2003 Hi Paul, Yes, I agree that we tend to forget the French contribution. Actually, that is something we perhaps tend to be guilty of in our view of the entire war, just as we overlook the fact that it was the Soviets more than any other Allied nation which won WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 Well, it appears that these numbers are very different from Terry's. Don't ask me why. I will have to think about that. I suspect these have come from the Holts battlefield guide to Gallipoli, which is not entirely accurate on these figures, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 I've already been ' shot at ' for this but : From J M Winter's The Experience of WW1. Gallipoli, taking total casualties as 500,000 - 47.1% Turkish, 37.5% British, 8.8% French, 6.6% Anzac. One would have to assume the Indian ones are in there somewhere!! As a matter of interest. First Marne ( 550,000 ) gives - 54.4% German, 45.4% French 0.2% British. Thank God for Joffre and the Poilu! Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 I do not see a reason for belief British played a significant role in 1st Marne. Malcolm, I may be shot at worse than you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 5 December , 2003 Share Posted 5 December , 2003 Paul, I wasn't drawing any conclusions - just noting the French effort that stopped the drive on Paris. If they hadn't............................ Aye Malcolm 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