Friday, April 25, 2008

[anzac day] gallipoli - april 25th, 1915


Theo Spark made reference to this issue here:



We have a duty as a society to do more for those that have risked their lives for us to see that they have a life after their service.

Steve Green, of Daily Referendum, brought our attention to the injured vets who were heckled at that swimming pool:


One woman was so incensed that the troops were using the pool at Leatherhead Leisure Centre in Surrey that she told them they did not deserve to be there. The swimmer, thought to be in her 30s, is understood to have said: "I pay to come here and swim – you lot don't."

This theme was continued in America when Gloria Steinem who, in a country which has made it safe for her to live, decided to belittle John McCain's war service and the reaction was predictable:


McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Steinem defenders say "read the text of what she actually said". I did. Her focus was not, of course, on the war record - it was just to score points off McCain for Clinton. Yet the way she tried to illustrate McCain's ineptitude for office was to single out a lowly thing in her eyes - a war record. Even Hilary distanced herself from Steinem on this.


Therein lies the malaise - the majority of non-combatants at least appreciate, with a nod, that which the men and women defenders have done but at worst there are the examples we've just seen and it is no longer an isolated phenomenon.

The service people, I believe,
don't demand the sort of hero status you see in this Canadian reception above and yet surely they should be accorded that status in society? Surely they should be given the keys of the city and actively assisted by everyone from the government down?

And yet, because of the deep divisions over the subject of war itself [and count me as anti-war] there is a tendency to make this little logical jump to brand the people who actually go off to fight as part of the issue. The issue is who ordered them there - not them themselves.

In Australia, this was brought into sharp focus in Alan Seymour's 1958 play "The One Day of the Year":


In Australia, his best-known play is The One Day of the Year, which dramatised the growing social divide in Australia and the questioning of old values. In the play, ANZAC Day is critiqued by the central character, Hughie, as a day of drunken debauchery by returned soldiers and as a day when questions of what it means to be loyal to a Nation or Empire must be raised.


These days, the Australian young seem to be far more at one with the efforts of the service personnel and many make the pilgrimage to Gallipoli, where the tradition started. Though the ecological aspects of these pilgrimages are being questioned, the way the young have followed this remembrance is surely positive.

Nothing quite brings Australia together as a nation like this day, crossing all age, gender, religious and political divisions. How many commemoration services actually have the former enemy marching alongside you? As the British Daily Telegraph puts it:


In 2008, Anzac Day in Turkey has no parallel anywhere in the world. It defies all the traditional ingrained hatreds between the invader and the defender, the victor and the defeated. Anzac Day is a symbol of peace, forgiveness and understanding.

So here's a summary of the story itself:

On 4th August, 1914, England declared war on Germany and Winston Churchill wanted a strong demonstration of the Navy in the Dardanelles, with Constantinople as a final objective.
About 2 in the morning of 25th April, British Admiral Hamilton ordered the 1500 Australians of the covering force to the shore.
What was strange was that the maps issued to the officers bore no resemblance at all to the surroundings.
Instead of a flat beach and gently undulating terrain beyond, they were facing shrub-covered rocky formations and cliffs that nearly ran into the sea.
Before long, it became clear what had happened : the force had not been put ashore as intended, but in a small bay 2 km further north.
No matter where they had exactly landed, the Australian troops of the covering force did not hesitate to carry out their orders.
They immediately threw off their packs and stormed the heights closest to the beach.
Because the boats had landed in complete disorder, the beach itself was soon congested with new troops being landed without knowing in which direction to advance. After a couple of hours, chaos was complete.


They sent a message to Hamilton, who only said, “You have got through the difficult business, now you have only to dig, dig, dig, until you are safe."


According to some sources, this text gave the nickname "diggers", which the Australians would keep for the rest of their history.
Turkish sniping and bombs kept raining down on the Anzacs, who could only hope to throw the bombs back before they exploded.
The sea was literally red with blood.

For days after the landing, dead bodies would be washed ashore. One third of the troops died for 500 metres result.
As spring came to an end, a plague of flies fed on the unburied corpses, then dysentery and the water supply became a major problem.
The hostility towards their enemies gradually dropped and the Turks were considered as victims of the same deplorable situation. More than once 'presents' were thrown across no-man's land or messages exchanged.
Then the wind started blowing from the north, which led to sleet and snow. The temperature dropped far below zero and the troops had no winter equipment, which had arrived on the peninsula but had then been shipped back for some reason.
Soldiers froze to death while on guard duty, and the transport of supplies broke up completely. Fighting had become completely impossible. Turkish soldiers refused to advance against the enemy.
During the second week of December, the first phase of the evacuation was started.
Every night, numbers of small vessels came to Anzac Cove to pick up the sick and wounded first, then the prisoners of war and finally the soldiers.
The Gallipoli campaign had been a fiasco and it was one of many reasons the army became known as "lions led by donkeys".


The question of glorifying war, brought out in "The One Day of the Year", is valid. Yet no one who had been there would glorify war in any way and this helps explain the reticence of many real Anzacs, the oldest vets, to keep hashing over the details of the horror.

Redgum's song Only 19, puts it succinctly in the context of Vietnam. The images in this clip are quite moving:



One commenter on this YouTube said:


I can't bear this song without shedding tears. My brother, only 27 went over to Timor last year for war. He was meant to return in October 07. He didn't return untill April 08. He has done his share. 03 he crashed in a blackhawk. He only received minor injuries while he watched his mates die. Anyone in the army, force or even a reserve, good on you. You deserve every praise. We Love you.

Nice little non-debate going on with an Anonymous over at Theo's. Let's all remember such men and women on this day.

22 comments:

  1. For a song about Galipoli listen to Eric Bogle's "And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda".

    Sorry no links.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bogle and Redgum?

    You must be joking.

    Both are dripping wet handwringing lefties. Both Maoists in their time.

    Your Gallipoli description is risible. 1500 Australians? Nice research.

    I especially like deep concerns about "environmental" damage from the "young" visiting the place.
    Shock,horror.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Firstly, Anonymous, the 1500 Australians you refer to. The source is Digger History. Yes, and what?

    Secondly, I wish you had the courage, in wildly throwing about the term "risible" to both show yourself and give the correct figure in your eyes.

    Thirdly, the Redgum song in no way negates the feelings of ordinary servicemen under fire. Have you ever been under fire? I have.

    The song speaks of not giving way because of your mates. Well? And what? Is it not so? Is it not the essential reason you keep going?

    So this mock show of some kind of disagreement comes to dust in the end.

    Try again my son and try to do your research this time. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a very fine post. I appreciate the video, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, 1500 may do if you're a poorly informed ethnic fuckwit....who knows.

    The maths get more difficult.

    The Aust. casualties were 2000 on day one.

    The Aust. casualties for the campaign were 26111. The Aust. dead were 8709.

    See how that works?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, 1500 may do if you're a poorly informed ethnic fuckwit....who knows.

    Anon - I appreciate that you're taking the time but this was the initial assault force. This is what they state in the original [and look who the source is - check the link again in my comment].

    Naturally the further landings swelled the numbers many times this.

    We're arguing over nothing as our maths are basically in agreement and both are from official sources which are the same.

    Your total numbers are completely correct.

    So why the F are we arguing, Man?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I didn't address your "environmental" damage from the "young" visiting the place.

    You've connected two things where I make no connection. The young were only mentioned in a positive sense in the article.

    The environmental reference was a news article stating this. I made no comment on it myself but presented it as a "well, you say so and maybe but ..." That was the spirit in which I put it.

    My main thrust throughout the whole post was that we should remember, that we should elevate the returned servicemen and women and that it's good that the young are respecting this tradition.

    Now which part of that thrust are you unhappy with?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Still a poorly informed ethnic fuckwit....

    The landings took place all day idiot , 2000 casualties on the first day means many many more landed.

    When you're wrong say so and move on. It's the Aust way.

    Go to the Aust War Memorial site. it'll fix your ignorance.

    Then take your soft left view of events you don't understand and stick them....in an environmentally sound manner.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well do it then - cause you're the obvious moron. I said "first landings" - is English your 1st language?

    ReplyDelete
  10. An excerpt from Denis Winter's book,
    25 April 1915 - The Inevitable Tragedy, University of Queensland Press, 1994.

    The landing scheme was a simple one, in outline at least. The 3rd Brigade's 4000 men would land as a covering force to secure a beachhead for two Australasian divisions made up of six brigades. Those 4000 would go in two waves. The first, consisting of 1500 men, were to start from three battleships – Queen, Prince of Wales and London – then be distributed between twelve tows, each made up of a steamboat, a cutter (30 men), a lifeboat (28 men) and either a launch (98 men) or a pinnace (60 men). The remaining 2500, the second wave, were to land from seven destroyers shortly afterwards. Those destroyers would wait near the island of Imbros and join the battleships, one and a half miles (about 2 km) from the mainland, at 4.15 am. The first wave was scheduled to land a few minutes earlier, and the destroyers would then sail in, full speed ahead, adding a number of lifeboats borrowed from transport vessels to the tows that had been used by the first wave. Once the whole 3rd Brigade was ashore, the rest of the 1st Division would arrive on transports, grouped in fours and coming in at regular intervals.

    Such, at least, was the plan, and its first stage was negotiated without difficulty. Troops on the battleships were woken at 1 am, given a hot meal and a drink while the tows were being got ready, and by 1.30 am were ready for mustering into companies. This operation was carried out with impressive efficiency: no one spoke; orders were given in whispers. The only sounds were shuffling boots and muttered curses as men slipped on the ladders leading down to the boats. But for many, the tension of that still night magnified the sounds.

    James is correct in what he wrote, above is an official government site, go look for yourself

    http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/1landing/bgrnd.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. An Anzac Day service at dawn is one of the most moving ceremonies one can attend.


    An horrific episode in any country's history but never forgotten by the Australians and New Zealanders.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The New Zealanders - they mustn't be forgotten, nor the Canadians.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can't see anything wrong with the Steinham article. I don't think she is belittling JM's time as a prisoner - just pointing out that it would have been viewed differently had it been a woman, which it would have been.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Looking at it a different way, all the years that John McCain spend as a POW gave him the chance to think, something we seldom get chance to do. This - along with his other attributes - may make him the perfect choice as POTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Welshcakes - well you wouldn't see it, of course. Feminists are blind to their mayhem, however else they may be lovely people inside.

    Cherie - thanks.

    Andrew - it's a point worth thinking about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Been away...how do Poms put up with this sub literate rubbish...

    sema at Theo's site:

    "Try the how English are you test or the how Aussie and see how ya go me old matie. :)"

    Is it some sort of Pommie PC where fuckwit ethnic attempts at writing in English are never laughed at?

    I especially like the childish recounting of ANZAC history.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am not so sure about Churchill wanting a strong demonstration of the navy - I seem to recall his intention was to find an alternative to sending more troops to 'chew barbed wire on the western front'. He was - from a modern perspective - rather callous about the loss of ships to mines in the region because they were 'old ships', the modern vessels being used to blockade the Germans.

    Lots of bandying about numbers is interesting as no-one has pointed out that the largest component of the allied forces was British, followed by French.

    Incidentally 'lions led by donkeys' is a myth dreamt up by Alan Clark. The phrase likely comes from the Prussian war of 1870 and was never used in WWI.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh and so far as ethnicity matters I am a Kiwi whose great uncle died at Gallipoli.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What did the Canadians have to do with Gallipoli?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The Gallipoli Peninsula is equally revered by the Turkish people who also suffered great loss defending their homeland against invasion. It is also a place of remembrance for other countries that participated in the 1915 campaign including Britain, France, India, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Germany."

    Though not Apr 25.

    ReplyDelete
  21. APRIL 25, 2010

    I've revisited this post today and re-read the aggressive comments by this Anonymous above. He takes issue with "the 1500 Australians" so today I double-checked [as I'd done previously] and if you click on the words "the 1500 Australians" in the green text, it takes you to the Australian government's own site [from where the War Memorial derives its stats] and see for yourself:

    http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/1landing/bgrnd.html

    As for the War Memorial itself, I've been there three times. Yes ... and what? Is that meant to be part of the argument - that having walked around there, you somehow have greater knowledge? Simply by walking round there?

    What's got up Anon's nose is that I put up Redgum who are lefties and conscientious objectors, as he said.

    This, in itself, illustrates something I thought I'd never say - that there is deep ignorance in flag waving members of the patriotic right as much as on the left of politics.

    If Anon would care to visit my site, he'd see that I am what most people would call "right" and therefore of the same degree of reverence as he purports to be.

    Which shows that ignorance and cowardice [he wouldn't put his name] often go hand in hand.

    Not only that but he skewed a story about remembering the fallen into a political debate and still calls himself a patriot.

    As for the lady who took the whole article and decided to take two lines on Gloria Steinem to comment on - my case rests.

    For all your taking to task of those lines - they say, in the English language, precisely what they say and reveal her level of patriotism towards her country as well. Sadly, there are many women of the feminist movement who are like that.

    If you look at this post:

    http://nourishingobscurity.com/2010/04/21/stunning-ignorance/

    ... you'll see that in the comments of this Nina Burridge.

    This is one reason I left all of Anon's comments above in the comments thread - you can make your own mind up.

    Now, back to the bottom line - we remember, this day, the fallen and injured and all others involved in that event, Gallipoli and in all subsequent wars.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.