[april 25th] anzac day - gallipoli

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".

[four interesting hours] little bit of shop

Generally we don't blog about our work because it's not … well … interesting to others. This time though I'm going to report on the past few hours.

I saw a formal debate earlier between two teams of girls. What was unusual about this is that even though girls can generally talk the paint off a wall, they don't often, in my experience, like formal debating.

It's a bit like geography. For some reason, it doesn't often gel with girls. This one today, on the topic: "It's all right to lie if the truth would hurt" was fabulous.

The protocol was observed to the letter, they were erudite and it was in English. Points of order and information were used well and they understood the three speaker system.

In point of fact, I had to keep them from each others' throats and some of the comments were as scathing as anything I've posted here. But best of all was that they asked if they could do it again.

In a good mood, I wandered back to the ministry and the Min told me something very interesting. You'd possibly know they were in London two days ago for the economic forum and the PM and my Min were actually allowed onto the floor of the Lords in session, where they observed the debate.

I had no idea this was possible for foreigners but the description of events was pretty exact and I'm sure he wouldn't be telling porkies. He also told me you people had sunshine and about 20 degrees over there.

We, on the other hand, are about to have a gi-normous thunder storm. The sky's almost black by now.

So, an interesting few hours.

[anzac day] gallipoli, 1915

Today is ANZAC Day and a post will appear this evening.

To the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians meanwhile, our thoughts are with you today on this most special of days.

Also, in the early hours of the 26th, some years ago, my father died. That's tomorrow morning.

[old poll down] new one up

Old poll

Did Atlantis, as a civilization:

# exist 85%

# not exist 12%

# comprise something else 3%

34 votes total

Well, that seems pretty clear, Tiberius. Still, the minority has been right before.

Comments

Posted by Lord Nazh on April 22, 2007

The Micean culture will probably (one day) end up being what we think of as Atlantean.

---

Posted by Dave Petterson on April 21, 2007

I think that there was a group of people at one point that called themselves Atlanean. I don't think they had special powers or advanced technology. The simplist things can be blown out of all proportion and that kept their names in history.

New poll

Politics and religion should be kept separate

# fully agree

# one can try to separate

# they're interwoven

Poll is in the right sidebar.

[political cynicism] religion's worth a few votes

Liam Murray has a nice piece on the Democrats' attempts to wrest the "Christian" vote from the Republicans. Liam's no religious nutter so his views bear weight:

When UK commentators (usually from the secular left) criticise the influence of religion in American politics the normal target is the Republican party - an understandable position given the last 6 years and Bush's alarmingly regular invocation of 'God'. However, any hopes that the Democratic revival (either in Congress or probably the Whitehouse come '09) would see faith relegated again may be dashed by this story.

Fed up with Republican's claims of a monopoly on Christian values Linda Seger has written a book called "Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have a Corner on Christ". I haven't read the book but there's an excellent podcast discussing many of the key issues over on Truthdig.com.

I don't subscribe to the militant atheist nonsense about banishing religion from politics altogether - too many good people have been inspired or sustained by a private faith. I still however think it should remain a largely private matter so I can't say the notion of Clinton / Obama or Edwards trying to wrestle a set of supposedly Christian values from McCain / Guilliani or Romney is a particularly appealing sight!

This was answered by someone named Paul [is there something in that name perchance?]:

All religion is primitive. It is a throwback to a mystical wish to explain without understanding. The "modern" religions are no more sophisticated than such things as tree worship. As an atheist I have no problem with people having "a faith" and will continue to support their right to celebrate their primitive comforts.

I replied:

Remarkably primitive, ignorant, ungracious and illogical comment from Paul Macmanomy. Typical atheist [and they like to think of themselves as positive].

He ignores the sustenance that not just faith but organizations like the Salvation Army and others afforded people during times of crisis such as the two wars. Though they preached, it was the example they set which scored better with the average person who went through those crises.

I may be wrong and correct me please but I never heard of atheist soup kitchens or shelters during those periods of crisis. Where were the socialists on the street giving sustenance at that time? To what did their rhetoric inevitably amount?

I haven't yet seen evidence to contradict the conclusion that atheists are truly ignorant people, with an immense sense of self-delusion and an even greater sense of denial, masquerading as intellectualism and enlightenment.

Of course, they would accuse me of the same self-delusion and sense of self-righteousness, of seeing my opinion as the only valid one. Of being insufferably smug and deserving of a pointed stick in an unpleasant Edward II type way. Perhaps they're right.

[britishness] does it mean anything to you

Martin Kelly wrote an article called What Being British Means To Me (If Anyone's Interested) and I'm going to quote it in full here:

In an editorial for 'Comment is Free' entitled 'What young British Muslims say can be shocking - some of it is also true', the professional Europhile Timothy Garton Ash writes that:

"I have always thought that the very undemanding vagueness, the duffle-coat bagginess of Britishness was an advantage when it comes to making immigrants and their descendants feel at home here. After all, what have you traditionally required in order to be British? An ability to talk about the weather at inordinate length. Being willing to mind your own business, to live and let live. A general inclination to obey the law of the land, more or less. Perhaps a mild interest in the royal family, football or cricket. That's about it.

The very idea of talking about ourselves as "citizens" has seemed to the British vaguely pretentious and foreign, more specifically French - and therefore bad. But perhaps a more demanding civic-national identity, like that of the French Republic, has its advantages after all, giving a stronger sense of identity and belonging."

The concept of Britishness to which he refers is not universal. The United Kingdom is comprised of three nations, a malfunctioning statelet and a couple of semi-autonomous island territories in the near offshore. His concept is one which is specifically English, and upper middle class, in origin.

Speaking for myself, my concept of Britishness is informed by a conscious rejection of the West of Scotland's sectarian tribal loyalties (sometimes quite difficult when others are parading them in your face) which motivates the abominable waving of Irish flags at Celtic Park by those happy to claim Her Majesty's Dole, and also of the petty but powerful allure of Scottish nationalism, in favour of the recognition that one is a citizen of a greater entity, with rights and duties to the greater whole.

In other words, Britishness is something which, even after nearly 150 years of my family's residence on the mainland, has had to be worked at. Thus I'm not really interested in the carping of those for whom special interest pleading is quite literally an article of faith.

And although Garton Ash might now see the importance of civic education, it's been attitudes like his that have helped to get us into the mess we're in today. An uncharitable suggestion concerning where he should store his duffle coat springs to mind.

I confess my attitude to Britishness is romanticized [possibly the effect of yearning from afar] but it was always the railway children, Falling Foss, Beckfoot Bridge, the canals, the Norfolk broads, Arthur Ransome, Carnaby Street, Twiggy, ska, Madness, two pints of lager and a packet of crisps please, real ale, Stamford Bridge, North Yorkshire moors, Betty's tearooms, Maggie's too, Hendon Aircraft Museum, the Spitfire, Python, the Young Ones, Pink Floyd, the A68 to Edinburgh and so on.

I suppose that explains some of the reactions to the concept of Britishness I introduced in the immigration post. What's your concept? ASBOs, education destroyed, NHS destroyed, post-modernist? I don't know.