ANZACS, Gallipoli, and Viet Nam

[Crazy Dazz]

I didn’t want to taint the other thread with debate.

When we acknowledge the bravery of those who fight fires, or crime, or conduct rescues, we’re not glorifying the fire, or the crime, or the disaster. If we are “glorifying” anything, it is the heroism and sacrifice.
So too when we remember our fallen & returned servicemen and women, we are not glorifying war.

In WW2, some Australians gave their lives literally defending Australia. was their sacrifice more noble, heroic, or worthy of remembrance than those who fought and died in North Africa? Or those in WW1, Korea, Viet Nam, or the Middle East?

For any of those here who had relatives (or were themselves) in the conflicts I am about to mention, I apologise in advance for any upset. It is not my intention to step on your remembrance, but rather for those in ignorance I would like to put a few things straight.

Let me begin by saying that war is *****. Soldiers suffer all manner of deprivations, only to die in horrendous ways. Whoever you blame for the world wars, they killed millions and inflicted untold suffering on millions more, and ultimately achieved squat. Like I said, war is *****, and is better avoided. But consider the alternative. Imagine the world today if Nazis & Japs had controlled all of Europe, North Africa and Asia, for 50 years or so…

So you think Gallipoli was an unmitigated disaster?
The pointless slaughter of Commonwealth troops?
You’ve seen the movie and can imagine all those ANZACS charging into murderous Turkish machine guns?
Be prepared to think again.

The Gallipoli campaign was not only a heroic effort by the ANZACs and a defining moment for the Australian National Consciousness, it was anything BUT a failure.

I am tired of all the mockumentaries and movies that repeatedly portrait Commonwealth troops as poorly trained lambs, being led to the slaughter by pompous and incompetent British Generals. Let’s not forget that this was the same British Military that at one time ruled the largest empire on Earth.

The Ottoman Turks were brought into the war to provide Germany with troops for the Western Front. The Commonwealth attacks against the Ottomans were designed to achieve two goals: Seize Territory in the Middle East, and prevent Turkey from entering the war in Europe.
Gallipoli was considered a “pre-emptive” strike against the Ottoman heartland designed ideally to force them out of the war quickly, and if not to at least cause them to pull back their divisions to Turkey. If it failed at the first, it certainly succeeded at the second.
The Commonwealth forces tied up a vastly superior number of Ottoman divisions. If you count all the divisions apparently kept back in Turkey and held in reserve against the threat, the ANZACs tied up approximately fourteen (14) times as many Turkish troops.
Despite those odds, and the media always portraying the ANZACS being massacred by the Turks, the exact opposite is true. Whilst ANZAC losses were horrific, the Turkish losses at Gallipoli were three times as high.

Another “Myth” concerns the Lighthorse being sent to Gallipoli “without their horses” and how “obviously stupid” that seems. “Who would send Cavalry to fight without their horses?” Right?
WRONG! The Lighthorse were not Cavalry, they were mounted infantry. They were not trained or equipped to fight on horseback, and (with the notable exception of Beersheba) they seldom did.

Yet another concerns the (in) famous attacks where ANZACS were instructed to attack with unloaded guns. Utter Madness? Wrong again. The troops were equipped with bolt-action long-rifles and bayonets, which as firearms were unfortunately ill-suited to close quarters combat. For hundreds of years, the British had carried victories against numerically superior forces because of their ferocity and skill with the bayoneted rifle (or musket) in hand to hand combat. It is an interesting parallel to note that on the Western Front, German troops had given up using their rifles in favour of grenades and hand weapons such as axes and shovels.
The previous tactic had been to charge with a bullet loaded and ready to fire, stop at the top of the enemy trench and fire down into the enemy, before leaping in with the bayonet. Unfortunately this led to two problems; troops being shot by the enemy whilst stopped on the brink of the trench, and troops being shot in the back by friendly fire after they had entered the trench. (The wearing of white patches on the back was an attempt to alleviate this.)
The tactic to combat this was to instruct the troops to charge with fixed bayonets only and jump straight into the enemy’s trench.

But wasn’t it still “suicide” to charge “machine-gun nests” with only fixed bayonets?? Well if you believe the movie it was, but as always the reality is completely different. At the start of the century, the Ottoman army whilst large was poorly equipped, and even at the outbreak of WW1 had only a small number of the cumbersome MG08 belt-fed machine guns. That’s why the Turks lost 3 times as many casualties as the Anzacs.

Why do you think the Turks have behaved so magnanimously towards the ANZACS ever since? I believe it is because they recognised the ANZACS as a formidable foe, and they choose to honour the sacrifices on both sides. Say what you will about the Turks, modern day or otherwise, it has been my experience that the Turkish people I meet have had a very strong sense of honour. (Perhaps not the same as ours, yet honour none the less.)

On the Viet Nam war, like many I have grown up being fed the politically correct drivel; that it was not our war, that it was a contrived attempt by the Yanks to divide the country, etc.

I don’t claim to be an expert, and I can only suggest you talk to some people that actually lived there. I know some people from Viet Nam, and I have lived and worked there.

So I will simply point out the following: In that region of SE Asia there were MANY different cultures, religions, languages, and “races.” To suggest that there was a single “Vietnamese” nation, people, language, or culture is simply plain wrong. Attempts by the French to re-impose colonialism were obviously oppressive and wrong, and whether the “boarders” were drawn in the right place afterwards, who’s to say. Probably not, but at the end of the day people from one region invaded the other. I can tell you this; Viet Nam people today still categorise themselves as coming from one of THREE regions, North, South, and Central. Visit, and you will still encounter distinctly different races of people and cultures. And Southerners STILL resent the hell out of the Northerners and the Communists. Ask even a young person where they are from, and they will still say “Saigon” (NOT Ho Chi Minh City.)

Should America and Australian have been involved in the war? Well if I had a time machine I’d go back and tell our leaders not to worry, that communism will fall on its **** soon enough, the Berlin wall will come down, and everything will be sweet. But at the time, well it’s easy to judge isn’t it. I can tell you that older people form the South still appreciate that Australia tried to help them (not as magnanimous towards the yanks though.)

I also believe that the most shameful thing about our involvement in the war was the way Whitlam treated our returning vets.

War is never a good thing, but it is often unavoidable. In fact a willingness to go to war is often the best defence. I think criticising our Politicians is fair game, but I for one will always honour the heroism and sacrifice of our soldiers, no matter where they fought.

Lest We Forget

[Charliewool]

That is a truly great post!

[AU Mont]

Rubbish, Gallipoli was about securing a sea route to Russia.

The Turks fought a heroic war, when the rest of the ottoman empire was weak & in decline.

"On the morning of 25 April 1915, out of ammunition and left with nothing but bayonets to meet the attackers on the slopes leading up from the beach to the heights of Chunuk Bair, the commander of the 19th Division, Lieutenant-Colonel Mustafa Kemal, sent the following order to the 57th Infantry Regiment: "I do not order you to fight, I order you to die. In the time which passes until we die, other troops and commanders can come forward and take our places". Every man of the regiment was either killed in action or wounded and, as a sign of respect, there is no 57th Regiment in the modern Turkish army."

Crazy Dazz, are you on a mission to start threads whinging about this and that.?

[Madaya]

My knowledge is limited, but from what I have read, notably...
Australian Military Operations in Vietnam
Author: Albert Palazzo:
I do agree that our returning soldiers should have been treated a lot better.
But hey, a lot of folk back then were desperate to get Australia out of the war, we shouldn't have been there, certainly not as a military force (shades of Iraq). We did not know how to cope when they came home.
The Vietnam conflict arose from French imperialistic ambition. Ho Chi Minh actually studied in Paris, all he wanted was an independent Vietnam. He used communist ideals to arouse the spirit of the peasants to throw the French out (i.e. Jack is as good as his master ideology). This he achieved, until the US intervened on behalf of the corrupt, bogus government of the South.
Who are these weird, back room people who throw the lives of our sons and daughters away to allay their own insecurity and inferiority complexes and why do we allow them to get power.
That said, and the above book is a good resource, the majority of our forces in Vietnam acted professionally and bravely. Though initially, the regular troops viewed the conscripts with a little disdain and suspicion, when push came to bullets and bombs, even the call ups fought beyond measure.
God bless them all.

[The_Bogan]

you my friend, have no idea

[anto]

going by Madayas logic I guess the evil americans should never have intervened in the Korean conflict either. All those millions of people could be living in that uopian society we call North Korea if it werent for those pesky Amercians.

[Ducati888]

Good discussion piece. You reference ANZACS many times in your discussion about Gallipoli, but it should be remembered that the British forces took massively more casualties and deaths than Australia and NZ at Gallipoli, and the ANZACS fought side by side with Indian troops, French and Canadian troops as well. It's dishonest and disengenuous to ignore the fact that those nations fought there as well. It wasn't just the ANZACS, but it was a defining moment for them and our nation. I dont mean to detract at all from the significance of it to them or to Australia, but we must honour all of those involved.

There is also some misinformation about Vietnam (not from you Crazy Dazz), but I spent some time recently looking in to the conscription and birthday ballot stuff that happened in Australia during that conflict. People were conscripted to National Service (and hence regular army), they were not conscripted to go straight to Vietnam. Obviously one led to another, but (from memory) only around one in five of those conscripted to National Service were then sent to Vietnam.

This is not an argument about whether it was right or wrong, I just want to encourage people to do some reading on this emotive subject.

[Madaya]

Originally Posted by anto

going by Madayas logic I guess the evil americans should never have intervened in the Korean conflict either. All those millions of people could be living in that uopian society we call North Korea if it werent for those pesky Amercians.

Ahh come on anto, I'm not discussing Korea here.
Nor am I discussing Evil Americans.
I just threw the fish out there.
IOW, the Vietnam conflict may not have happened. Within a few short years, North Vietnam, communist or otherwise would have held sovereignty over a tiny piece of land (compared to Australia). Of course there would have been atrocities, stuff similar to what the early settlers committed against the Aboriginals, esp those that lived on Tasmania.
Is there a Berlin Wall anymore? No.

[flappist]

I will post this only once.

Keep it civil, on topic and within T&C.

This is an emotive subject so if someone posts something that upsets you report it or take a couple of deep breaths before replying.

Personal attacks will end in tears....

[hawkgirl]

there is a book called "the tiger man of vietnam", about an aussie sas guy asked to get the hill tribes to fight against the NV. He was then targeted by the CIA, even though he was an ally.
Australia was asked to provide troop by the SV government.

Gallipoli is one of the most succesful militarty retreats ever. Remeber that at the time it was considered very important to have control of the area for shipping, and that those in command didnt believe it was so heavily defended.

[hawkgirl]

i for one am tired of seeing documentaries glorifying general macarthur.

[Madaya]

Originally Posted by flappist

I will post this only once.

Keep it civil, on topic and within T&C.

This is an emotive subject so if someone posts something that upsets you report it or take a couple of deep breaths before replying.

Personal attacks will end in tears....

Mate, I feel that this topic, from first to last is cool. I think most Australians are right behind our vets from all wars. They're our children after all.
One of the remarkable things we see in this age of mortgage, facebook, citizen 1, is the good turn outs on ANZAC Day (and recognition of Remembrance Day).
We'll keep it cool, in honour of the fallen.

[Madaya]

Originally Posted by hawkgirl

i for one am tired of seeing documentaries glorifying general macarthur.

Why Mac, he was no different from most Generals.

[pottery beige]

good book..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-revi...407707297.html

[castellan]

About the imagine the world today....

[Professor Farnsworth]

this thread has gone far enough and to be honest is not suited to a car forum.