The Truth About Gallipoli

[decaro]

from The XX Committee:

"This weekend we commemorate the beginning of one of the Great War’s most (in)famous campaigns, the failed Allied effort to force the Dardanelles, remembered as Gallipoli in the West. The Turks call it the Battle of Çanakkale and since they won you’d think they would get to name it, but that’s another story. It’s strange that this battle, one among many fought futilely from 1914 to 1918, gets so much historical attention, but there are a few reasons for that.

"First, Gallipoli fits what I term that war’s Anglo Privilege paradigm, meaning that battles involving English-speaking troops are deemed Very Important, and will generate books and documentaries galore, while anything else is not, to the extent that it even happened at all...."

http://20committee.com/2015/04/26/the-t ... gallipoli/

And there's much more from author John Schindler: strategist and author, formerly a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

from The XX Committee:

"This weekend we commemorate the beginning of one of the Great War’s most (in)famous campaigns, the failed Allied effort to force the Dardanelles, remembered as Gallipoli in the West. The Turks call it the Battle of Çanakkale and since they won you’d think they would get to name it, but that’s another story. It’s strange that this battle, one among many fought futilely from 1914 to 1918, gets so much historical attention, but there are a few reasons for that.

warspite1

Why? The Turks lost the war - they picked the wrong side. As everyone knows, history is written by the winners.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

"First, Gallipoli fits what I term that war’s Anglo Privilege paradigm, meaning that battles involving English-speaking troops are deemed Very Important, and will generate books and documentaries galore, while anything else is not, to the extent that it even happened at all...."

warspite1

Same thing applies. The victors get to write a lot about what happened - and guess what??? Battles involving their troops are likely to receive more coverage. I have no idea how the French cover Gallipoli and how they view it as history but I would be surprised if their important contribution was not recognised by their fellow countrymen.

What point is this man trying to make? Given the size, the scale and the just about everything else, the Western Front is important in WWI history. The war that started the conflagration i.e. that between Austria and Serbia less so to the average person in the street - so what?

[Orm]

Interesting read. Thank you for sharing. [:)]

[wings7]

Thanks Joe for sharing! [:)]

Patrick

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
"First, Gallipoli fits what I term that war’s Anglo Privilege paradigm, meaning that battles involving English-speaking troops are deemed Very Important, and will generate books and documentaries galore, while anything else is not, to the extent that it even happened at all...."

What a stupid and ill-conceived comment. Lots of English-speaking people's battles have been consigned to the lesser-known bins of history of warfare. Daresay most of them.

For most Americans that know anything about WWII, for example, they've heard of D-Day and Pearl Harbor. Maybe you'll get a percentage that have heard of The "Battle of the Bulge", or Iwo Jima. Leyte Gulf? Fewer yet. Coral Sea? Very few. The battle of the Hurtgen Forest? Fewer yet. Kasserine Pass? Where?

English-speakers' alleged (and misidentified) superiority is meaningless. It's about ignorance of history. The racial / ethnic / nationalist flag needn't be trotted out here.

Lest you think it's just English-speakers that get to rename history or ignore history, think again. Most Filipinos have never seen Corregidor. When I traveled there, there was a clear ignorance of the happenings in the Philipines during WWII. Do you think this was via some mandate of ignorance or did the Filipinos just really not care all that much.

Contrast that with the great pride shown in Hanoi about their feat of arms against the Americans. Their struggle-seen through Northern Vietnamese eyes-is still one that is proudly told in their way. Their victories against America are proudly displayed in their national war museum there.

Think North Korea has forgotten their military history? Think they look for any opportunity whatsoever to show visitors how they licked the Yankees?

There's a huge row amongst Russian speakers about the splitting of Ukranians' name for the war. Instead of "The Great Patriotic War", the Ukranians are now calling it "The Second World War." Don't the Ukranians get to decide what to call it or how to remember it for posterity.

Different countries remember or fail to remember their military engagements in ways they see fit. Their population's interest level is influenced by official governmental stances and attitudes, I've no doubt. But to write all this off as nonsensical "victor's justice" or "Anglo-centric" attitudes is ignorant and wrong.

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
"First, Gallipoli fits what I term that war’s Anglo Privilege paradigm, meaning that battles involving English-speaking troops are deemed Very Important, and will generate books and documentaries galore, while anything else is not, to the extent that it even happened at all...."

What a stupid and ill-conceived comment. Lots of English-speaking people's battles have been consigned to the lesser-known bins of history of warfare. Daresay most of them.

For most Americans that know anything about WWII, for example, they've heard of D-Day and Pearl Harbor. Maybe you'll get a percentage that have heard of The "Battle of the Bulge", or Iwo Jima. Leyte Gulf? Fewer yet. Coral Sea? Very few. The battle of the Hurtgen Forest? Fewer yet. Kasserine Pass? Where?

English-speakers' alleged (and misidentified) superiority is meaningless. It's about ignorance of history. The racial / ethnic / nationalist flag needn't be trotted out here.

Lest you think it's just English-speakers that get to rename history or ignore history, think again. Most Filipinos have never seen Corregidor. When I traveled there, there was a clear ignorance of the happenings in the Philipines during WWII. Do you think this was via some mandate of ignorance or did the Filipinos just really not care all that much.

Contrast that with the great pride shown in Hanoi about their feat of arms against the Americans. Their struggle-seen through Northern Vietnamese eyes-is still one that is proudly told in their way. Their victories against America are proudly displayed in their national war museum there.

Think North Korea has forgotten their military history? Think they look for any opportunity whatsoever to show visitors how they licked the Yankees?

There's a huge row amongst Russian speakers about the splitting of Ukranians' name for the war. Instead of "The Great Patriotic War", the Ukranians are now calling it "The Second World War." Don't the Ukranians get to decide what to call it or how to remember it for posterity.

Different countries remember or fail to remember their military engagements in ways they see fit. Their population's interest level is influenced by official governmental stances and attitudes, I've no doubt. But to write all this off as nonsensical "victor's justice" or "Anglo-centric" attitudes is ignorant and wrong.

Chickenboy, your response is very good and thought provoking! But, prefacing it with "stupid" almost made be not read your response and is not necessary...

[warspite1]

Which word would you use Patrick? Its was not a clever thing to say was it?

[Orm]

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

[danlongman]

This may come as a surprise to some people who live where English
is the only recognised language Joe D. but in the French language
histoires the activities of France in WW1 predominate and in Italy
the activities on the Italian front are the main topic of discussion.
Strangely enough in Germany most of the literature about the First
World War involves what the Germans did in the First World War!!
And in the land of the free(and the home of the brave)one hears/reads
stories of how the War began in April 1917 and ended shortly after
Gary Cooper captured the Kaiser. If you are a fan of American "historian"
John Mosier you might have some unusual views to go with that.
The Memory of Gallipoli is central to the National Identities of
Australia and New Zealand and Vimy Ridge is to Canada.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

warspite1

But this is more of a problem with history generally.

So I love history - and military history in particular.

But that is unusual when I look at the majority of people I meet.

Of those that are interested, there are many who are interested in a specific time or event - and that interest is likely to be for a reason - perhaps a personal link to the event or what ever - and which narrows the field further.

As my interest in WWII has grown I have moved into other theatres - I have read a lot on the Eastern Front (No British involvement), one of my favourite books read in the last 5 years was on the Nomonhan Campaign (No British involvement), and I have also been reading quite a bit on Guadalcanal (a small Commonwealth involvement). But these are not areas I focussed on in my early years of exploration. Frankly I was more interested in what Britain was doing, and people like my Uncle who was in the thick of it. That doesn't make the Eastern Front or the Pacific Campaign or the Far East unimportant - it just reflects where I come from.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: wings7

Chickenboy, your response is very good and thought provoking! But, prefacing it with "stupid" almost made be not read your response and is not necessary...

OK. That's what I felt though.

I struggled to understand this writer's point. Gallipoli isn't so special. Unless you're Australian, in which it's OK to feel that way because of your nation's unique perspective. The 'loyal Aussie' led by wicked Pom generals approach is OK, unless you're not into that-in which case it's bollocks. Mel Gibson drinks too much and is an anti-semite. Great. Very informative.

While his points regarding Gallipoli not being particularly unusual in terms of the carnage involved were well taken, the total body count really doesn't mean anything about a battle's cultural significance. Compared to Palau/Pelilieu, Guadalcanal was a cake walk in terms of KIA. But for the first two years of the war, Guadalcanal was a signal home front victory for our land forces in the Pacific. At Guadalcanal, we lost some 1,600 men. Between Attu and Kiska, we lost over 1,000. When compared to the Ardennes campaign, where we lost some 19,000 KIA, should these other 'lesser bloody' campaigns be forgotten?

True, the Daily Beast's reporting of casualty figures and superlative descriptions of the campaign were not met by objective fact. But the author seemed more interested in crying foul about the Daily Beast's method of reporting than he was in making a cogent, concise and consistent point.

My take-home message? Don't rely on bloggers with an axe to grind or the Daily Beast for military history lessons.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

Aye. It certainly makes the historical narrative more personal when one has 'skin in the game', doesn't it?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

Aye. It certainly makes the historical narrative more personal when one has 'skin in the game', doesn't it?

Aye. But the point I failed to make is that many are uninterested unless there is at least one fellow country man involved.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As my interest in WWII has grown I have moved into other theatres - I have read a lot on the Eastern Front (No British involvement), one of my favourite books read in the last 5 years was on the Nomonhan Campaign (No British involvement), and I have also been reading quite a bit on Guadalcanal (a small Commonwealth involvement). But these are not areas I focussed on in my early years of exploration. Frankly I was more interested in what Britain was doing, and people like my Uncle who was in the thick of it. That doesn't make the Eastern Front or the Pacific Campaign or the Far East unimportant - it just reflects where I come from.

I feel this way as well. My earlier interests in the ETO of WWII have, in last dozen years or so, shifted to the PTO. I've sought out more information about China's involvement in the Second World War and have even branched out to some WWI books ("Castles of Steel").

I can't 'get into' WWI, Vietnam or the American Civil War very much from an historical curiosity perspective either. For Vietnam and the ACW, the political machinations poison my battlefield interest. The thought of Americans slaughtering Americans still turns my stomach-I'd just as soon forget that terrible period. Seriously. WWI was largely a European war and an exercise in generational slaughter writ large. There's not a lot of interest on my part reading about countless waves of poor chaps going 'over the top' getting machine gunned, gassed or hit by artillery shrapnel.

I guess (according to the author) that I'm only "allowed" to follow the most bloody battles of the bloodiest wars in which we've been involved. Everything else is a non-sequitur and not worthy of remembrance.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

Aye. It certainly makes the historical narrative more personal when one has 'skin in the game', doesn't it?

Aye. But the point I failed to make is that many are uninterested unless there is at least one fellow country man involved.

You made this point, Orm. I get it.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

warspite1

But this is more of a problem with history generally.

So I love history - and military history in particular.

But that is unusual when I look at the majority of people I meet.

Of those that are interested, there are many who are interested in a specific time or event - and that interest is likely to be for a reason - perhaps a personal link to the event or what ever - and which narrows the field further.

As my interest in WWII has grown I have moved into other theatres - I have read a lot on the Eastern Front (No British involvement), one of my favourite books read in the last 5 years was on the Nomonhan Campaign (No British involvement), and I have also been reading quite a bit on Guadalcanal (a small Commonwealth involvement). But these are not areas I focussed on in my early years of exploration. Frankly I was more interested in what Britain was doing, and people like my Uncle who was in the thick of it. That doesn't make the Eastern Front or the Pacific Campaign or the Far East unimportant - it just reflects where I come from.

I think that most, or all, here have a much wider history interest than most.

[danlongman]

Gallipoli is very interesting because of its potential and its overreach.
It could have opened the Black Sea and blown out the Central Power's southern
flank, even though the subsequent operations in Salonika (the biggest self maintained
prison camp of the War) may give the lie to this. It was just beyond the reach
of the strongest and most technically advanced Nation in the conflict and they
missed by a hair.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am wondering if the majority of people today can be interested in other nations history.

Sometimes I get a feeling that a historical event is only interesting enough if a fellow country man was involved.

warspite1

But this is more of a problem with history generally.

So I love history - and military history in particular.

But that is unusual when I look at the majority of people I meet.

Of those that are interested, there are many who are interested in a specific time or event - and that interest is likely to be for a reason - perhaps a personal link to the event or what ever - and which narrows the field further.

As my interest in WWII has grown I have moved into other theatres - I have read a lot on the Eastern Front (No British involvement), one of my favourite books read in the last 5 years was on the Nomonhan Campaign (No British involvement), and I have also been reading quite a bit on Guadalcanal (a small Commonwealth involvement). But these are not areas I focussed on in my early years of exploration. Frankly I was more interested in what Britain was doing, and people like my Uncle who was in the thick of it. That doesn't make the Eastern Front or the Pacific Campaign or the Far East unimportant - it just reflects where I come from.

I think that most, or all, here have a much wider history interest than most.

True. But even within this unusual community, people still have their preferences and 'comfort zones'.

[Orm]

Unfortunately. In order to tell a story today there is a tendency to change facts so that more are interested in that story.