| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?
    Posted: 24 May 2016 at 15:47
Anzacs won the Battle of Gallipoli but due to strategic and political reasons military censorship kept this victory as a secret. 

Below book provides the evidences gathered from Anzac/European/American archives. You can compare with best seller expensive books which tell nothing but official manipulated stories. There is many other facts hidden together with Anzac victory. This is a must read book...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Victory-Anzacs-Gallipoli/dp/0995459304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463171876&sr=8-1&keywords=the+hidden+victory+of+anzacs
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2016 at 16:02
Gallipoli was a campaign involving forces other than the Australians, not a single battle. I agree they had a hand in victories there - inescapable as they were a majority force in the campaign - but that does not mean they deserve sole credit. Revisionist history always attempts to make claims like these but the evidence is no more objective than the original or traditional view, because the writer generally starts with a premis and looks for evidence to support it - and as any responsible scientist will tell you, that's the worst possible way to seek a conclusion.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2016 at 16:55
Well, book definitely credits all the sides but the major land operations had been performed by ANZACs... This is not a revisionist work actually. It tells whole history about the Battle of Gallipoli is simply a lie told for the sake of policymakers future plans.

Actually, it was not a premise which ignited this research but the evidences opened the way for the fact to come to light...

judging such a serious work without reading would be a fatal mistake for anyone who wants to learn truth.

Your ideas would be highly appreciated if you could read it.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 00:15
Gallipoli for us Australians is indeed remembered as a defeat. But a glorious and heroic one, in very similar sentiments to how the Serbs remember the Battle of Kosovo.

Without having to go purchase and read this book, I'll discuss the event anyway. As caldrail rightly points out, this campaign consisted of other allies besides the Australians - New Zealanders, British, French, British Indians and others.

It's hard to understand how anyone could view the events at Gallipoli as a victory for the Australians in anything other than a demonstration of courage and as a source of pride for the nation. Besides that it was a tactical defeat, and more importantly it failed to achieve its strategic objectives of opening up a route to Russia to win the war on the Eastern Front.

Despite a large numerical superiority, the Allies also failed to inflict losses on the Central Powers forces which could be considered productive to the ghastly policy of victory through attrition.

I don't see how Gallipoli can be considered a defeat in anything other than a moral test of the Australians' courage and tenacity.


Edited by Constantine XI - 25 May 2016 at 00:17
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 03:18
Galipoli was a debacle forced on Australian, New Zealand and other forces by our British overlords. They were considered expendable. But, regardless of the outcome Galipoli has become a part of the Australian and New Zealand psyche as an event which forged the ANZAC name in blood as tenacious and brave soldiers.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 10:42
The problem with the Gallipoli operation was the amateurish way it was organised. No-one had any experience of large scale amphibious landings and it showed. The troops were initially supposed to be landed covertly to avoid alerting Turkish/german defence, but the story goes that Australians climbing down the rope ladders in the dark got a little tangled. Harsh worlds were used. A Royal Navy officer leant over the side and ordered the men to be silent. "We're not @:@:@ng trapeze artists mate!" came back the cautic reply.

The Royal Navy incidentially had problems of their own. The plan called for a deep penetration to secure the Straits, an operation that failed to make headway. Also, despite some early attempts at aerial recconaisance, the operation was planned with maps that in some cases dated back to the 1850's. Further, it ought to be remembered that artillery, or even naval gunnery for that matter, had not yet evolved the techniques for positional targeting and relied on 'line of sight' (This skill was developed in the mid war period and used to good effect before the wars end on the Western Front).

In fact, plans for securing the Dardanelles had been in place and reviewed for up to twenty years previously, but none of these were either well constructed nor in the event conducted with any flair. Although the Australians are particularly vocal about the failings of this operation (well, you have to admit, they did have a reason), it's hard to believe they could have done any better themselves.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 12:02
This is correct but the outcome of the war contains so much knowledge which is unknown to you at the moment, I believe it would contribute to your consciousness a lot.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Galipoli was a debacle forced on Australian, New Zealand and other forces by our British overlords. They were considered expendable. But, regardless of the outcome Galipoli has become a part of the Australian and New Zealand psyche as an event which forged the ANZAC name in blood as tenacious and brave soldiers.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 12:12
Caldrail, those are all the excuses used by military censorship historians to cover the success of the Gallipoli operation. Inside book, you will find a then Top Secret Naval Intelligence plan which outlines the what sort of operation must be executed. And all the evidences I have provided definitely proves that this plan has been applied. Forcing the straits was never a matter for Allies... Russians never needed straits to be open. Actually hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers could have been transferred to Europe easily... 

The plans for Gallipoli were well prepared. Even the naval ships had been constructed according to the nature of the operation. The tests of the technology used during the Battle started at the beginning of the century.

I can go on like this 320 pages:))


Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

The problem with the Gallipoli operation was the amateurish way it was organised. No-one had any experience of large scale amphibious landings and it showed. The troops were initially supposed to be landed covertly to avoid alerting Turkish/german defence, but the story goes that Australians climbing down the rope ladders in the dark got a little tangled. Harsh worlds were used. A Royal Navy officer leant over the side and ordered the men to be silent. "We're not @:@:@ng trapeze artists mate!" came back the cautic reply.

The Royal Navy incidentially had problems of their own. The plan called for a deep penetration to secure the Straits, an operation that failed to make headway. Also, despite some early attempts at aerial recconaisance, the operation was planned with maps that in some cases dated back to the 1850's. Further, it ought to be remembered that artillery, or even naval gunnery for that matter, had not yet evolved the techniques for positional targeting and relied on 'line of sight' (This skill was developed in the mid war period and used to good effect before the wars end on the Western Front).

In fact, plans for securing the Dardanelles had been in place and reviewed for up to twenty years previously, but none of these were either well constructed nor in the event conducted with any flair. Although the Australians are particularly vocal about the failings of this operation (well, you have to admit, they did have a reason), it's hard to believe they could have done any better themselves.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 12:20
You remember it as defeat because you were told that it was defeat. As a I answered Caldrail, RUssian route was not needed from the straits... Actually I have showed evidence that Russians by themselves mined the Bosphorus strait... Do you think that this is the action of an isolated country:)
No all the excuses are groundless.. And I have proved all of these with your own evidences... There is nothing foreign for you...


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Gallipoli for us Australians is indeed remembered as a defeat. But a glorious and heroic one, in very similar sentiments to how the Serbs remember the Battle of Kosovo.

Without having to go purchase and read this book, I'll discuss the event anyway. As caldrail rightly points out, this campaign consisted of other allies besides the Australians - New Zealanders, British, French, British Indians and others.

It's hard to understand how anyone could view the events at Gallipoli as a victory for the Australians in anything other than a demonstration of courage and as a source of pride for the nation. Besides that it was a tactical defeat, and more importantly it failed to achieve its strategic objectives of opening up a route to Russia to win the war on the Eastern Front.

Despite a large numerical superiority, the Allies also failed to inflict losses on the Central Powers forces which could be considered productive to the ghastly policy of victory through attrition.

I don't see how Gallipoli can be considered a defeat in anything other than a moral test of the Australians' courage and tenacity.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 16:07
Originally posted by Robohistorian Robohistorian wrote:

You remember it as defeat because you were told that it was defeat. As a I answered Caldrail, RUssian route was not needed from the straits... Actually I have showed evidence that Russians by themselves mined the Bosphorus strait... Do you think that this is the action of an isolated country:)
No all the excuses are groundless.. And I have proved all of these with your own evidences... There is nothing foreign for you...


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Gallipoli for us Australians is indeed remembered as a defeat. But a glorious and heroic one, in very similar sentiments to how the Serbs remember the Battle of Kosovo.

Without having to go purchase and read this book, I'll discuss the event anyway. As caldrail rightly points out, this campaign consisted of other allies besides the Australians - New Zealanders, British, French, British Indians and others.

It's hard to understand how anyone could view the events at Gallipoli as a victory for the Australians in anything other than a demonstration of courage and as a source of pride for the nation. Besides that it was a tactical defeat, and more importantly it failed to achieve its strategic objectives of opening up a route to Russia to win the war on the Eastern Front.

Despite a large numerical superiority, the Allies also failed to inflict losses on the Central Powers forces which could be considered productive to the ghastly policy of victory through attrition.

I don't see how Gallipoli can be considered a defeat in anything other than a moral test of the Australians' courage and tenacity.

Well if the Russians did mine the Bosphorus strait, I would assume they did indeed do this on their own. I don't see how the Western Allies could have assisted them in a clandestine manner by sneaking past the Turkish capital, nor do I think they forced the strait to assist the Russians mining the strait.

I'll entertain your claim of Bosphorus mining in the spirit of intellectual curiosity. How do you propose the Russian Black Sea fleet accomplished this? Could not the Russians have mined the Bosphorus after the failure of the Gallipoli campaign?

Also, you speak of Gallipoli being a victory. What, in the context of these events, is your definition of what victory is?
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 17:54
Constantine... 
Russians did mine the Bosphorus strait because the main objective of the whole operation including The Battle of Gallipoli and the Black sea war, was to destroy Ottoman forces. And they did this to isolate Ottoman Navies inside the sea of Marmara so that Allied submarines could have hunt them there easily which they did. 

Russians mined the strait at the same time as Allied fleet was attacking Ottoman Forts and soldiers in Gallipoli... So this definitely refutes the claim that Allies were trying to open the straits. 

And the Battle of Gallipoli did start much before than you know... It is a long issue and examined in the book in depth.

The battle of Gallipoli was a victory because all the objectives of ANZAC and allied forces have been reached...

Military censorship used withdrawal from the Gallipoli as a defeat but in fact ANZAC forces have been replaced with another military force which you are totally unaware of for the time being. As ANZACs moved to another front close to Gallipoli, this new force which remained hidden until my book landed on Gallipoli...

It is such a big, multi-dimensioned and complex military operation, quite difficult to grasp with my small answers... But I hope my answers help to clear some of the questions about the viability of my findings.

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 20:47
I know that you have provided a link to amazon, but why don't you also provide the bibliographical information in case anyone wants to request it from their local library? 
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 22:52
Name of The book    : "The Hidden Victory of Anzacs:Gallipoli"
ISBN                       : 978-0995459304
Author             :Sanai Burak Turna
Place of Publication: London
Date of Publication : May,2016
Nielsen book data registration is active
A CIP catalogue is available from British Library.


Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I know that you have provided a link to amazon, but why don't you also provide the bibliographical information in case anyone wants to request it from their local library? 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2016 at 23:18
Thanks, robohistorian. I may check this book out and entertain its contents in detail as the way you have explained it appears logical. And because I am someone who is all too aware that so much of what we are told in the media and official histories can often be downright mendacious.

Naturally I will reserve judgement on the merits of the book until I have studied its claims and supporting evidence in more detail. But it does sound interesting.

If you are seeking wide public acceptance I think you will have an uphill battle - just a friendly bit of advice. You will have establishment historians whose entire lives have rested on purveying the truth of a drastically different narrative coming out to slam your work. All of that surrounding what two nations of people regard as their countries' 'baptism of fire'.

On the other hand, I suspect many of those same citizens would readily warm to the idea of their heroic defeat being an heroic victory Smile


Edited by Constantine XI - 25 May 2016 at 23:20
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2016 at 15:16
The plans filed from the turn of 20th century called for a naval penetration to secure the Straits, but that did not require a channel open to the Russians (largely because these earlier plans had been filed with Russian opposition in mind). The idea was to control the Straits, which in the event was impossible because however well laid out, the plans had not catered for mines, Turkish artillery, and so forth. At any event, this part of the operation did not succeed.

Quote Caldrail, those are all the excuses used by military censorship historians to cover the success of the Gallipoli operation.

Who is kidding who? The operation failed. We know why the operation failed. The landings had not forseen prepared defences or waiting defenders, had relied on maps that were out of date, sometimes excessively so, and it remains a fact that amphibious landings were not the kind of operation practised by anyone at this stage of military development. It has nothing to do with excuses or cover-ups - Churchill was condemned for his handling of this episode and rightly so.

I have no idea which book you're referring to but I am old enough to have spoken with family members who were there.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2016 at 18:52
@Caldrail:

You are quite correct in what you've written, and besides that, who but an idiot would land troops on a very small beach at the bottom of cliffs, well guarded by the enemy?

Apparently they weren't supposed to be landed there, but further down the coast, someone stuffed up bigtime, but as I said, it didn't matter much, they were only colonials.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2016 at 19:35
Thanks Constantine, this would be awesome. And it would make the discussion much more interesting. And I know it is a very difficult thing to tell whole public what they knew was wrong. Because after a time knowledge turns to be belief and prejudgment. For me, it is so rewarding to be able to tell the truth. As a writer, this is the most satisfactory part of my profession... There is a great deal of ineterst from Australian historians to the book, so hopefully soon we will have some reviews or thoughts from academicians. But for an academician it is very hard to question a knowledge because they establish a carrier on this knowledge. If they question it, they feel they are threatening their own carrier..

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Thanks, robohistorian. I may check this book out and entertain its contents in detail as the way you have explained it appears logical. And because I am someone who is all too aware that so much of what we are told in the media and official histories can often be downright mendacious.

Naturally I will reserve judgement on the merits of the book until I have studied its claims and supporting evidence in more detail. But it does sound interesting.

If you are seeking wide public acceptance I think you will have an uphill battle - just a friendly bit of advice. You will have establishment historians whose entire lives have rested on purveying the truth of a drastically different narrative coming out to slam your work. All of that surrounding what two nations of people regard as their countries' 'baptism of fire'.

On the other hand, I suspect many of those same citizens would readily warm to the idea of their heroic defeat being an heroic victory Smile
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2016 at 19:46
Controlling the straits was never an objective because in 1915 already the control of straits was in the hands of Allies...Since 1911...(You will be amazed to learn a tone of information about its background.)

Allies know very well what kind of preparations they would face... Even 20-30 strong marine parties were able to land on Gallipoli and march a few miles inland withouth being interrupted. You dont know anything about Ottoman defence policies, because no one informed you about it till now. I have provided vast info about Ottoman defence philosophy and structure... It is a well hidden info, even the Turkish historians do not know it. Having seen my evidences, they simply block me so They dont have to discuss with me...:)

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

The plans filed from the turn of 20th century called for a naval penetration to secure the Straits, but that did not require a channel open to the Russians (largely because these earlier plans had been filed with Russian opposition in mind). The idea was to control the Straits, which in the event was impossible because however well laid out, the plans had not catered for mines, Turkish artillery, and so forth. At any event, this part of the operation did not succeed.

Quote Caldrail, those are all the excuses used by military censorship historians to cover the success of the Gallipoli operation.

Who is kidding who? The operation failed. We know why the operation failed. The landings had not forseen prepared defences or waiting defenders, had relied on maps that were out of date, sometimes excessively so, and it remains a fact that amphibious landings were not the kind of operation practised by anyone at this stage of military development. It has nothing to do with excuses or cover-ups - Churchill was condemned for his handling of this episode and rightly so.

I have no idea which book you're referring to but I am old enough to have spoken with family members who were there.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2016 at 19:48
There was such an impotant technological reason about landing places... ANZAC forces have been landed at the bottom of the cliffs for a very important mission which was explained  in full detail... As I said all the explanations supported with ANZAC and Western sources.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

@Caldrail:

You are quite correct in what you've written, and besides that, who but an idiot would land troops on a very small beach at the bottom of cliffs, well guarded by the enemy?

Apparently they weren't supposed to be landed there, but further down the coast, someone stuffed up bigtime, but as I said, it didn't matter much, they were only colonials.


Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2016 at 13:01
I wish to share an evidence from the book...Who is Ottoman? Who is Turkey?
Any explanation? Year is... 1913...

1 April 1913... From an article... Bulgaria insists upon an indemnity being paid by Turkey if she is to be responsible for a portion of the Ottoman debt


Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2016 at 21:28
A paragraph from the book...

"Yes, a battlefield might be a place of heroism, emotions and bravery stories but at the same time, it is a mathematical surface on which the rules of math and other sciences persist since war could also be described as being a collection of algorithms, points, lines, functions and formulas that connect them." 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 May 2016 at 02:55
Robohistorian:
You wrote
Quote There was such an impotant technological reason about landing places... ANZAC forces have been landed at the bottom of the cliffs for a very important mission which was explained  in full detail... As I said all the explanations supported with ANZAC and Western sources.

I can't accept your view of Galipoli. It was a planning farce.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 May 2016 at 10:09
If you accept my view without seeing my work, it would not be a healthy acceptance. My view are supported with a book. It is serious.


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Robohistorian:
You wrote
Quote There was such an impotant technological reason about landing places... ANZAC forces have been landed at the bottom of the cliffs for a very important mission which was explained  in full detail... As I said all the explanations supported with ANZAC and Western sources.

I can't accept your view of Galipoli. It was a planning farce.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 May 2016 at 16:03
Quote You are quite correct in what you've written, and besides that, who but an idiot would land troops on a very small beach at the bottom of cliffs, well guarded by the enemy?

Considering how bad the charts were it's a wonder they found a beach at all. Further, Hamilton wrote orders in a style that was confusing, with every option given, thus open to interpretation.

As it happens, the German running the defences, Liman Von Sanders, was well aware of the risks that the allies might land troops to force the straits and yet had a strange obsession with protecting one individual beach, for no apparent reason.

Quote Apparently they weren't supposed to be landed there, but further down the coast, someone stuffed up bigtime, but as I said, it didn't matter much, they were only colonials.

Excuse me?

With all due respect Toyomotor, but that sort of argument is rubbish. I don't know why Australians and new zealanders have these hangups other than those who voice these opinions identify with their homeland rather than the colonial power of the time, but what use is an army that does not survive or deploy in the right place? Of course they mattered. It was the campaign as whole that was seen as a military adventure too far, and one none too well organised at that. Whoever was involved would have gotten off to a bad start.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 May 2016 at 18:01
You can not believe how far you are from truth... You just dont know how history was tweaked. Without reading my book, you will always be in dark.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2016 at 14:49
That's opinion, not fact. I have read plenty of books that deal with the campaign in question - I have no reason to believe that yours would be any better simply because it says something different, and if I read you right, you wrote the book to state a view, not to objectively recount the events of the time.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 May 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2016 at 19:27
No, this is not a view. I am proving every sentence I have written with evidences. My view came into being from the evidences. Otherwise, no one can have such a view suddenly. There is not even one subjective view inside the book. Actually, I am almost non-existent. You and the evidences...
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2016 at 12:18
Evidence? All you've offered is opinion.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2016 at 16:12
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Evidence? All you've offered is opinion.

I agree. 

As a Primary SchoolStudent more than 60yrs ago, I was taught abut the First World War and the part that Australians and our brother New Zealanders played in the various battles.

As a Reservist for 28yrs, I maintained interest in the conflicts in which Australia has been involved since federation in 1901. I have no reason to believe that what I was taught, and what I have learned over a lifetime is "revisionist" or anything other than the truth.

I'm gaining the impression that what Robo is pedalling is in fact another version of revisionist history.

Many historians over the past 100 odd years have reported on how the "colonials" were used during both World Wars, including how Churchill wanted to keep the ANZACS in North Africa during WW2, despite the fact that Australia was under real threat from Japan.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2016 at 10:38
Nothing unusual there. The joke in 1940 was that Churchill wanted to fight to the last American. But then he was as manipulative of British assets as well, so there's no real need for any grievance. In any case, Churchill, for all his leadership in WW2, was never popular. Indeed, he narrowly avoided being pushed aside in favour of Lord Halifax before becoming British Prime Minister of the emergency coalition, survived at least one vote of no-confidence, suffered a measure of public disapproval of his office, and was voted out as soon as the war ended.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.