PeteY

Firstly, i do not intend ANY disrespect by posting this, I am just trying to understand the history, and reasons behind the Australians/Kiwis and the rememberance of Gallipoli.

I've read several books on the subject, but i am still slightly at a loss as to why this battle was remembered so by the Australians and New Zealanders. Looking at numbers of casualties alone, Gallipoli did'nt have numbers of losses for ANZACS in other battles, such as the Western front, where some 45000 Anzacs were lost. Here are some numbers from the Gallipoli battle.

Australia: 18,500 wounded and missing - 7,594 killed.
New Zealand : 5,150 wounded and missing - 2,431 killed.
British Empire (excl. Anzac) : 198,000 wounded and missing - 22,000 killed.
France : 23,000 wounded and missing - 27,000 killed.
Ottoman Empire (Turkey) : 109,042 wounded and missing - 57,084 killed.
Furthermore 1.700 Indians died in Gallipoli, plus an unknown number of Germans, Newfoundlanders and Senegalese.

I do NOT want to get into a conversation as to who was to blame for the losses etc, i simply wonder why this above all other historical battles is remembered and refered to so often. Thousands of Australians and Kiwis travel to the site of the battle each year, yet few travel to Pozières or the somme for the same purpose.

seang

PeteY

Interesting post - if you have Australia -A biography of a nation(Phillip Knightley) and I have a feeling you would have it -I think pages 64-74 give a good insight into how this battle became the most remembered and refered to.
I could try to put my words to what it says but I think (as we all know)we can try to say one thing and somebody else will jump on it and this thread would turn in to an argument for no reason at all.As you say :

Kentish Man

I think the Aussies played a more prominent role in this battle than many on the western front. The loss of life here seemed particuarly pointless with nothing gained. As Brits we remember the Battle of the Somme and with 60,000 casualties on the first day alone it's not surprising. But again with this battle it was the sense that the whole thing was even more pointless with nothing to show than other battles of the war.

tiredwithtwins

I think one of the reasons was because,as Kentish Man said, the pointless loss of life - the soldiers kept being sent to the front line just to be gunned down instantly, but because communications could not get through there was no way they could retreat - they just had to keep sending over wave after wave of men who all died pointlessly.
Very sad

sue

jandjuk

very interesting question.... as a kiwi I can shamefully say I really have no idea....

I know the story of gallipoli but I know little about other battles the nzers were involved in.

The only reason I can think of is there was a movie about it! which is probably a pretty good reason - seeing as I've never read any books about wwI or II....

perhaps it's just been latched on to as symbolic of nz/aus's involvement in the wars in general...? i dunno

tiredwithtwins

I have just done a jeeves search under 'gallipoli' and it brought up a lot of sites - very interesting subject which I shall start reading up on.

dracupg

Found an interesting article on this here. The upshot is that Gallipoli is seen as the first real battle undertaken by Australia as a sovereign nation in its own right.

Even though it was a dissaster, the character of the troops during the campaign has been used as a benchmark to aspire to as a nation.

Or something of that ilk.

http://www.focusmm.com/anzac_02.htm

kentcoast

Firstly I''ve got to echo Seang's comment, the 'Biography of a Nation' book is a must-read on the subject.

Certainly when you look at the figures there were more remarkable parts of the war. But I think it's the folklore that's grown up around peoples view of the 'spirit of the diggers' and the all important 'mateship' that's associated more with Gallipoli than anywhere else. After all we have Dunkirk which was, after all another military disaster that is celebrated more for the small stories than the bigger one.

PW

jayr

My understanding is that it was the pointlessness of the deaths and the question of serving wars in far away places directed by the British in particular that served to remind Australia that they were indeed a fledgling nation in their own right and no longer needed to be subservient to the British.

As a Brit, I recommend you research this issue, as you could very easily offend Australians by your lack of knowledge, especially as there remains the idea that it was at least in part the result of serving the British.

ANZAC day here is a much bigger and more solemn afair than Remembrance day in the UK in my opinion. I was at a small town called Redcliffe on ANZAC day and the entire town was out, sitting in the rain, to watch the procession, it was very moving and we paid our respects.

Amazulu

I think a lot of Aussies/Kiwis see it as Imperial Britain sending Colonial troops to be slaughtered instead of British troops, although the facts prove this to be wrong. Maybe a bit of a chip on the shoulder syndrome. Interestingly, we stopped in Ypres two weeks ago on the way back from Bruges & there is a monument there (the Menem Gate, I think) to British & Empire troops whose bodies were never found. Australian losses were huge, 2nd only to the Scots Guards from what we could see. It was very moving.

PeteY

Thankyou for your replies all, some points to ponder.

Amazulu...i've been to Ypres aswell, and it certainly does leave you thinking. The marble wall with names of the known lost alone leaves you feeling very sombre.

renth

Don't forget that all the ANZACs were volunteers too.