Lest we forget

[Opalserpent Profile]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30630.html

I was most disturbed when I read about this young journalists research into gallipoli
and what he found.

This post has been resurrected from partition death.

Below information from above link:

Despite the discomfort the near-abuse brings when I float this idea, I have been unable to put my particular suspicions to rest for there has been something compelling in some elements of the circumstantial evidence that leads me on to further document digging. But difficulties lie in the fact that not all Gallipoli documents seem to be present in Britain's National Archives. There are gaps in document collections of certain events and at crucial times of the campaign.

However, a number of years ago I came across information that revealed a treaty, secret at the time, was agreed in February-March 1915 between the British government and the Tzarist government in Russia. By the treaty the British and French Governments promised that on the conclusion of a successful campaign against the Turkish Ottoman Empire and its defeat that there would be annexation to Russia "of the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles; Southern Thrace up to the line of Enos-Midia; the coast of Asia Minor between the Bosphorus, the River Sakaria and a point along Ismit Bay; subject to latter determination the islands of Imbros and Tenedos..."

The British motivation in agreeing to this was to keep their increasingly reluctant ally, Russia, in the war. By ensuring this in keeping the Eastern Front in operation, thousands of German troops would be kept away from the Western Front.

Russia had been soundly defeated towards the end of 1914 at the Battle of Tannenburg and was considering seeking an armistice with Germany. Moreover it had suffered a bloody nose inflicted by the Ottoman army in the snows of the Caucasus at the Battle of Sarikamis, even though the Ottoman army was eventually decimated by the blizzards. In January 1915 Russia was insisting on Allied help against the Turks.

The British and French found Russia's demise a grave prospect and sought to find ways to keep her in the war. Of all reasons given for the Dardanelles Campaign the threat of a second German army from the east arriving on the Western Front, the epicentre of the conflict, would be the most serious blow to the Allies.

But Churchill's idea to attack the Ottoman Empire via the Dardanelles was not supported by everyone in the War Cabinet and the military. 'Western Fronters' believed all resources should go to offensives in France and the Baltic but the Russian request for more effort against the Ottomans and the subsequent treaty, insisted on by the Russians, gave the Dardanelles supporters their trump card.

The result was the doomed Dardanelles Campaign - the attempt by British and French navies to force the Straits and assault Istanbul and the following military adventure of the Gallipoli Campaign. The point of interest of these events then is that, on a successful outcome, the ceding of Istanbul et al to Russia, as described would take place. The carrot without the stick.

The existence of the treaty is striking for it overturned nearly 200 years of British foreign policy, which had opposed a Russian presence in the Mediterranean and any advance of Russian hegemony into the Ottoman Empire's possessions. As recently as the 1850s, the Crimean War was fought against the Russians over this very issue.

Britain was increasingly concerned that Russia was proving a threat to its imperial routes and possessions in the Indian Ocean and eastwards, especially after the completion of the Suez Canal. To allow Russia the outcomes of the 1915 secret treaty, including a Russian fleet in the Mediterranean (an anathema to the French), made no long term strategic sense.

It then occurred to me that the under-resourcing, informing the enemy five months in advance of the intention to attack, the hurried and inadequate planning, the overly complicated landing plan on exposed and difficult beaches with no initial massive bombardments to pulverise enemy defences, selection of the most incompetent and timid commanders for a difficult operation and apparent constant bungling that characterised the Allied conduct of the campaign may be attributed to something more than ineptitude.

My detractors on this issue, however, tell me I should never dismiss incompetence in military defeats. But such a consistent level of stupidity? Respected Australian military historian, Professor Robin Prior, in his new book, Gallipoli, the end of a myth, lists a series of decisions and events that he describes as puzzling or incomprehensible.

These become less puzzling if the intention of the operations is to guarantee a stalemate and maintain a campaign as 'demonstration' rather than a successful invasion. The desired result will be the same without the need to deliver on promises. Two hundred years or so of British and French foreign policy, which include support for the Ottoman Empire against Russia, make it clear that the Allies would try anything to stop Russia gaining Istanbul and the Bosphorus.

In a memorandum about the impending Gallipoli Campaign in March 1915, the British Asquith government knowingly stated that "Russia alone, will, if the war is successful, gather the fruits of these operations".

One interpretation of this is to conclude that the Anzacs, along with their British, French and Indian brothers-in-arms were deceived into fighting, dying and getting maimed at Gallipoli, not for Britain and France, but for the despotic Russian Tzarist regime.

Another interpretation is to see the deception as actually succeeding in keeping Russia in the war and in this way serving British and French interests on the Western Front, but at a cost of over 10,000 Anzac lives.


So there you have it, Australian soldiers slaughtered like bargaining chips.

Lest we forget, we sure like to glorify our Anzacs, if only we knew why our soldiers died.

[RATRODROB Profile]

thanks OPAL, eye opening indeed.

unfortunately, all through history, soldiers go to war believing they are doing the patriotic thing and fight for their countries.

every time i hav a meal at the RSL the bugler starts at 6pm, we all stand and honor the fallen heros who fought for australia, it always brings a tear to my eye, its so wrong for governments to send people to die to serve their wicked agendas.

its still happening now of course in afghanistan, iraq and the like, but alot of people are waking up i feel and people are starting to fight their own governments and are asking more questions than ever, i dont know if thats a good thing or not but on a personal level, id rather fight a corrupt government at home than fight a dirty war in another country for a corrupt government.

sorry OPAL i dont know where im going with this, it just started comn out.

thanks again for the depressing read, haha lol

[Opalserpent Profile]

thanks OPAL, eye opening indeed.

unfortunately, all through history, soldiers go to war believing they are doing the patriotic thing and fight for their countries.

every time i hav a meal at the RSL the bugler starts at 6pm, we all stand and honor the fallen heros who fought for australia, it always brings a tear to my eye, its so wrong for governments to send people to die to serve their wicked agendas.

its still happening now of course in afghanistan, iraq and the like, but alot of people are waking up i feel and people are starting to fight their own governments and are asking more questions than ever, i dont know if thats a good thing or not but on a personal level, id rather fight a corrupt government at home than fight a dirty war in another country for a corrupt government.

sorry OPAL i dont know where im going with this, it just started comn out.

thanks again for the depressing read, haha lol

Thanks for the reply Ratrodrob, it's hard not to feel angry at the real reasons
behind conflict.
Be it for oil or opium or simply the spoils of war.


Any Australian that die's overseas for our country deserves recognition.

If they knew their campaign was doomed I'm sure they would be pissed.

RIP

[Flipper Profile]

Considering that brave Aussie men and women were prepared to die for a country that they believed in. Often being used as the spear head for campaigns where they were regarded as little more than cannon fodder. During not only WW1 but also WW2 and till this very day. To be treated like they are by the governments makes me sick.

[RATRODROB Profile]

Considering that brave Aussie men and women were prepared to die for a country that they believed in. Often being used as the spear head for campaigns where they were regarded as little more than cannon fodder. During not only WW1 but also WW2 and till this very day. To be treated like they are by the governments makes me sick.

here here

[Flecktarn Profile]

gallipoli was a disaster and ill conceived ,with those who planned it knowing it was a lost cause ,lives wasted for rich men's games