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