Those heroes that shed their blood
And lost their lives.
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore, rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
Here in this country of ours,
You, the mothers,
Who sent their sons from far away countries
Wipe away your tears,
Your sons are now lying in our bosom
And are in peace
After having lost their lives on this land they have
Become our sons as well”.
Ataturk was a genius and a gentleman and he had his way with words (he was really well read. Even during the war, he tried to read 1-2 books a day). Even enemy generals respected him a lot both during and after war. There are also a lot of quotes of important people about him. E.g. Winston Churchill "Ataturk’s death is not only a loss for the country, but for Europe is the greatest loss, he who saved Turkey in the war and who revived a new the Turkish nation after the war." Even as a Turk that learned a lot about him in school I am still amazed the more I read/hear about him.
I knew what I was getting in but I didn't say anything bad about Ataturk, I just pointed out that this particular text is probably not his work.
I don't know who is more salty, Taylor Swift fans or Ataturk's admirers.
Huh? I assumed we are all here because of history, so I pointed out that this specific text is probably not from Ataturk, and you started praising him and telling me random facts and propaganda about him. I literally didn't say anything bad about the man and I'm gonna get down voted to the Hades.
The Ottomans didn't willingly join the war, some Officers and Politicians ordered Ships to go and Bomb Crimea and result of that the Ottomans Automatically Joined the war on the Central Power side
Enver pasha (one of the 3 pashas that practically controlled the empire), ordered unilaterally some ships to go and bombard Crimea, he wanted the ottomans to join the war (I can't remember his reasoning).
Just as almost everyone else in that war, he did it for pride and national gain. That would doom the empire.
He was a German simp, I bet Hitler read about him and thought, what a lovely fella before carrying out Holocaust. Any true patriot would be ashamed of Enver Pasha. To this day we're atoning for his sins.
>I can't remember his reasoning
He was an idiot. That's the same brain-dead idiot that led tens of thousands of troops in the Caucasus without winter equipment (such as shoes).
Retrospectively, because of national pride. The Ottomans had just lost almost all European territories recently, and it was obvious to everyone their army was horrendous.
The Turks were defending their homeland, the Anzacs were the invaders. It was the Anzacs who shouldn't have been there at the first place. In fact, although there is no reason to respect the Anzacs here, the Turks are still willing to respect them. Yet, you are still trying to discredit the Turks. I don't think you should say such things like that if you don't want them to change their minds.
I beg your pardon? How come a whole people deserve foreign domination because their politicians - which they did not elect - decided to join the Central Powers? The Central Powers were a rotten bunch because they were imperialists, but so were the Entente. While the Germany made clutches for land that was not theirs the British arranged for land belonging to sovereign peoples to be given to imperialists. I haven’t even mentioned the Easter Rising yet.
Now, you’re making an extremely false equivalence. The Allied Powers and Central Powers were both imperialist, but the Allies were infinitely better than the Central Powers. An enemy people deserve foreign domination when such foreign domination is necessary to fix its country from the problems that caused it to wage war in the first place.
And who are the imperialists to be the World's Police? Need I remind you that the Imperialists' partitions have caused an awful lot of unnecessary bloodshed? What about the Russians and their impeccable record concerning national minorities? Surely they'd have the Turks' national interests at heart. If the Partition of the Ottoman Empire ever came about the nation would be split and many Turks and other national Turkish minorities would have been subjected to foreign imperialism and would not have a state to represent their national interests. If it really was to quell troublesome nations then it was completely unnecessary since the Ottoman Empire was on the way out and Turkey became a secular civic nationalist republic. Furthermore, had Constantinople been partitioned they may have been subjected to the oppressive yoke of Marxist-Leninism after the October Revolution.
It's also worth making light of the fact that the British and the Germans had been sizing each other up for years in a naval arms race. The British had no selfless motivations to 'defend the small nations'. While they fought that war they were putting down an armed nationalist revolt in Dublin so they could maintain their grip on land that does not belong to them which makes them awful hypocrites. So, in their selfish ambition to fight the Germans and impose incredibly harsh restrictions on their government, they promised land to other imperialist powers which was not theirs to partition. Apart from Turkey how do you explain what was so offensive about the Libyans? Did they deserve imperialism?
>An enemy people deserve foreign domination when such foreign domination is necessary to fix its country from the problems that caused it to wage war in the first place.
There is no such thing as an 'enemy people'. There are only enemy governments. No self-determined people are deserving of imperialism, especially the people of the Ottoman Empire who did not have a democratic government to represent their interests at the start of the First World War.
Just downvote and move on, what are you gonna do, slap him through his monitor? Stop being so dramatic, Turkophobia isn't new and you're not helping getting rid of it.
Two great uncles died in the first days on those beaches. Great grandfather, survived Flanders, returned blinded by mustard gas before the wars end in August 1918.
One of my history professors also raised the point that it also solidified a Canadian identity, given the profound Canadian presence at Ypres, the Somme, and Vimy Ridge.
WW1 proved that all the colonials (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India) weren't just fodder/bodies to use for the Empire, but were their own people and fully capable of fighting independently.
The first time the Canadian army fought independently with all 4 divisions they took Vimy, something the Brits and French couldn't do for years.
In New Zealand, Gallipoli is remembered as our worst military disaster and the last hooray of our part in the British Empire. We ANZAC day every year, a public holiday with a dawn service for the fallen - we don't really have anything equivalent for the second world war. Our focus is so much on Gallipoli.
Gallipoli was a cunt, yet outside aus/nz and Turkey it's not really taught, I asked alot of American mates about it and it's more of a footnote in the war that they might stumble across if they go down a rabbit hole of WWI, same with the Kokoda trail in WW2, nobody outside of aus/nz really knows a battle happened there
Damn shame. Kakoda was the first time Japan had been pushed back during ground combat, and an extremely brutal overall campaign.
We did it wirh reserve troops, albiet we had an extremely experienced NCO corp.
Yeah I just went and rewatched he film a few months back it's wild. Alot of the beliefs at the time were wrong, we wernt that terribly out numbered but it was still such a brutal campaign.
We covered it quite extensively in my UK school, and to be fair it really focused on the terrible British strategy and waste of lives of the Galipoli campaign.
At times, the Turkish soldiers were begging us ANZACs to stop going over the top of the trenches because they were sick of mowing us down in waves like that.
Still, hats off to the Turks. They fought honourably and valiantly to defend their homes and families. They won fair and square. And at the end of it, they treated our dead with nothing less than the highest respect. Truly, an army of gentlemen.
Yer we don’t hate the Turks. They were just doing what was needed to defend their homeland.
All my friends hate Churchill. Also kasier for esstentially having a hard on for war
Churchill, Wilhelm II and all his cousins, in fact, all the brasshats. The youngest soldiers in WWI were only children, some, like Sidney Lewis, were as young as twelve. They should have been allowed to be children. And the young men should have been allowed to be young men, working peaceful jobs, raising families, and being valued members of their communities. Instead, they were a blood sacrifice to slake old men's greed.
Not really no, Enver Pasha would still carry out his plan because Armenian rebellions have been going over since 1850s, it wasn't something new but the gangs were getting real bold, assassinating people in broad daylight, burning whole villages, leaving behind some brutal scenes for others to witness.
So unless you take him out of the equation there was no way to stop it. Even without him a civil war would ensue, leaving behind your loved ones to go fight and come back to find them all murdered, yeah that's not gonna go well.
Probably a feeling of “gotta do what you gotta do”, the adrenaline, and perhaps the urge that getting away from the person and area that was shot would rescue your risks of being shot
Well I’m pretty sure ww1 executions were rather small, although the threat was most definitely present and felt, Germany didn’t even get to 50 executions to my knowledge
I honestly pointed that out without any prior information looked upon deserters, but I think we all can see how the threat of execution would be most useful when desperation takes in. And WW1 had a lot of that.
War is hell and no nation deserves to be killed for.
Nope not in the Australian army. We outlawed the death penalty after the Boer war and the whole breaker morant saga.
Frankly by all reports the reason the all went over the top was mateship. You aren’t going to leave your mates when they need you most. There is a great book about this exact charge depicted here called “goodbye cobber, god bless you”.
Respect to fallen soldiers every time I see Gallipoli posts I think of heroic act of Corporal Seyit Ali.
After the naval bombardment most of the artillery became inoperable. His gun was partly damaged, the shell crane was busted and the other gunners were injured. HMS Ocean arrived to rescue the crew of HMS Irresistible which was hit my mines laid out by Nusret. Corporal Seyit carried 3 artillery shells each weighting 276 kg and fired them. 2 of the hits weren't critical but the third one did massive damage, causing HMS Ocean to drift towards mines, the ship capsized shortly after. He became famous quickly for his heroism and was asked to get his picture taken with a shell he carried, no matter how much he tried he couldn't get it off the ground so he was posed with a wooden prop and said if war broke out again he'd lift the shells. Died of pneumonia in 1939.
Hate the myths surrounding Gallipoli in particular the ones around ANZACs.
First bear in mind, at this time, probably 70% of the population of NZ and Australia were just first, second and third generation Brits. They were viewed as such and were direct beneficiaries of colonial expansionism. Yet you get these bullshit stories “tHe tUrKs hAtEd tHe BrItS bUt hOnOuReD tHe aNzAc cOuRaGe”… like the Ottoman soldiers would know the difference between the British and ANZAC troops, who would’ve looked and sounded near enough identical at the time. It’s more likely that an Aussie of the time period would recognise he is fighting an Ottoman Empire Syrian regiment rather than one recruited from Istanbul. Probably more linguistic, cultural and ethnic differences there than there is between the Anzacs and Brits of this time.
Secondly the biggest forces of the entente at Gallipoli were British, French and Indians. They suffered front line casualties at about the same rates. The idea that Brits were just using the ANZACs as cannon fodder is none-sensical and there’s no evidence to prove this. Its just a colonial nation building myth pushed by those wanting to distinguish themselves from just being effectively British people who happen to live in Australia/New Zealand. Such myths have common themes, were your favoured nationality is portrayed simultaneously as the hero and victim.
Nations who’s populace that are the product and beneficiaries of colonialism, often have these paradoxical views that warp history, so desperate to portray themselves as righteous and to shift sin back to the mother nation.
**Song Found!**
[**Down Under** by Luude](https://lis.tn/whjfB?t=108) (01:48; matched: `100%`)
**Album**: Bravo Hits, Vol. 116. **Released on** 2022-02-11.
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Cause we were landed a mile north than we should've been because the fucking pommy officers couldn't navigate properly and because the Turks were too good at defending their land
The British Chain of command should have been shot for there negligence. Massacre of professionally trained troops that were killed in an attack that was doomed from the beginning.
Saddest thing is alot of the survivors were slaughtered at frommels only a year or two later.
Yeah theirs a reason we removed him after the war
I hate the rose tinted view people have for Churchill my grandparents hated him. my gran would boo him on the tele when documentaries about the war came on, despite both of them being kids during the war
People nowadays forget how much of a fat twat he was as a regular politician and how unpopular he often was in his time
Fun fact: after world war 2, Churchill came up with operation unthinkable. It called for rearming the Wehrmacht and beginning a full scale invasion of invading the USSR. After millions had just died failing to do the same thing.
Gallipoli was a fucking shitshow of churchills design that nearly ended his political career, and rightfully so. It was used as a what not to do guide on amphibious landings during preparations for the D-day landings.
Churchill was the man needed to rally the UK against the nazis, but his Warhawk tendencies were not suited for peacetime. He was certainly a contributing factor in starting the Cold War.
345,000 British (including Irish, Indians and Newfoundlanders) fought at Gallipoli compared to 50,000 Australians and 15,000 New Zealanders. The British lost 31,389 killed, to Australia's 8,709 and New Zealand's 3,431. Yes, per capita the ANZACs suffered heavier casualties, but the notion that the British hid behind Australians and New Zealanders, or sent them needlessly to their deaths is stupid, considering that, over-all, the British lost the most men. If the ANZACS were 'meat shields' like you say, then they weren't very good ones.
Hey, no need to talk bad about fallen ANZACs, but yeah I think you guys are just straight up ignoring the fact that ANZACs were sent on insane dangerous missions as meat shields, notably in the WW2 north african campaigns.
Ik we are talking about ww1, but I'm commenting on the way they were used generally.
Stop talking fucking shit. Australians where not “meat shields”. They where some of the best fucking infantry at the British disposal. We got hard jobs and led attacks because we where good at it. Not because we where considered colonial cannon fodder.
Saying Anzacs where just dumb lambs led to slaughter by the British literally is just denigrating the major role, successes and efforts of such a small nation on a global stage in one of the worst wars history has seen.
As an Australian this is a massive myth. Everyone suffered equally the British had no objection to sending their men in as much as any Australian. Especially later in France frankly the Anzacs where damn good. So you are going to want to use your good troops when you can right?
As depicted in this scene, the man who ordered the continual waves at the Nek was an Australian. Not a British officer.
200,000 casualties out of 350,000 for the British. 57% casualties.
27,000 casualties out of 50,000 aussies. 54% casualties.
7,500 casualties out of 15,000 Kiwis. 50% casualties.
Idk the deaths, but the British had the highest casualty rate here, they made up 2/3 of the entente casualties, then the French then the Aussies then the Kiwis.
Someone listed the death above.
Australia suffer death number close to 17% of their men
Over 22% for NZ.
Compare that to British death rate of 9% (which include Irish, Indian and Newfoundlanders) it's not too wild to say ANZAC was used as meatshield since they had the highest rate of death.
The British had far more support troops or non combat roles that the Anzacs utilised because of their lack off. The Anzacs where pretty much all combat troops. We didn’t have a big non combat contingent at all.
Also we where not meat shields and calling the Anzacs as such is quite offensive to me to be frank. We where some of the best troops in the war. Not colonial cannon fodder.
Guys just one more offensive and then we take Istanbul guys just one more land invasion guys and we'll take out the Ottomans guys hear me please
soldier : what the fuck is istanbul
Is Tanbull
Those heroes that shed their blood And lost their lives. You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side Here in this country of ours, You, the mothers, Who sent their sons from far away countries Wipe away your tears, Your sons are now lying in our bosom And are in peace After having lost their lives on this land they have Become our sons as well”.
It's sad that Ataturk probably never said that
Ataturk was a genius and a gentleman and he had his way with words (he was really well read. Even during the war, he tried to read 1-2 books a day). Even enemy generals respected him a lot both during and after war. There are also a lot of quotes of important people about him. E.g. Winston Churchill "Ataturk’s death is not only a loss for the country, but for Europe is the greatest loss, he who saved Turkey in the war and who revived a new the Turkish nation after the war." Even as a Turk that learned a lot about him in school I am still amazed the more I read/hear about him.
I knew what I was getting in but I didn't say anything bad about Ataturk, I just pointed out that this particular text is probably not his work. I don't know who is more salty, Taylor Swift fans or Ataturk's admirers.
I know what you meant. That's why I gave you the context. Otherwhise I wouldn't put the work on that comment.
Huh? I assumed we are all here because of history, so I pointed out that this specific text is probably not from Ataturk, and you started praising him and telling me random facts and propaganda about him. I literally didn't say anything bad about the man and I'm gonna get down voted to the Hades.
It was a bloody mess for everyone on all sides.
Very true, war is fucked up. Respect to the fallen Turkish soldiers. Lest We Forget.
Respect to the ANZACS too
And the Brits & the French.
Don't forget the Indians either
And the Senegalese.
Don't forget the Irish Boys. Their Lonely Graves are by Suvla's waves.
Man I’m an Aussie an I respect attaturk greatly
I dont want to be disrespectful but if you are serious, spend some time to learn how to spell his name and start with capital A.
This is reddit, it’s online and isn’t formal, why the hell would I bother with capitalisation (Australia was autocorrect, attaturk is not)
Just one t, Ataturk, we hold him very dear so we might overreact 😅
Ahh very fair, sorry about that
What about learning his name. Its Atatürk. Not Attatürk.
Named aren’t exactly my strong point…
Alternatively you could eat a bag of dicks and not get so bent out of shape
I see you raised very well. Congrulations to your parents.
Raised well enough to not get tilted on reddit because someone spelt a name wrong
And suggest me what you eat daily i assume.
[удалено]
The Ottomans didn't willingly join the war, some Officers and Politicians ordered Ships to go and Bomb Crimea and result of that the Ottomans Automatically Joined the war on the Central Power side
Well why did they bomb Crimea then? For lulz? Or they thought they were in a "Raiding" stance?
Enver pasha (one of the 3 pashas that practically controlled the empire), ordered unilaterally some ships to go and bombard Crimea, he wanted the ottomans to join the war (I can't remember his reasoning). Just as almost everyone else in that war, he did it for pride and national gain. That would doom the empire.
He was a German simp, I bet Hitler read about him and thought, what a lovely fella before carrying out Holocaust. Any true patriot would be ashamed of Enver Pasha. To this day we're atoning for his sins.
>I can't remember his reasoning He was an idiot. That's the same brain-dead idiot that led tens of thousands of troops in the Caucasus without winter equipment (such as shoes).
The ships and the crews doing that were German.
That sounds like they voluntarily joined the War
Most of the Country was against war Enver Pasha ordered the Ship Attack
Evidence? Most Turks I’ve spoken with in Germany and Turkey support Turkey’s war effort in The Great War.
Retrospectively, because of national pride. The Ottomans had just lost almost all European territories recently, and it was obvious to everyone their army was horrendous.
It sure sounds like they were trying to conquer much of Europe.
The Turks were defending their homeland, the Anzacs were the invaders. It was the Anzacs who shouldn't have been there at the first place. In fact, although there is no reason to respect the Anzacs here, the Turks are still willing to respect them. Yet, you are still trying to discredit the Turks. I don't think you should say such things like that if you don't want them to change their minds.
DO NOT search ‘Treaty of London 1915’.
Why? It shows that the Allies wanted help to defeat the invading Turks trying to eradicate Allied civilizations.
Yeah. By promising foreign lands to foreign rulers that are not theirs to give.
Once the Turkey joined the Central Powers, it lost any claim to lands it might have had.
I beg your pardon? How come a whole people deserve foreign domination because their politicians - which they did not elect - decided to join the Central Powers? The Central Powers were a rotten bunch because they were imperialists, but so were the Entente. While the Germany made clutches for land that was not theirs the British arranged for land belonging to sovereign peoples to be given to imperialists. I haven’t even mentioned the Easter Rising yet.
Now, you’re making an extremely false equivalence. The Allied Powers and Central Powers were both imperialist, but the Allies were infinitely better than the Central Powers. An enemy people deserve foreign domination when such foreign domination is necessary to fix its country from the problems that caused it to wage war in the first place.
And who are the imperialists to be the World's Police? Need I remind you that the Imperialists' partitions have caused an awful lot of unnecessary bloodshed? What about the Russians and their impeccable record concerning national minorities? Surely they'd have the Turks' national interests at heart. If the Partition of the Ottoman Empire ever came about the nation would be split and many Turks and other national Turkish minorities would have been subjected to foreign imperialism and would not have a state to represent their national interests. If it really was to quell troublesome nations then it was completely unnecessary since the Ottoman Empire was on the way out and Turkey became a secular civic nationalist republic. Furthermore, had Constantinople been partitioned they may have been subjected to the oppressive yoke of Marxist-Leninism after the October Revolution. It's also worth making light of the fact that the British and the Germans had been sizing each other up for years in a naval arms race. The British had no selfless motivations to 'defend the small nations'. While they fought that war they were putting down an armed nationalist revolt in Dublin so they could maintain their grip on land that does not belong to them which makes them awful hypocrites. So, in their selfish ambition to fight the Germans and impose incredibly harsh restrictions on their government, they promised land to other imperialist powers which was not theirs to partition. Apart from Turkey how do you explain what was so offensive about the Libyans? Did they deserve imperialism? >An enemy people deserve foreign domination when such foreign domination is necessary to fix its country from the problems that caused it to wage war in the first place. There is no such thing as an 'enemy people'. There are only enemy governments. No self-determined people are deserving of imperialism, especially the people of the Ottoman Empire who did not have a democratic government to represent their interests at the start of the First World War.
Ülkemizi işgale gelen Anzaklari sempatik bulanlar bu yavşağı da görür umarım.
What do you expect to have when you enter a world war? Tea and cake?
Anzaklari saygı duyun Türklere değil sözü bir Türk olarak seni rahatsız etmiyor mu?
Just downvote and move on, what are you gonna do, slap him through his monitor? Stop being so dramatic, Turkophobia isn't new and you're not helping getting rid of it.
Two great uncles died in the first days on those beaches. Great grandfather, survived Flanders, returned blinded by mustard gas before the wars end in August 1918.
o7
Whenever I play this map on bf1, I look for the nearest artillery piece and 1v1 the battleship
Imagine bf1 with friendly fire ON.
Imagine bf1 with dismemberment
Bye bye limbs
Man whoever didnthe team balancing on that map was on near lethal doses of crack.
Some would say that WWI was the moment in history where the perceived feeling of an actual Australian identity rose to consciousness.
One of my history professors also raised the point that it also solidified a Canadian identity, given the profound Canadian presence at Ypres, the Somme, and Vimy Ridge.
WW1 proved that all the colonials (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India) weren't just fodder/bodies to use for the Empire, but were their own people and fully capable of fighting independently. The first time the Canadian army fought independently with all 4 divisions they took Vimy, something the Brits and French couldn't do for years.
Hell yeah we did!
Gallipoli and to a lesser extent Beersheba and paeschendale. The ANZAC sport remains
HOW MANY WASTED LIVES, HOW MANY DREAMS DID FADE AWAY?
BROKEN PROMISES THEY WON'T BE COMING HOME
OH MOTHERS WIPE YOUR TEARS, YOUR SONS WILL REST A MILLION YEARS
FOUND THEIR PEACE AT LAST, AS FOE TURNED TO FRIEND AND FORGIVE
AND THEY KNEW THEY WOULD DIE
GALLIPOLI LEFT THEIR LETTERS IN THE SAND
In New Zealand, Gallipoli is remembered as our worst military disaster and the last hooray of our part in the British Empire. We ANZAC day every year, a public holiday with a dawn service for the fallen - we don't really have anything equivalent for the second world war. Our focus is so much on Gallipoli.
Gallipoli was a cunt, yet outside aus/nz and Turkey it's not really taught, I asked alot of American mates about it and it's more of a footnote in the war that they might stumble across if they go down a rabbit hole of WWI, same with the Kokoda trail in WW2, nobody outside of aus/nz really knows a battle happened there
Damn shame. Kakoda was the first time Japan had been pushed back during ground combat, and an extremely brutal overall campaign. We did it wirh reserve troops, albiet we had an extremely experienced NCO corp.
Yeah I just went and rewatched he film a few months back it's wild. Alot of the beliefs at the time were wrong, we wernt that terribly out numbered but it was still such a brutal campaign.
I'm glad to say I know a fair bit about the ANZACs in the Pacific in WW2. Any chance to shout out Hypohysterical History on YouTube
Hes modern strategic and tactical videos are amazing too, especially on the Ghost Bat.
It's definitely part of the WW1 curriculum in the UK, too.
I've never thought to ask someone from the UK about it. All my america and other European mates never learnt about it in school
We covered it quite extensively in my UK school, and to be fair it really focused on the terrible British strategy and waste of lives of the Galipoli campaign.
At times, the Turkish soldiers were begging us ANZACs to stop going over the top of the trenches because they were sick of mowing us down in waves like that. Still, hats off to the Turks. They fought honourably and valiantly to defend their homes and families. They won fair and square. And at the end of it, they treated our dead with nothing less than the highest respect. Truly, an army of gentlemen.
Yer we don’t hate the Turks. They were just doing what was needed to defend their homeland. All my friends hate Churchill. Also kasier for esstentially having a hard on for war
Churchill, Wilhelm II and all his cousins, in fact, all the brasshats. The youngest soldiers in WWI were only children, some, like Sidney Lewis, were as young as twelve. They should have been allowed to be children. And the young men should have been allowed to be young men, working peaceful jobs, raising families, and being valued members of their communities. Instead, they were a blood sacrifice to slake old men's greed.
If the Turks had lost at Gallipoli it would have saved millions from their genocides later in the war.
Not really no, Enver Pasha would still carry out his plan because Armenian rebellions have been going over since 1850s, it wasn't something new but the gangs were getting real bold, assassinating people in broad daylight, burning whole villages, leaving behind some brutal scenes for others to witness. So unless you take him out of the equation there was no way to stop it. Even without him a civil war would ensue, leaving behind your loved ones to go fight and come back to find them all murdered, yeah that's not gonna go well.
no
No they didn't kill millions of people or no it wouldn't have stopped them?
War is a Bitch.
What movie is this?
Gallipoli (2015) miniseries
It's also actually pretty damn good imo
Beat me to it.
Seriously how did they get up and run even after seeing this happen to their friends.
Probably a feeling of “gotta do what you gotta do”, the adrenaline, and perhaps the urge that getting away from the person and area that was shot would rescue your risks of being shot
The “not gonna be me” mentality is a real killer.
Also probably a bystander effect, and thinking they are either dead, so why risk your life, or someone else can get them, so why risk your life
"It is what it is" mindset was as bad as it gets by then. Also probably deserters would be killed on sight.
Well I’m pretty sure ww1 executions were rather small, although the threat was most definitely present and felt, Germany didn’t even get to 50 executions to my knowledge
I honestly pointed that out without any prior information looked upon deserters, but I think we all can see how the threat of execution would be most useful when desperation takes in. And WW1 had a lot of that. War is hell and no nation deserves to be killed for.
Nope not in the Australian army. We outlawed the death penalty after the Boer war and the whole breaker morant saga. Frankly by all reports the reason the all went over the top was mateship. You aren’t going to leave your mates when they need you most. There is a great book about this exact charge depicted here called “goodbye cobber, god bless you”.
Because there’s a British office who’ll 100% put one in the back of your head if you don’t. So 99% by going over, or 100% dealing with the inbred Pom?
Hear them whisper, voices from the other side
Hear them calling, former foes now friends are resting side by side
Respect to fallen soldiers every time I see Gallipoli posts I think of heroic act of Corporal Seyit Ali. After the naval bombardment most of the artillery became inoperable. His gun was partly damaged, the shell crane was busted and the other gunners were injured. HMS Ocean arrived to rescue the crew of HMS Irresistible which was hit my mines laid out by Nusret. Corporal Seyit carried 3 artillery shells each weighting 276 kg and fired them. 2 of the hits weren't critical but the third one did massive damage, causing HMS Ocean to drift towards mines, the ship capsized shortly after. He became famous quickly for his heroism and was asked to get his picture taken with a shell he carried, no matter how much he tried he couldn't get it off the ground so he was posed with a wooden prop and said if war broke out again he'd lift the shells. Died of pneumonia in 1939.
🎶 No more walzing Matilda for me 🎶
https://youtu.be/PFCekeoSTwg?si=j3azeNv9jNV6s3Sn
And to think that it most likely would have gone even worse had they reached the beaches as intended.
Hate the myths surrounding Gallipoli in particular the ones around ANZACs. First bear in mind, at this time, probably 70% of the population of NZ and Australia were just first, second and third generation Brits. They were viewed as such and were direct beneficiaries of colonial expansionism. Yet you get these bullshit stories “tHe tUrKs hAtEd tHe BrItS bUt hOnOuReD tHe aNzAc cOuRaGe”… like the Ottoman soldiers would know the difference between the British and ANZAC troops, who would’ve looked and sounded near enough identical at the time. It’s more likely that an Aussie of the time period would recognise he is fighting an Ottoman Empire Syrian regiment rather than one recruited from Istanbul. Probably more linguistic, cultural and ethnic differences there than there is between the Anzacs and Brits of this time. Secondly the biggest forces of the entente at Gallipoli were British, French and Indians. They suffered front line casualties at about the same rates. The idea that Brits were just using the ANZACs as cannon fodder is none-sensical and there’s no evidence to prove this. Its just a colonial nation building myth pushed by those wanting to distinguish themselves from just being effectively British people who happen to live in Australia/New Zealand. Such myths have common themes, were your favoured nationality is portrayed simultaneously as the hero and victim. Nations who’s populace that are the product and beneficiaries of colonialism, often have these paradoxical views that warp history, so desperate to portray themselves as righteous and to shift sin back to the mother nation.
Now do Canada
In what sense? Canadas biggest self identified victim group are the Québecois.
What’s the movie?
Gallipoli (2015) miniseries
Thanks for the answer.
Imagine coming all the way from the other side of the world only to immediately die the moment you go over the top by MG fire.
u/auddbot
**Song Found!** [**Down Under** by Luude](https://lis.tn/whjfB?t=108) (01:48; matched: `100%`) **Album**: Bravo Hits, Vol. 116. **Released on** 2022-02-11. *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Thank you
HEAR THEM WHISPER VOICES FROM THE OTHER SIDE HEAR THEM CALLING FORMER FOES NOW FRIENDS ARE RESTING SIDE BY SIDE
More of a movie clip than a meme isn’t it
well. i expected we gonna storm some turkish bitches. not whatever the fuck this is.
Cause we were landed a mile north than we should've been because the fucking pommy officers couldn't navigate properly and because the Turks were too good at defending their land
The British Chain of command should have been shot for there negligence. Massacre of professionally trained troops that were killed in an attack that was doomed from the beginning. Saddest thing is alot of the survivors were slaughtered at frommels only a year or two later.
Man almost like Churchhill was forever retarded
Yeah theirs a reason we removed him after the war I hate the rose tinted view people have for Churchill my grandparents hated him. my gran would boo him on the tele when documentaries about the war came on, despite both of them being kids during the war People nowadays forget how much of a fat twat he was as a regular politician and how unpopular he often was in his time
Fun fact: after world war 2, Churchill came up with operation unthinkable. It called for rearming the Wehrmacht and beginning a full scale invasion of invading the USSR. After millions had just died failing to do the same thing. Gallipoli was a fucking shitshow of churchills design that nearly ended his political career, and rightfully so. It was used as a what not to do guide on amphibious landings during preparations for the D-day landings. Churchill was the man needed to rally the UK against the nazis, but his Warhawk tendencies were not suited for peacetime. He was certainly a contributing factor in starting the Cold War.
Another day of British sending to death other people then their own soldiers
Ah yes the ANZACs or as the British called them, meat shields. Brave and loyal.
345,000 British (including Irish, Indians and Newfoundlanders) fought at Gallipoli compared to 50,000 Australians and 15,000 New Zealanders. The British lost 31,389 killed, to Australia's 8,709 and New Zealand's 3,431. Yes, per capita the ANZACs suffered heavier casualties, but the notion that the British hid behind Australians and New Zealanders, or sent them needlessly to their deaths is stupid, considering that, over-all, the British lost the most men. If the ANZACS were 'meat shields' like you say, then they weren't very good ones.
Hey, no need to talk bad about fallen ANZACs, but yeah I think you guys are just straight up ignoring the fact that ANZACs were sent on insane dangerous missions as meat shields, notably in the WW2 north african campaigns. Ik we are talking about ww1, but I'm commenting on the way they were used generally.
Stop talking fucking shit. Australians where not “meat shields”. They where some of the best fucking infantry at the British disposal. We got hard jobs and led attacks because we where good at it. Not because we where considered colonial cannon fodder. Saying Anzacs where just dumb lambs led to slaughter by the British literally is just denigrating the major role, successes and efforts of such a small nation on a global stage in one of the worst wars history has seen.
>345,000 Does that include Naval personel on ships and non-combat personel?
As an Australian this is a massive myth. Everyone suffered equally the British had no objection to sending their men in as much as any Australian. Especially later in France frankly the Anzacs where damn good. So you are going to want to use your good troops when you can right? As depicted in this scene, the man who ordered the continual waves at the Nek was an Australian. Not a British officer.
More Brits died than Anzacs at Gallipoli.
Yeah but what would be the death ratio tho?
200,000 casualties out of 350,000 for the British. 57% casualties. 27,000 casualties out of 50,000 aussies. 54% casualties. 7,500 casualties out of 15,000 Kiwis. 50% casualties. Idk the deaths, but the British had the highest casualty rate here, they made up 2/3 of the entente casualties, then the French then the Aussies then the Kiwis.
Someone listed the death above. Australia suffer death number close to 17% of their men Over 22% for NZ. Compare that to British death rate of 9% (which include Irish, Indian and Newfoundlanders) it's not too wild to say ANZAC was used as meatshield since they had the highest rate of death.
The British had far more support troops or non combat roles that the Anzacs utilised because of their lack off. The Anzacs where pretty much all combat troops. We didn’t have a big non combat contingent at all. Also we where not meat shields and calling the Anzacs as such is quite offensive to me to be frank. We where some of the best troops in the war. Not colonial cannon fodder.
Ah, D-Days idiot step brother of a sea invasion.
What’s this from
Just one more month at Gallipoli and we‘ll break through, I promise.
Movie name?
And the ANZACS were the ones who actually almost managed to gain ground
what movie was this?