Can you elaborate upon this? Wouldn't a delay of several days have brought sunrise forward by only 15 minutes or so?
In the stuff I read they estimated it at about an hour, on memory. If I can find it I will post it up.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you elaborate upon this? Wouldn't a delay of several days have brought sunrise forward by only 15 minutes or so?
What do the dead care for remembrance?The only tacky and distasteful thing is your post. The day is about remembrance for all Australians who have given their lives in the nation's interests and causes.
It's on the date of the Gallipoli landing, but it's to mark those lost in all wars.
Do you have the same opinion of those who died in horrific conditions on the Kokoda track trying to defend us from ground invasion? Those who hit the ground in Europe and drove the Nazis back?
The day may have been hijacked by celebrating bogans and opportunistic politicians and corporations, but that in no way makes it "idiotic" at the core. Get a clue.
What do the dead care for your lacking of caring about remembrance?What do the dead care for remembrance?
If you don't find the whole concept glorifying, I can only presume you have a hard-on for state-mandated survivor's guilt.
Do you have the same opinion of those who died in horrific conditions on the Kokoda track trying to defend us from ground invasion?
Those who hit the ground in Europe and drove the Nazis back?
Regardless of there plans if soldiers attacking southern png which technically at the time was part of Australia and sitting in Darwin being bombed u might think otherwiseNo one was trying to invade us. Japan was only seeking air fields to attack American fleets supplying a build up. Both sides were fighting over some elses resources. Over the years both sides did some horrible s**t to the owners of those resources. Read up on the nuclear testing in the Marshal islands. If there wasn't the paranoia the European theater caused, we might of dealt with Japan in whole different way.
Why did the Americans supply the Germans right up untill mid 1944?
What do the dead care for remembrance?
If you don't find the whole concept glorifying, I can only presume you have a hard-on for state-mandated survivor's guilt.
What do the dead care for remembrance?
If you don't find the whole concept glorifying, I can only presume you have a hard-on for state-mandated survivor's guilt.
RE the bolded... every single soldier who went to Gallipoli had volunteered to go. Every single one. It was a volunteer army, a lot of whom went on to fight on the Western Front. Also, the Australian infantry were, as a result of the efforts at Gallipoli and especially on the Western Front, rated as the best infantry in the world, at the time. They were not "sent to the other side of the world to die painfully and probably petrified", they were young men who volunteered by and large because they wanted an adventure.
Afterwards, a lot of them completely disagreed with the premise of the landing, and of fighting the Turks, but none of them were there against their will, and none of them were the scared little mice you are implying. They were, as I stated, the best infantry in the world.
As to the "incompetence of their superiors" bit? Again, myth. Their superiors (Aussies and English) landed exactly where they planned, and the whole attack was actually very well thought out. There were two things that went wrong:
1. Rain delayed the landing by several days, meaning they had less cover of dark under which to attack. Had they attacked on the designated day, several days earlier, they would've had a couple of hours more darkness under which to surprise the Turks.
2. A traitor, who had been locked up after an English sub had been captured, gave all the details of our landing to the Turks. As a result, a LOT more men were there waiting than otherwise would've been the case.
The plan was actually a good one, though risky. Had the above two things not happened, we very likely would've taken the hill, and therefore taken out the armaments on the edge of the Dardanelle's (which was the target) so that the ships could freely sail to Constantinople, helping to provide provisions for the troops fighting the Germans, and also attack the Germans from the back. Also, the Aussie soliders would've got to party in Constantinople.
So, that straightens you up a bit on the facts of the thing.
As to how it's remembered? ANZAC day is symbolic because WWI is seen as the coming of age of Australia on the national stage, due to great fighting under terrible circumstances at Gallipoli, and due to outstanding fighting on the Western Front. It has therefore become about more than just the diggers at WWI, because now ALL ANZAC soldiers are remembered, from all wars. So, it is more than it started out being. It is no longer just about Gallipoli, and it is therefore over simplifying the issue to suggest that Australia celebrates scared diggers at Gallipoli. We celebrate, and pay great respect and tribute to, all Australian soldiers who have fought over the civilised history of Australia.
Three things:
I have no doubt that many of them were completely naive to what they were volunteering for. WW1 saw carnage on an unprecedented level, due to the often talked about combination of new technologies and old tactics. What was admirable is the way they equipped themselves once there in hopeless conditions. The fact many gave their lives is worth respecting and remembering - but not "celebrating", which was my original point.
Your description of the plan as "risky" is an extreme understatement. By any objective summation it was a task with a low chance of success.
And as for "we'd have very likely taken the hill"... what is that based on?? It's simply revisionist speculation.
Not really. Some of the Australians did in fact get to the top of the hill and over on that first day, and looked down on the waters of the Dardanelles below. Then they returned to their lines, Turkish reinforcements arrived and nobody ever again in the rest of the campaign made it that far.And as for "we'd have very likely taken the hill"... what is that based on?? It's simply revisionist speculation.
It would have been quicker to say "yes, I get off on state-mandated survivor's guilt".Anzac Day isn't glorifying. It's a day of remembrance and reflection.
Just because some have attempted to hijack it and turn it into glorification, doesn't make it so. It's what I was railing against in the OP.
You either don't want to make the distinction, or are a bit a simple.
And course the dead don't care for remembrance - what a stupid comment. But there's plenty who do - starting with their colleagues and families.
It would have been quicker to say "yes, I get off on state-mandated survivor's guilt".
Incorrect-There were many professional soldiers, particularly in the higher ranksevery single soldier who went to Gallipoli had volunteered to go. Every single one.
This maybe the truth after the war, but certainly was not the truth during- reports about such events as Mont St Quentin later in the war still portrayed the Australian and New Zealand troops as British soldiersAlso, the Australian infantry were, as a result of the efforts at Gallipoli and especially on the Western Front, rated as the best infantry in the world, at the time.
One has to only read some of the letters and diaries to know this is completely incorrectand none of them were the scared little mice you are implying
Incorrect- the landings were not where they were supposed to be at all and the attack was incompetently planned, very much soAs to the "incompetence of their superiors" bit? Again, myth. Their superiors (Aussies and English) landed exactly where they planned, and the whole attack was actually very well thought out.
The only thing that surprised the Turkish was why they landed where they didthey would've had a couple of hours more darkness under which to surprise the Turks
This is a story that has been bandied around but with not much substance to back it up2. A traitor, who had been locked up after an English sub had been captured, gave all the details of our landing to the Turks. As a result, a LOT more men were there waiting than otherwise would've been the case.
No it wasnt a good plan at all. it depended alot on the so called superiority of the british race and the feeling the Turkish were sub standard as soldiers...Mustafa Kemal proved the case to be very differentThe plan was actually a good one, though risky. Had the above two things not happened, we very likely would've taken the hill, and therefore taken out the armaments on the edge of the Dardanelle's (which was the target) so that the ships could freely sail to Constantinople, helping to provide provisions for the troops fighting the Germans, and also attack the Germans from the back. Also, the Aussie soliders would've got to party in Constantinople.
Does it, how??So, that straightens you up a bit on the facts of the thing.
Now that may be the case, but why?NZAC day is symbolic because WWI is seen as the coming of age of Australia on the national stage,
Do we??We celebrate, and pay great respect and tribute to, all Australian soldiers who have fought over the civilised history of Australia.