Some of the answers here surprise me. While it is true that Gallipoli was significant to Australians , mainly because of Bean's writing, it was far more significant to other countries. In the campaign, Australia lost 8709 men and New Zealand lost 2721. France lost 10,000; Britain lost 21,255 and Turkey lost 86692. Many Australians forget that we were a minor force at Gallipoli.
2007-05-01 13:05:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by tentofield 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I agree with Viet-fo and Mystify.that after the Gallipoli Campaign fiasco, NZers and Australians realised that they were taken advantage of by Great Britain. They realised that in percentage terms they had sacrificied more than their fair share of their male populations. Whilst there were other nations included in the Allied forces: Canada, Ireland, England, etc the term ANZAC only included Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and the term was coined as the troops were being prepared for the onslaught. Australia in particular suffered heavy losses because almost all of the first boats into shore were total losses. The first Kiwis landed a couple of hours after dawn, when some soldiers were actually successful in landing.
There were many other more important campaigns in WW1, including the fields of France and Belgium. Not to mention other battle sites on Gallipoli Pen besides Anzac, eg: Cape Helles. But Gallipoli itself was a flawed concept from the beginning even supposing the landing had gone well. The Colonials always felt that they were the children of Mother Britain and would do anything to help when called. After the horror of Gallipoli, the Colonials realised that in fact they were considered lower class citizens only useful as pawns and expendables in the eyes of Britain.
Finally, where in war the dead can usually be retrieved and given proper buriel, in Gallipoli hundreds upon hundreds of soldiers were burned or buried in mass graves - unidentified. Gallipoli Peninsula is a massive graveyard to both Allied Troops and Turks. For this reason it has become somewhat sacred ground.
As for why they didn't just make a run for it up the Dardenelles? Well perhaps in hind sight this would have resulted in less losses, but whether it would have been successful is doubtful. The Turks and their predecessors have been successfully defending this passageway for centuries with various methods including actual chains right across the straits in several places which can be employed to destroy ships.
2007-05-01 02:13:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by A65 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hi Jackie,
The attack on Gallipoli was one of the more imaginative strategies of the First World War.
The British Royal Navy could have gone a long way towards achieving these goals by steaming through the Dardanelles straits in November 1914 and shelling Istanbul and perhaps putting the government to flight. Instead, they cautiously tested the range of the Turkish guns by bombarding the shore batteries.
This is also so important for Turkiye for protecting.
King Regards for you and your country
2007-05-01 01:06:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tanju 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
australia had in straightforward terms been a united states for a quick quantity of time whilst gallipoli first started. It became into the 1st conflict the place australia had participated as a independant united states and not below an imperial banner. as historic previous later tells us australian infantrymen at gallipoli have been an uncompromising and hard race of soldier. the attractiveness that the soldier made at gallipoli transferred onto the western front the place they have been feared via the germans. over the years australian protection stress workers and to an quantity the civilian inhabitants have upheld the ideals and traditions of the anzacs of gallipoli, to what you notice at present. In ensuing conflicts, particularly tobruk, kokoda, vietnam and lots later in somalia, rwanda, east timor, afghanistan and now iraq those traditions are nonetheless carried on at present. Anzac day in australia is a vast day the place we honour the individuals who started the custom that has made australia the country that that's at present.
2016-10-14 06:06:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For Aussies and Kiwis it was Gallipoli, for Canadians it was Vimy Ridge. Australia, New Zealand and Canada entered WW1 as part of the British Empire, even though they were self governing countries inside the Empire, the British govt was legally able to declare them at war with Germany.
By the end of WW1 because of the way that they had fought they had earned respect as sovereign nations.
2007-04-30 23:55:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
As an Australian, Gallipoli was where Australians were born.
In short, the soldiers were moulded here and although losing over 60,000 men and the battle, the bravery, courage, endurance and mateship has found its way into the Australian legend of ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) Corps means body as in an association of something.
May I add it was also the New Zealanders who fought beside us and other British allies.
Lest we forget....
2007-04-30 23:48:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by viet_forever_more 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
I'll agree with the two previous answers.
Both Australia and New Zealand grew into nationhood from the sacrifices made by our soldiers at Gallipoli.
The ANZAC code of mateship was born there.
The legend lives on today in the hearts and minds of us all.
2007-05-01 00:25:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
April 25 is ANZAC day, celebrating 90th anniversary of the landing at Gallopoli by Australian, New Zealand, South African and Canadian troops. They all took heavy casualties, 180,000 allied and 220,000Turkish.
Honer those who gave their lives so that you and I may live without oppression.
2007-05-01 02:07:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hi, With... New Zealand,we stood as a nation. Lest we forget.
They shall not grow old as we left grow old,
at the rising of the sun WE WILL remember them.
"Lest we forget"
2007-05-02 00:32:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by waltzsingmatilda2 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
FIrst two answerers hit the nail on the head I think.
2007-05-02 23:35:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋