Why I hate ANZAC day
-
The story as told by the author says the seizure was "lawful" and "moral". I don't care what the international laws say, this was wrong. How telling though, the final paragraph: 'The Belgian, a huge figure, more than six feet high, put his arm soothingly upon the shoulder of the diminutive Turk. "I have even more terrible news for you," he said, pointing out to the stream where the Goeben and the Breslau lay anchored. "The Germans have captured Turkey."'
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
The story as told by the author says the seizure was "lawful" and "moral".
Well, the contracts, signed by the Turkish and British governments, allowed the British to seize the vessels in the event of war. Please note that war is a somewhat serious undertaking, and that Britain, being an island, had to secure the North Sea and the Atlantic for supplies. There was a bloody great German fleet to be contained. So, a couple more dreadnoughts would come in handy. The Ottoman Empire and Russia were traditionally enemies. Germany being at war with Russia, there was a very strong possibility that the Turkish government would ally themselves with Germany. If you were Churchill, would you have risked it?
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
The story as told by the author says the seizure was "lawful" and "moral".
Well, the contracts, signed by the Turkish and British governments, allowed the British to seize the vessels in the event of war. Please note that war is a somewhat serious undertaking, and that Britain, being an island, had to secure the North Sea and the Atlantic for supplies. There was a bloody great German fleet to be contained. So, a couple more dreadnoughts would come in handy. The Ottoman Empire and Russia were traditionally enemies. Germany being at war with Russia, there was a very strong possibility that the Turkish government would ally themselves with Germany. If you were Churchill, would you have risked it?
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
The article says nothing about the contract between Britain and Turkey. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, but if the contract did say that, then ok. Were I in the place of Churchill, I'd probably have delivered the goods and then blown them up.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
So, it's come to that time of year again - it's now Anzac day here (Aus), so there is the inevitable carry-on in the media. We have wall-to-wall coverage of young Aussies travelling to Gallipoli, ANZAC day marches and dawn services both here and in Turkey. What happened to the poor troops in those trenches was absolutely miserable - they paid an extraordinarily heavy toll for the decisions made by their governments. The troops (in my opinion) did not get what they deserved. Australia and New Zealand as countries on the other hand got exactly what they deserved. The thing that saddens and angers me most is that the events leading up to the refusal of Turkey to allow allies troops safe passage through the Dardanelles is very rarely mentioned during the festival that has become ANZAC day. 1. The Turkish people collected money before the war to build two ships - women even cut-off and sold their hair to help pay for these ships. 2. Britain built these 2 ships 3. War broke out the day that the final payment was for these ships was made 4. Britain commandeered these ships and refused to hand them over to the Turkish people 5. Britain then took it upon itself to sail straight up the Dardanelles past Turkey with (amongst others) these two ships 6. Turkey repelled the effort 7. They were invaded and the story that is Gallipoli began at this point. Maybe i'm just a miserable sonofabitch that thinks one is entitled to get what one pays for. If I was turkey at that point, I'd have told Britain to F right off too. ANZAC day - you suck. ANZAC soldiers that lost their lives, mates and health - you poor bastards... You can read more about it here
It was not because of two frikin’ ships, look at the map. The whole eastern front was going a complete FOBAR. The whole eastern Europe was occupied from Austria and Bulgaria, central Europe and part of the Eastern from Germany, thus creating a direct railroad connection between Germany and Turkey. Turkey started to receive so much needed heavy weaponry. The only hope on the east was Russia, which was holding pretty good until the fucking revolution. When the revolution braked the fucking Bolshevik started killing their own people with millions and giving the Germans opportunity to push harder east. At this moment Turkey have seen its opportunity and attacked Russia taking a big chunk of its territory. Russian government had no choice but asked Churchill for help. Given the situation and the fact that the only reason Russia entered the war was because their old ally France asked for help, what choice Churchill have had? A lot of brave men have died from the both sides there but not because two ships or Britain, but because of the fucking war and because of the decisions made by the Turkish Government. I don’t like Churchill much but in this case and in many others he has acted like a real leader. The huge tactical mistakes made in this campaign are totally different story, but is hard to say how many of them are to blame on Churchill and how many on the Generals.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
The story as told by the author says the seizure was "lawful" and "moral".
Well, the contracts, signed by the Turkish and British governments, allowed the British to seize the vessels in the event of war. Please note that war is a somewhat serious undertaking, and that Britain, being an island, had to secure the North Sea and the Atlantic for supplies. There was a bloody great German fleet to be contained. So, a couple more dreadnoughts would come in handy. The Ottoman Empire and Russia were traditionally enemies. Germany being at war with Russia, there was a very strong possibility that the Turkish government would ally themselves with Germany. If you were Churchill, would you have risked it?
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
Finally someone who knows something about the History above “I heard it in the pub” level.:thumbsup:
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
It was not because of two frikin’ ships, look at the map. The whole eastern front was going a complete FOBAR. The whole eastern Europe was occupied from Austria and Bulgaria, central Europe and part of the Eastern from Germany, thus creating a direct railroad connection between Germany and Turkey. Turkey started to receive so much needed heavy weaponry. The only hope on the east was Russia, which was holding pretty good until the fucking revolution. When the revolution braked the fucking Bolshevik started killing their own people with millions and giving the Germans opportunity to push harder east. At this moment Turkey have seen its opportunity and attacked Russia taking a big chunk of its territory. Russian government had no choice but asked Churchill for help. Given the situation and the fact that the only reason Russia entered the war was because their old ally France asked for help, what choice Churchill have had? A lot of brave men have died from the both sides there but not because two ships or Britain, but because of the fucking war and because of the decisions made by the Turkish Government. I don’t like Churchill much but in this case and in many others he has acted like a real leader. The huge tactical mistakes made in this campaign are totally different story, but is hard to say how many of them are to blame on Churchill and how many on the Generals.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
The article says nothing about the contract between Britain and Turkey. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, but if the contract did say that, then ok. Were I in the place of Churchill, I'd probably have delivered the goods and then blown them up.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Were I in the place of Churchill, I'd probably have delivered the goods and then blown them up.
Why would you do that? No guarantee that you could destroy them and then you're 2 ships down to the Germans.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Were I in the place of Churchill, I'd probably have delivered the goods and then blown them up.
Why would you do that? No guarantee that you could destroy them and then you're 2 ships down to the Germans.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Well, you'd load the holds with explosives and remotely detonate. But you've a point.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
He did say that Churchill was a great real leader.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
It’s funny; I wrote three inches long post to defend Churchill and you one voted me because you like him? Let me tell you something: blind emotions and military history – not good friends! Save this kind of things for the pub.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
It’s funny; I wrote three inches long post to defend Churchill and you one voted me because you like him? Let me tell you something: blind emotions and military history – not good friends! Save this kind of things for the pub.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
But you still committed the crime of saying you didn't like him (How very dare you!) and I did apologise for one voting you. If I could invite any single character from history to dinner it would be him.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
So, it's come to that time of year again - it's now Anzac day here (Aus), so there is the inevitable carry-on in the media. We have wall-to-wall coverage of young Aussies travelling to Gallipoli, ANZAC day marches and dawn services both here and in Turkey. What happened to the poor troops in those trenches was absolutely miserable - they paid an extraordinarily heavy toll for the decisions made by their governments. The troops (in my opinion) did not get what they deserved. Australia and New Zealand as countries on the other hand got exactly what they deserved. The thing that saddens and angers me most is that the events leading up to the refusal of Turkey to allow allies troops safe passage through the Dardanelles is very rarely mentioned during the festival that has become ANZAC day. 1. The Turkish people collected money before the war to build two ships - women even cut-off and sold their hair to help pay for these ships. 2. Britain built these 2 ships 3. War broke out the day that the final payment was for these ships was made 4. Britain commandeered these ships and refused to hand them over to the Turkish people 5. Britain then took it upon itself to sail straight up the Dardanelles past Turkey with (amongst others) these two ships 6. Turkey repelled the effort 7. They were invaded and the story that is Gallipoli began at this point. Maybe i'm just a miserable sonofabitch that thinks one is entitled to get what one pays for. If I was turkey at that point, I'd have told Britain to F right off too. ANZAC day - you suck. ANZAC soldiers that lost their lives, mates and health - you poor bastards... You can read more about it here
Yup the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha has sent many millions of men to the slaughter for their profits as they continue to do today. War is the worst kind of racket. Casuality level estimates for Gallipoli where so high that britian sent in foriegn commanwealth troops (us ANZACs) to fight in the worst spot we where totally abused and used. That is what we should really remember... the needless violence and loss of good men to others greed.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What about it?The French government surrendered, as is their wont, the moment that happened the French Navy became an enemy navy. The French were givin an ultimatum: 1. Continue as a free French navy and fight alongside the Royal Navy or hand the ships over to the Royal Navy (on Britiain winning the war the ships would be handed back). 2. Move your ships somewhere where they will not be used in military actions against the British until the war is ended. 3 Scuttle the ships. When the fleet failed to accept/do any of these it was destroyed, no-one in charge was happy about it. This action also demonstrated that the UK wasn't going to just roll over and accept defeat, even at the cose of an ex-ally.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
What about it?The French government surrendered, as is their wont, the moment that happened the French Navy became an enemy navy. The French were givin an ultimatum: 1. Continue as a free French navy and fight alongside the Royal Navy or hand the ships over to the Royal Navy (on Britiain winning the war the ships would be handed back). 2. Move your ships somewhere where they will not be used in military actions against the British until the war is ended. 3 Scuttle the ships. When the fleet failed to accept/do any of these it was destroyed, no-one in charge was happy about it. This action also demonstrated that the UK wasn't going to just roll over and accept defeat, even at the cose of an ex-ally.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands. I suppose also, that the fact the French Navy's ships were indeed scuttled before the Germans could make use of them (true to the word of the agreement) is unimportant to you. The French fought hard for the British just two weeks before this travesty, yet still the British forces acted with disregard to (a) the existing agreement and (b) this support. Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt. (in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent. If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white. My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
-
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands. I suppose also, that the fact the French Navy's ships were indeed scuttled before the Germans could make use of them (true to the word of the agreement) is unimportant to you. The French fought hard for the British just two weeks before this travesty, yet still the British forces acted with disregard to (a) the existing agreement and (b) this support. Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt. (in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent. If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white. My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
enhzflep wrote:
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands.
None whatsoever: they also, under the terms of the surrender to the Germans, agreed to hand the ships over to the Germans. The French fleet was given an ultimatum and didn't [at least] scuttle, what would any sensible leader think?
enhzflep wrote:
Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt.
Yep, and it worked with Roosevelt.
enhzflep wrote:
(in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent.
Well that's your opinion and, in my opinion your opinion is wrong. Not friendly: they were enbelligerents at this point, proven by their inability to remove their fleet as a threat.
enhzflep wrote:
If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white.
Spurious at best!
enhzflep wrote:
My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
Actually you are so foolish: you parrot half-truths from people who have the luxury of not actually having to make these decisions and are nowhere near a war. I notice that your whinging started because it is ANZAC day, not promoted by patriotism at all. It wasn't like any British troops were killed in what was one of the worst-run wars in human history. I'm not all patriotic
-
enhzflep wrote:
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands.
None whatsoever: they also, under the terms of the surrender to the Germans, agreed to hand the ships over to the Germans. The French fleet was given an ultimatum and didn't [at least] scuttle, what would any sensible leader think?
enhzflep wrote:
Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt.
Yep, and it worked with Roosevelt.
enhzflep wrote:
(in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent.
Well that's your opinion and, in my opinion your opinion is wrong. Not friendly: they were enbelligerents at this point, proven by their inability to remove their fleet as a threat.
enhzflep wrote:
If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white.
Spurious at best!
enhzflep wrote:
My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
Actually you are so foolish: you parrot half-truths from people who have the luxury of not actually having to make these decisions and are nowhere near a war. I notice that your whinging started because it is ANZAC day, not promoted by patriotism at all. It wasn't like any British troops were killed in what was one of the worst-run wars in human history. I'm not all patriotic
:-O Actually, I thank-you for having been prepared to discuss the topic with someone who is admittedly agitated by today's festivities. We are all certainly entitled to our opinions. Without a preparedness to share them and suffer the consequences of our own short-sightedness, any and all furthering of one's knowledge is limited to that which may be gleaned in a solo effort. A result of this whole thread has been a substantial sharpening of my keenness to discover more of the circumstances that have led to the events that have helped shape the world in which we all live, breathe and (will one day) die. Thanks Keith. :thumbsup: Simon.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
:-O Actually, I thank-you for having been prepared to discuss the topic with someone who is admittedly agitated by today's festivities. We are all certainly entitled to our opinions. Without a preparedness to share them and suffer the consequences of our own short-sightedness, any and all furthering of one's knowledge is limited to that which may be gleaned in a solo effort. A result of this whole thread has been a substantial sharpening of my keenness to discover more of the circumstances that have led to the events that have helped shape the world in which we all live, breathe and (will one day) die. Thanks Keith. :thumbsup: Simon.
-
The article says nothing about the contract between Britain and Turkey. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, but if the contract did say that, then ok. Were I in the place of Churchill, I'd probably have delivered the goods and then blown them up.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun
