Robert Dunlop Posted 7 July , 2004 Share Posted 7 July , 2004 ISBN 1 74114 045 5 I finished reading this book today. It is written by three Australians, two of whom are of Turkish descent. Actually, it is an update of the book that they wrote in 1985. The authors have deliberately focused on the Australian contribution to the Gallipoli campaign. The starting point is the 'celebration' of ANZAC Day, which, as has been mentioned in other threads, holds a prominent place in the forming of the Australian national identity. The authors noted that many Australians were not aware of what actually happened, Alan Bond going so far as to say, when talking about the poor performance of Australia II in the America's Cup: 'We had our backs to the wall there [on Gallipoli], and we won that one.' However, the presence of a significant Turkish community in Australia has led to a growing appreciation of what really happened, particularly from a Turkish perspective. There is a nice potted history of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish tribes, with emphasis on their military prowess. Most of the book is taken up with a description of the landings, particularly at ANZAC Cove, the subsequent battles and then the withdrawal. Despite the title, the focus is mainly on the Australians. I was disappointed in the relative lack of information about the Turkish experience. The exploits of Mustafa Kemal feature heavily, but this information is not new. There are a few interesting anecdotes, especially from the veterans. And the poem that I have quoted in a thread in the 'Other Fronts' forum. But overall, not what I was hoping for. The book ends with a brief history of the formation of modern Turkey and then the immigration to Australia. There are some nice quotes from Turkish people living in Australian on their reactions to ANZAC Day at the end of the book, for example: Once in Australia, most Turks learned about Australia's Canakkale either in school or at work. A Turkish woman recalls her office friends asking if she felt embarrassed as ANZAC Day approached. She told them, 'If there was anyone to be embarrassed, it certainly wasn't me. My country was fighting for her independence and we defeated the invaders'. As a sociological commentary on modern Australian/Turkish relations, this book provides an interesting perspective. As a deeper insight into the Turkish experiences of the Gallipoli campaign, it is of limited value. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedog Posted 8 July , 2004 Share Posted 8 July , 2004 Robert I have read Gallipoli, the Turkish Story, but for a far better insight I suggest that you read: Gallipoli 1915 Bloody Ridge [Lone Pine] The diary of Lt. Mehmed Fasih 5th. Imperial Ottoman Army Gallipoli 1915 ISBN 975-391-034-7 As one Aussie Pal who spent 10 days leading up to the Dawn Service scratching around the battlefield in 2001 and having read "Gallipoli" by Les Carlyon I can throughly recommend Lt.Fasih's diary Bluedog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 8 July , 2004 Share Posted 8 July , 2004 As a sociological commentary on modern Australian/Turkish relations, this book provides an interesting perspective. As a deeper insight into the Turkish experiences of the Gallipoli campaign, it is of limited value. You are 'spot on' with your first sentence. Vecihi and Hatice Basarin are justly proud of the way that the Turkish community has 'slotted in' to Australian society. While the book is 'light' on new information, some of the photographs are new to me. Although all (or nearly all, anyway) of the photos come from the AWM archives, Kevin Fewster - co-writer and Director of Sydney's Powerhouse museum, a nice guy whom I have met on two occassions - has opted to use images which would not otherwise be seen by many (outside of Canberra). That alone, for me, makes it worth the £11 price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardmcilwaine Posted 9 June , 2005 Share Posted 9 June , 2005 many thanks folks,bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 9 June , 2005 Share Posted 9 June , 2005 Well, how's this for a hijack? I bought a very nice Turkish rug in Istanbul from an Australian of Turkish ancestry who had moved back to Turkey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 10 June , 2005 Share Posted 10 June , 2005 I found this to be a particularly out-of-context quote: "Once in Australia, most Turks learned about Australia's Canakkale either in school or at work. A Turkish woman recalls her office friends asking if she felt embarrassed as Anzac* Day approached. She told them, 'If there was anyone to be embarrassed, it certainly wasn't me. My country was fighting for her independence and we defeated the invaders'. " We know nothing of the inquirers' intentions, knowledge, or beliefs in asking the question, yet the author seems to be implying that this somehow 'proves' that Australians don't know what went on at Gallipoli. Most Australians are quite aware that Gallipoli was not an allied success - just as they are aware that it was Turkey that lost the war. I doubt anyway, that 'office friends' (plural) would have asked such a question. In any case, to me, the implication in the response - that it's 'you' [Australians] ; "certainly [not] me" [Turks] that should be embarrassed - is even more disturbing. Why should anyone be 'embarrassed'? * Edited historically-incorrect, fully-capitalised 'ANZAC' as word, rather than as acronym for the army corps (my pet hate), to historically-correct 'Anzac'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 January , 2017 Share Posted 18 January , 2017 Just stumbled literally upon Gallipoli 1915, Bloody Ridge [Lone Pine]: The diary of Lt. Mehmed Fasih, 5th. Imperial Ottoman Army, Gallipoli 1915 (ISBN 975-391-034-7) - it was shelved on the long side and so projected into the corridor (we don't have a rolling shelf system!). Looks to be interesting and look forward to reading it - but would like to know, if possible, the ID of the camoflagued submarine on ppp. 219-220 (E15 or E20?), and of the aeroplane crash 8th December 1915 (p.215). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3rn Posted 21 January , 2017 Share Posted 21 January , 2017 About the downed aeroplane of 8 December 1915: I seem to remember some discussion about this photo but can't Google it up. Ole Nikolajsen (Ottoman Aviation 1909-1919) has one Ottoman claim for this date: 8/12 Brit.biplane hit by G/F, pilot pris. (CONF) The rough map shows the crash site on the peninsula, opposite Anzac/Suvla, near the straits. 'Pilot prisoner' doesn't seem to tally however with other accounts (Fasih's description, or POW records). Trevor Henshaw (The Sky Their Battlefield II) has: 979 BE2c 2 Wing RNAS [Bombing mission] CHANAK lost Narrows - HELLES MIA (FCdr CE Robinson KIA) aircraft salvable Heavy clouds were plaguing operations, accounting for Robinson's becoming lost. The salved part obviously doesn't fit, but Sturtivant and Page (Royal Navy Aircraft Serials and Units 1911-1919) is less sure about this: Missing from Narrows-Helles area 8.12.15; Probably the a/c from Tenedos which left to bomb Chanak & in which F/Cdr CE Robinson killed (remains retd in tow of a monitor?); Deleted 1916 Bill Pollard (Cross & Cockade International 38/2 2007) recorded in his diary: 8 Dec Major Fawcett and Capt Robinson went to blow up boom at entrance to Narrows. Both did not return. The French squadron has no downed aircraft on this day, so it would seem on balance (date and location) to be Robinson's BE2c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 January , 2017 Share Posted 22 January , 2017 10 hours ago, b3rn said: About the downed aeroplane of 8 December 1915: I seem to remember some discussion about this photo but can't Google it up. ... The French squadron has no downed aircraft on this day, so it would seem on balance (date and location) to be Robinson's BE2c. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 22 January , 2017 Share Posted 22 January , 2017 On 1/18/2017 at 16:28, trajan said: would like to know, if possible, the ID of the camoflagued submarine on ppp. 219-220 (E15 or E20?) The photographs are of E15 another is seen here http://www.gallipoli.gov.au/submarines-in-the-dardanelles/henry-stoker-and-the-ae2/gallery-submarines-in-the-dardanelles.php Journalist Granville Fortescue, in a visit to the area in mid-1915, described the wreck of the E15: Past Dardanos the land falls back into a small bay where the ill-fated E15 lies stranded. The grey line of her bow and her coning-tower with a cruel hole through it are all that now show above the water. By the whim of fate this submarine lies in the harbour where the British anchored in 1853 [during the Crimean War]. Time and again I turn to gaze back at the little grey hulk forsaken on the waters. It stands for a monument to modern bravery, for it was brave indeed to defy the many forts in so frail a craft. [Granville Fortescue, Russia, the Balkans and the Dardanelles, London, 1915, pp.236] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 January , 2017 Share Posted 22 January , 2017 7 minutes ago, michaeldr said: The photographs are of E15 ... Teşekkürler! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 22 January , 2017 Share Posted 22 January , 2017 (edited) You're most welcome Edited 22 January , 2017 by michaeldr spelling, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 22 January , 2017 Share Posted 22 January , 2017 (edited) There are some general comments on flying at this time in the diary of Flt Lt George Bentley Dacre as reproduced in 'Voices in Flight: the RNAS During the Great War' by Malcolm Smith, and they include a ref to Robinson p.162 “December 1915, 17th - …...........The Hun comes out every other day and drops bombs. They have as many machines as we have now and fights are daily occurrences. Also they have now got the new revolver anti-aircraft gun and one of our machines has been hit at 10,000 feet. Rose and his observer were killed here a fortnight ago by a nose dive after engine failure. Flight Commander Robinson RM (sic) is missing after a bomb attack. Nothing has been heard of him. They have lost three machines in the sea. They use the Bristol Scout for a straffing machine, being faster than the Hun.” Does anyone have a comment or explanation re Dacre's 'they have now got the new revolver anti-aircraft gun' - What would this weapon have been? Regards Michael Edited 22 January , 2017 by michaeldr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 January , 2017 Share Posted 22 January , 2017 57 minutes ago, michaeldr said: ... Does anyone have a comment or explanation re Dacre's 'they have now got the new revolver anti-aircraft gun' - What would this weapon have been? I am very much a tenderfoot in these matters, but might it be that the rapid fire of Becker-Kanone sounded as if it were a revolver-supplied gun of some kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 23 January , 2017 Share Posted 23 January , 2017 Julian, Thanks for the reply, but in fairness to you, perhaps I should have given the whole quote earlier. After “Also they have now got the new revolver anti-aircraft gun” Dacre then continues “and one of our machines has been hit at 10,000 feet.” This suggests to me that he was most probably mentioning terrestrial anti-aircraft artillery, (rather than aircraft guns themselves. [And perhaps his “10,000 feet” may have been an exaggeration].) The use of the word 'revolver' brings to mind the 37mm-Hotchkiss-Kanone which was also known as the Revolverkanone. Some examples of these are to be seen at Canakkale Naval Museum, or at least they were back in 2013 (see my http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/200687-%C3%A7anakkale-naval-museum-iii/#comment-1969074) Perhaps it is not by chance that these items are preserved there, and perhaps they did indeed get to be used in anger in 1915? The only fly-in-the-ointment with this theory is Dacre's use of the word 'new'. By 1915 the Hotchkiss Revolverkanone by no means 'new' regards Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 24 January , 2017 Share Posted 24 January , 2017 Thanks Michael. Having just finished the diary, I am left with a couple of questions that I'd appreciate help on. 1) If we can trust the translation, Fasih frequently distinguishes between the use of 'dum-dum' and other bullets when being fired at. Yes, I know the apparent fallacy of the 'dum-dum' bullet issue, but any idea what he means? 2) What are these 'land torpedoes'? Rockets or some bangalore-type device? One other thing that did perplex me is how he mentions at one point new soldiers turning up with 'new' Mausers and 'Mannlicher' bayonets... But, to the ebst of my knowledge, a Mannlicher bayonet would not fit one of the Turkish Mausers - or am I wrong on that? Either way, Turkish-used Mannlicher bayonets - if he is referring to the M.95 - are almost in the hen's teeth category over here! Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 24 January , 2017 Share Posted 24 January , 2017 Julian, I'll have another look at this book and get back to you on these points PM sent Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guidegallipoli Posted 28 February , 2017 Share Posted 28 February , 2017 On 24.01.2017 at 05:23, trajan said: Thanks Michael. Having just finished the diary, I am left with a couple of questions that I'd appreciate help on. 1) If we can trust the translation, Fasih frequently distinguishes between the use of 'dum-dum' and other bullets when being fired at. Yes, I know the apparent fallacy of the 'dum-dum' bullet issue, but any idea what he means? 2) What are these 'land torpedoes'? Rockets or some bangalore-type device? One other thing that did perplex me is how he mentions at one point new soldiers turning up with 'new' Mausers and 'Mannlicher' bayonets... But, to the ebst of my knowledge, a Mannlicher bayonet would not fit one of the Turkish Mausers - or am I wrong on that? Either way, Turkish-used Mannlicher bayonets - if he is referring to the M.95 - are almost in the hen's teeth category over here! Julian Hi Julian, Land torpedoes had been fixed on land for waterfront firing sistem to the submarines, and the warships. They were normal vessel carried torpedoes. But to defend the narrows some old Turkish ships' guns had been functioned like land batteries. Some torpedoe barrels had been put to land near Chanak and Kilidbahir fortresses. Seyhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 1 March , 2017 Share Posted 1 March , 2017 Many thanks! Now to sort out the dum-dum bullet matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guidegallipoli Posted 1 March , 2017 Share Posted 1 March , 2017 3 hours ago, trajan said: Many thanks! Now to sort out the dum-dum bullet matter... Good evening Julian, About dum dum bullets (Turkish: dom dom kurşunu) first of all I can say that it is a cartridge for hunting pig, bear etc. Generally a single lead shot.(Pic.1) During Gallipoli Campaign some Turkish officers claimed that dum dum has been used against Turks. What is this dum dum bullets? You have normal bullet in your hand. Normally bullet's ogive is sharp or round. (Pic.2, 3) Making a normal sharp ogive dum dum. You cut the sharp ogive's tip a little bit. Use a drill and open a little hole on bullets tip. (Pic. 4) Now, that is a dum dum bullet. Use it to fire. That little hole on tip of bullet will hold some air in when it is fired through barrel. Effective part is when it hit the target. It goes in the body through its normal hole but later the pressed air in that hole of bullet smashes the inner organs on its way and if goes out, it penetrates the exit. More destructive and certain death not knock out only. I hope explanation is helpful. Seyhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 3 March , 2017 Share Posted 3 March , 2017 On 1/24/2017 at 08:23, michaeldr said: I'll have another look at this book and get back to you on these points PM sent My sincere apologies for neglecting this question Julian The noise and the echo seem to have impressed Fasih, though he does also describe a couple of wounds which he believes were caused by this type of ammunition. In one instance he describes a wound as a graze, and, though I could be mistaken, to my mind this does NOT suggest what the English would call a dumdum I have opened a thread in the Gallipoli section, hoping to establish what the ANZAC's were using in that area at that time. regards Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 March , 2017 Share Posted 5 March , 2017 Thanks both, but Seyhan, note that one of the reasons people believed that the British and Commonwealth army regularly used 'dum-dum' bullets was the actual impact pattern of a regular bullet, plus possibly the circumstance that some British and Comm0nwealth troops used ammunition supplied (presumably in marked cases?) by the Dum Dum arsenal in India. See, for example this thread: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/225281-explosive-bullet/#comment-2234915 Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 6 March , 2017 Share Posted 6 March , 2017 Good afternoon gentlemen and apologies for butting in. I have been reading Sir Arthur Gaskell's History of the Medical Unit of the Royal Naval Division from its inception to the evacuation of Gallipoli in the Journal of the RN Medical Service, and in Vol. 12 (1926), pp. 135-136 came across this report from Surgeon A.A. Ballance: "It was remarkable that a large number of stretcher cases were suffering from very large lacerated wounds. The patients attribute these wounds to “explosive bullets”, but I have not been able to find any reliable evidence of the truth of this statement, though I have often enough picked up clips filled with bullets reversed." This is from the British side, of course. There are other comments on the size of bullet wounds, more usually attributed to shots having been fired at close quarters. I suspect that this muddies rather than clears the waters - but thought it might be of interest. seaJane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 7 March , 2017 Share Posted 7 March , 2017 Many thanks for this, SJ I have quoted you on the related thread which is looking further into this Thanks again Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 7 March , 2017 Share Posted 7 March , 2017 Glad to have been able to contribute, Michael. sJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now