ANZAC Memorials, WWI Battle of Gallipoli

ANZAC Memorials, WWI Battle of Gallipoli

In Sydney, in Melbourne, and in Canberra there is a memorial to the soldiers of Australia and New Zealand who were casualties in the World War I battle of Gallipoli.  ANZAC means the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps, fighting under the British High Command.  I won't cover the whole story here, but it would be worth your while to Google it.  It looms large in the national memories of both countries and is one of the essential pieces of history necessary to accurately understand the relationship of Australia and New Zealand with the British Empire.  It is also a classic of military history - one of those enormous blunders and miscalculations that is analyzed and taught in military academies of many countries.

Early in WWI the young Winston Churchill, serving as First Lord of the Admiralty (sort of like the US Secretary of the Navy) advocated for a strategic attack on the Bosporus Straits and the capture of Istanbul in order to neutralize the Ottoman Empire, which was one of the Axis powers allied with Germany, Prussia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  It was a good idea poorly executed, under-resourced, launched without adequate information about either the terrain or the strength and determination of the enemy Turks.  The initial attack was especially pathetic, poorly thought out, and executed without commitment, which totally blew the element of surprise.  It dragged on for six months, leading to high casualties for the British, French, and ANZAC forces, and even higher losses for the defending Turks.  It was the theater for legendary inspiring acts of heroism and military competence on both sides, and established a reputation for excellence, daring, sacrifice, and inspired leadership of the ANZAC forces which is still a basis for pride among Aussies and Kiwis to this day.  The losses suffered by the ANZAC regiments in proportion to their national population were staggering even by the bloodthirsty standards of WWI.  My friend David from New Zealand told us the story of the men in his hometown, a small village of only a few hundred at the time.  I forget the exact numbers, but they sent off to war something like 70 young men, and only 3 returned.

I was struck by the understated, polite presentation of the history at the Sydney Memorial.  It emphasized the bravery and sacrifice of the ANZAC troops, the suicidal but ultimately successful defense by the defending Turks, and the ingenuity of the ANZAC in their last stand to cover the orderly and clandestine retreat of the rest of the British forces.  And yet, I know from my reading of military history that this episode was deeply resented by Australia and New Zealand.  It is widely analyzed as the tragic result of the arrogant, stupid, troglodyte British High Command shamelessly exploiting the colonials.  It is often called "Churchill's Blunder".  The British insisted on imposing British commanders over the ANZAC troops, denying them the superior leadership of their own demonstrably more capable officers. The British imposed standard (obsolete, ineffective) British methods and doctrine, stifling the creativity and initiative that ANZAC later demonstrated when they finally gained control of the high command of ANZAC.  But this is barely hinted at in the memorial.  It just shows how susceptible the public teaching of history is to political factors and points of view.  Some people scorn "revisionism", but we need the efforts of professional historical research and the thinking of iconoclasts to keep improving our grasp of the truth.  THE TRUTH is seldom simple or straightforward.  It is important to read things that we disagree with, or don't like, or that contradict the "received text".  I am convinced that our children don't really begin to be truly educated until they go to college and read stuff that their parents wouldn't approve of.