Talk:Gallipoli campaign

Ottoman entry into World War I

Gallipoli Campaign is not the article for arguing on "Ottoman entry into World War I." That argument may have a position in Battle of Odessa (1914), but too many things happened before Gallipoli Campaign. A small reference to Ottoman entry into World War I is quite explanatory. The section in this article is quite big in content. Includes many non-factual claims (arguments); statements like "the Ottoman Empire's geographic position meant that Russia and her allies France and Britain had a significant interest in Turkish neutrality in the event of war in Europe." is not factually-correct, but I guess there is a reference for that, surely there is a reference for everything on the internet! Arguing on these issues beyond the scope of the Gallipoli Campaign. If there is a need for fully developed section, this section needs to be factual, correctly supported, not a collection of POV statements, even if it is cited. User:Anotherclown Either let the Gallipoli Campaign link to Ottoman entry into World War I page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654423093&oldid=654422409 or let the correct information be included https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654420494&oldid=654337465 --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Gday - thanks for starting the conversation about this, much appreciated. Given the close links b/n the issue of Turkey's entry into the war and the Gallipoli Campaign I think there is a need to cover the issue in some detail in this article, but using summary style so as not to provide it undue weight (hence the reason for the state of this section as it currently is). Indeed most works on the topic (i.e. the Gallipoli Campaign) cited here seem to cover the background to the Turkish entry into the war and that is probably the reason why it was included in the first place (otherwise the article would not adequately summarise the campaign). You proposal seems to be either removing the section altogether and replacing with a very short paragraph - per your edit here [1], or covering in detail per your alternative edit here [2]. As I said in my edit summaries though there are issues with both, firstly the short summary you replaced the existing text with wasn't referenced, whilst the second edit was too detailed. Consequently I don't think either of your proposals are workable in their current form, although obviously other editors may disagree with me. IRT the other aspect of your comment, you obviously have concerns about the factual content currently included (although only mention one example above). As you state though all the information here is referenced to reliable sources so I don't think calling them POV statements is really accurate. Perhaps more might be gained by listing the concerns you have with the current content and providing a source for an alternative interpretation and then discussing on that basis rather than wholesale deletion of content, or replacing it with text that meets your interpretation / understanding of the events? Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is one or two problems of the current summary. These are from the first paragraph. Using two references: "Young Turks seized power in Constantinople and installed Mehmed V as a figurehead Sultan." It was 31 March Incident not Young Turk Revolution (seized power!) replaced the sultan. Who ever typed that misrepresented the source, or source is... Without a reference "the French, British and Germans had offered financial aid" is totally non-true. They were the debt collectors, not providers. That is nonsense. There are three sources behind the claim "A pro-German faction influenced by Enver Pasha" It is well known that Enver Pasha resented the German military mission. The fact that Ottoman government outreach got response only from Germany linked Enver to Germany. That is not being influenced, but cornered. Cornered argument brings the "Great Game" into this article. That is a paragraph by itself. With a reference: "Russia and her allies France and Britain had a significant interest in Turkish neutrality" In 1912, Russia "kind of" declared war. The note said change the governors or I will occupy you. They replaced the governors. But Russian military began planning for occupation in 1913. You can read these under Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). Just to follow your position; the clarification of the first paragraph, as you stated to adding other positions, I'm going to add 3-4 paragraphs just for the first paragraph. I believe there are other missing points. I just want to remind that you also have a position of "too long." I sincerely believe a short summary to articles would be a better solution. You did not like my summary. So, write a "three line summary" and replace these three paragraphs to the links Ottoman entry into World War I, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and for political events to Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). If you want to argue when the Sultan changed, how much dedt the Empire had, or if Russia really wanted to be neutral, the articles already established. It is not like we would be deleting content. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm struggling to understand a lot of the issues that you are attempting to raise, as I'm assuming English is a second language for you. I'll try but you may need to break your concerns down into smaller, more concise statements. So far you have mentioned some concerns with the first paragraph. Whilst I don't have access to all the sources used there (Haythornthwaite, Aspinall-Oglander, or Fewster, Basarin & Basarin), I was able to spot check Howard (2002) The First World War, p. 51 which states: "...power had been seized in 1908 by a group of young officers (the original 'Young Turks') set on modernizing the archaic political and economic system and restoring national prestige'." That would seem to be faithfully used here in this article in my opinion, although again others might disagree. Perhaps either @Keith-264: or @AustralianRupert: might be able to check the other references used here if they have access to them? The pending spot check aside though I get the feeling that your objection isn't so much a case of the sources used being interpreted incorrectly but that you have a different understanding of the events being discussed than those in the sources used. I'll ask again do you have any references that you can point to for these interpretations that you can present here? So far you haven't provided any. Given the language issues we seem to be having I'll try to state my position as clearly as possible: I remain unconvinced by your proposal to reduce this section to a "three line summary", and I do not agree with adding "3-4 paragraphs" to it either. Certainly what is here can be corrected where / if there are found to be errors in it; however, I support doing this only if you can back up your concerns with verifiable references to reliable sources, not statements like "It is well known...". Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm working today so I'll have a look later. I have the OH (Aspinall-Oglander) and Erikson Ordered and Defeat but I'm surprised that it's been questioned considering that the passage is descriptive.Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Young Turks seized power... -> That is Young Turks and they sized the power with Young Turk Revolution (July 1908). ...and installed Mehmed V Mehmed V (Reign: 27 April 1909 – 3 July 1918) Young Turk Revolution did not remove Abdul Hamid II, just opposite "On 24 July 1908, Sultan Abdul Hamid II capitulated and announced the restoration." The removal of Abdul_Hamid_II#Countercoup.2C_1909 was in 1909 and nothing to do with Young Turk Revolution. I do not even see why this article is the place of all this jazz. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help much with the sources as I am interstate for a while. Definately agree, though, that these changes should be discussed first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At a glance I'd certainly support the view that the section could be pruned and the details left to the linked main article. I'll have a look in Strachan later.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On spot checking Haythornthwaite p. 6 mentions this did indeed occur in 1909 and states: "The new Sultan then installed was Mohammed V, Abdul the Damned's younger brother, but he was merely a figurehead: all power was concentrated in the hands of the instigators of Abdul's overthrow, the 'Young Turks'. Google Book preview here [3]. I've tweaked the current text to reflect this - pls see my change here [4]. I will discuss the proposal below separately for continuity. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman entry into the war suggested edit

Ottoman entry into the war

Main article: Ottoman entry into World War I

On 2 August 1914, the British requisitioned two modern battleships—{{ship|Ottoman battleship|Sultân Osmân-ı Evvel||2}} and {{ship|Ottoman battleship|Reşadiye||2}}—which were being built in British shipyards for the Ottoman navy, alienating pro-British elements in Constantinople, despite an offer of compensation if the Ottomans remained neutral.{{sfn|Howard|2002|p=52}} The German government offered two cruisers—{{SMS|Goeben}} and {{SMS|Breslau}}—to the Ottoman navy as replacements. The Entente [[Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau]] failed and the Ottoman government opened the [[Dardanelles]], to allow them entry to Constantinople, despite being neutral and required under international law, to block military shipping.{{sfn|Broadbent|2005|p=18}} In September, the British naval mission of 1912 under Admiral [[Arthur Limpus]], was recalled due to increasing concern that the Ottoman Empire would enter the war. Rear Admiral [[Wilhelm Souchon]] of the Imperial German Navy, took over command of the Ottoman navy.{{sfn|Broadbent|2005|pp=9 & 18}}{{sfn|Haythornthwaite|2004|p=7}}

On 27 September, acting on initiative, the German commander of the Dardanelles forts, ordered the passage to be closed, adding to the impression that the Ottomans had sided with Germany.{{sfn|Haythornthwaite|2004|p=7}} The German naval presence and the success of German armies in Europe, gave the pro-German faction in the Ottoman government enough influence to declare war on Russia.{{sfn|Howard|2002|p=53}} On 27 October, ''Goeben'' and ''Breslau''—having been renamed {{ship|Ottoman battlecruiser|Yavûz Sultân Selîm||2}} and {{ship|Ottoman cruiser|Midilli||2}}—sortied into the Black Sea, bombarded the Russian port of [[Odessa]] and sank several Russian ships.{{sfn|Fewster|Basarin|Basarin|2003|p=44}} The Ottomans refused an Entente demand to expel the German missions and on 31 October 1914, entered the war on the side of the [[Central Powers]].{{sfn|Broadbent|2005|p=19}}{{sfn|Fewster|Basarin|Basarin|2003|p=44}}

Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 2 November and the next day, a British naval squadron off the Dardanelles, bombarded the outer forts at Kum Kale and Seddulbahir and killed {{nowrap|86 soldiers.}}{{sfn|Carlyon|2001|p=47}} Britain and France declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 5 November and the Ottomans declared ''jihad'' (holy war) later that month and began the [[Caucasus Campaign]] against the Russians, to regain former Turkish provinces.{{sfn|Carlyon|2001|p=48}} The [[Mesopotamian Campaign]] began after a British landing, to occupy oil facilities in the [[Persian Gulf]].{{sfn|Holmes|2001|p=577}} The Ottomans prepared to attack Egypt in early 1915, aiming to occupy the [[Suez Canal]] and cut the Mediterranean route to [[British India|India]] and the Far East.{{sfn|Keegan|1998|p=238}} Strachan wrote that in hindsight, Ottoman belligerence was inevitable once {{lang|de|''Goeben''}} and {{lang|de|''Breslau''}} were allowed into the Dardanelles and that delays were caused by Ottoman unreadiness for war and Bulgarian neutrality, rather than uncertainty about policy.{{sfn|Strachan|2001|pp=678–679}}Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"later that month and began the Caucasus Campaign when the Russians began the Bergmann Offensive, to regain former Turkish provinces." The first conflict of Caucasus Campaign is Bergmann Offensive which is opened by Russia. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"the pro-German faction in the Ottoman government enough influence to declare war on Russia." this is an interpretation by that author. The Sultan has the sole power to declare war. The declaration of war to Russia was on 11 November 1914.SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

An author's interpretation accurately summarised is reliable as the author's interpretation. If there are other authors with different interpretations, put them in. If you want to reword the Caucasus Campaign section with citations I'd be delighted, it's not my field.

"later that month the Caucasus Campaign began when the Russians started the Bergmann Offensive and the Ottomans had the war aim of regaining former Turkish provinces." Will something like this be OK?Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I'd suggest probably tweaking it slightly (mainly for narrative flow): "...later that month the Caucasus Campaign began when the Russians started the Bergmann Offensive and the Ottomans sought to regain former Turkish provinces in the region." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gday again. User:Keith-264 thanks very much for your efforts so far. I acknowledge that you have only taken this on following the suggestion / criticism of the article by another editor and that this is not your initiative so I appreciate your attempts to find a middle ground. Firstly, I'm not opposed to this draft (and support User:AustralianRupert's suggested tweak) if there is consensus for it as it is a more concise, well-worded and descriptive summary of the topic. However, I am concerned that in this search for brevity we may be missing important details, which is why my position so far has been to keep the background section at its current approximate size and breadth of coverage, whilst correcting any inaccuracies / anything that is unclear (presuming of cse reliable sources support these changes). For instance:

1. the state of the Ottoman Empire prior to the campaign is important to provide context to our readers (and indeed is mentioned in numerous works on the campaign) but is not mentioned in the proposed draft; and
2. in the current draft we don't mention the German military mission and von Sanders (who would later of cse play a major role in the campaign).

These are just two examples, but there may be others. The effect of such a short summary in my opinion is that any reader that doesn't already have an understanding of the campaign is introduced to the subject rather abruptly, and without the necessary context to understand how it unfolds or who the key players are (and I don't believe this is adequately summarized at the main topic article yet either, which is still being worked on and is mostly unreferenced).

At only three paragraphs this section (as it currently is, not the draft) doesn't really seem that big to me (although any overall expansion would probably create a WP:SIZE issue). As such I don't really see why there is a need to reduce it; however, if others are supportive of doing this then a section with the level detail of Keith's suggested draft would be a minimum in my opinion, and I still do not support its reduction to a single short paragraph per the original proposal. You will note above I have now tweaked the sentence regarding Mehmet V so I wonder if perhaps User:SelimAnkara1993 might comment on that and if there are any other issues which they feel need to be amended. If the references support changes then I am more than happy to consider those of cse. Perhaps that may be an alternative way forward. Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I cut the preamble since it seemed to be the place for bones of contention but if you want a version of it back I'd support that too, although since it contains explanation as well as description consensus will be harder. I'm critically ill with manflu at the moment (;O)) hence my reluctance to look at sources. It was nice to see Selim's suggestions of detailed changes but we need citations before bigger ones.Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Skinner & Stacke have

• 29 October: Turkey commences hostilities against Russia (see July 31st. and November 2nd and 5th) . Turkish warships bombard Odessa, Sevastopol, and Theodosia.
• 30 October: Allied Governments present ultimatum to Turkey (see 29th). Great Britain and France sever diplomatic relations with Turkey. British and French Ambassadors demand passports (see 31st, and November 5th).
• 31 October: British Government issue orders for hostilities to commence against Turkey (see 30th, and November 1st and 5th).
• 1 November: Great Britain and Turkey commence hostilities (see 5th, and October 30th and 31st).
• 2 November: Russia declares war on Turkey (see October 29th)
• 5 November: Great Britain and France formally declare war on Turkey (see 1st and 11th, and October 31st).
• 6 November: Keupri-Keui (Armenia) taken by Russian forces (see 14th).Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The German "cruisers" Goeben and Breslau

The article mentions that Germany "offered two cruisers, SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau to the Ottoman Navy". While the Breslau was indeed a Magdeburg-class light (4,500 ton) cruiser armed with 10.5 cm (4.1") guns, the Goeben was a 23,000 ton Moltke-class battlecruiser armed with 280 cm (11") guns that threw a 302 kg (666 lb.) shell, heavy enough to sink the British battlecruiser HMS Indefagitable at Jutland. Cruisers and battlecruisers are not the same thing; the latter -- originally a brainchild of Admiral Jackie Fisher -- were vessels built for cruiser speed but with battleship armament --Death Bredon (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I've tweaked the wording to remove the word "cruisers". Does this work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NZ Troop Numbers

On 22 March 2016 there was much media attention in New Zealand regarding a revision of the recognised number of NZ troops involved in the Gallipoli Campaign. ( and ) I accept that this is unproven, and potentially subject to debate, (it's history!) so I shouldn't have changed this page. Sorry for that and thanks for the 'undo'. So let's debate. Should we change the infobox? The source seems authoritative - NZ Defence Force and NZ Ministry of Culture and Heritage. Surely unlikely to have a bias and ultra cautious against any risk of losing face through undertaking substandard research or unsafe conclusions. The research was undertaken by the Chief Historian of MCH, and included relevant folk from NZDF, Archives NZ and Statistics NZ. The findings are plausible and in fact address some problems with other numbers, often quoted, if not here. The assumptions seem reasonable. I propose that the Infobox 'Strength' number for New Zealanders be changed to 17,048. This is the best number available at this date.Toothpickdog (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Gday Toothpickdog, thanks for starting this discussion. I agree that the source you have provided is a reliable one so I have included this information in the body of the article now with this edit [5] (although I haven't amended the infobox). As far as I can tell the figures in the infobox are probably "peak strength" not the total number of personal that served over the entire campaign (or at least I'm assuming this is the case). Please note for instance that the infobox currently lists 20,000 Australians; however, a total of 50,000 + Australians actually served during the entire campaign - many being reinforcements or replacements for casualties etc. The figure of 20,000 refers to the initial commitment. I'm unsure about the rest of the figures for other nationalities however (e.g. Britain etc). The MCH source seems to be referring to total personnel (i.e. including reinforcements and replacements etc) and not peak strength so it would probably be out of place with the rest of the figures in the infobox if it were changed in isolation. @Keith-264: - do you recall if the figures in the infobox are all meant to be "peak strength" or total figures? Anotherclown (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they're totals but I'm not sure.Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are, there wouldn't have been 460,000 British ashore at once. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks Keith, yes that is a fair point. Given then that most of the figures in the infobox are totals (not "peak strength" like I suspected) both the New Zealand and Australian figures need to be changed to be consistent with them. As such with this cleared up I support Toothpickdog's proposal to do this. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made this change now [6]. Given the difference b/n Green (14,000) and MCH (17,000) for NZ figures I thought we should include both. I am open to other suggestions of how to acknowledge this difference though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems a good solution to me. Thanks, all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks! Toothpickdog (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This change looks good, but should it be noted that this new (and extremely credible) figure is essentially a statistical estimate? - see page 8 of the source in particular where the authors repeatedly use the word "approximately" and discuss the statistical error factors. Other text probably needs to be revised - eg "Among the dead were 2,721 New Zealanders, about a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula" (I've read today, but can't remember where) that this revision results in the NZ force having a similar casualty rate to the Australian force, which makes sense. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Gday Nick. Good points - the bit from McGibbon re "a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula" seems to be explained by the MCH source as the initial NZ strength so I have slightly reworded it to (hopefully) be consistent with the previous change - pls see my edit here [7]. Also I have now identified both the AS and NZ figures in the infobox as approximates. I am of cse open to further rewording in the text though if you feel the possible statistical issues with the revised NZ figures needs to be more explicitly acknowledged (or a note if you think that would be a better solution). Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What's happened to the lead?

It used to be succinct reportage of events and their significance, now it reads like journalism. 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I also have concerns about the changes and have reverted them. Dbachmann: could you please outline your rationale here so that the proposed changes can be discussed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think a nod towards Oz, NZ and Turkish creation myths is right but not treating them as if they were what the campaign was for. I'll try to step back a bit though, because I'm in enough trouble already. Regards ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

CE

Tidied references and changed ; to ''' as apparently readers for people who can't see, can't deal with a semi-colon. Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day. Unless there is objection to it I'd like to keep Bean's 2nd volume in the further reading as we only use his 1st volume as a reference and its still considered a fairly important work on the topic in this part of the world (even if dated). Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Apols Another', I thought it was a duplicate, which is why I got rid, quite happy for rvKeith-264 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

PS I abbr US states but didn't notice I'd only abbr NSW in Oz locations....Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

{{efn|The enormous casualties at Gallipoli among Irish soldiers who had volunteered to fight in the British Army was a causal factor in the [[Irish War of Independence]]; as balladeers sang, ''"Twas better to die 'neath an Irish sky than in [[Suvla]] or [[Sedd el Bahr]]"''.{{sfn|Orr|2006|p=}}{{page needed|date=January 2017}}}}

I put this into a note as it seemed a dubious claim (Who didn't have enormous casualties at Gallipoli?) and I wasn't sure about its placement. Apropos, does anyone have the page number? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Sorry I don't have the page number for that. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I've replaced this with West, which I was able to view on Google books with a page number. Moved Orr to the Further reading section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gallipoli Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://https
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608013850/http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/modern_history/research/gallipoli_centenary_research_project/ to http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/modern_history/research/gallipoli_centenary_research_project/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia listed as a combatant?

What was Russian contribution to Gallipoli campaign? 82.46.64.88 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

CE

Did a little tidying up, revert as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Albanians ?

Around 50.000 ethnic Albanians fought in this war , somebody better put that in the list of combatants also there is proof of this just check the canakkale monument . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.93.6 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

CE

Apols, I've trodden on someone else's edits; if I can help reinstate them, pls let me know. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Think I've resolved it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Apols, another edit conflict....Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Think I've put it right; I'll lay off for the rest of the day to let everyone else have a clear field. Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wattle Grove

pls check - added text & refs for 7 Sep 1915 Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove & 'Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915' CenotaphZbunyip (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those references, however, I am concerned that the level of detail you are adding breaches WP:UNDUE. It might be okay to include that sort of detailed coverage in the article about the memorial itself, but this article deals with a much larger topic, that needs to remain focused without going into too much detail. Adding several paragraphs on a single, local memorial seems like it places undue emphasis on a minor aspect, which is arguably inappropriate for this article. Please establish consensus for your change before continuing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove and Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915 Cenotaph, Adelaide Park Lands, South Australia

There should be some mention of the SA event in Gallipoli Campaign article, but happy to have that mention link to a longer text & refs transferred to a new article. In fact there's loads more info for the first and subsequent years which was deliberately left out to try and minimise the SA additions so as not to be WP:UNDUE. However removing all of Adelaide Park Lands, South Australia 7 September 1915 Gallipoli Landing commemoration event and its inauguration of the first Australasian memorial to Gallipoli and ANZAC would make Victoria / Queensland and UK WP:UNDUE by suppressing fact of historically significant earlier South Australia event which Australia's Governor-General stated was the first in the Commonwealth. The article would be biasing towards Victoria, Queensland and UK. In fact the South Australian event was internationally significant, as the Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915 monument is also the earliest known ANZAC memorial to New Zealand Corps landing at Gallipoli. Have not been able to identify any earlier NZ ANZAC memorial - the Auckland Harbour Board Beacon (which is not national, but in memory of employees from that organisation) was not lit until Dec 1915. In addition to official role of Governor-General and Lady Munro Ferguson, the references evidence that it was not only locally reported in SA, but also in West Australian and Victorian newspapers, however the Australian Wattle Day League also had 'branches' in the UK, not only in other Australian states, and William Sowden, who presided over the 7 Sep 1915 event was the Australian Federal President as well as the SA Branch President. As such some mention of the Australian Wattle Day League's 7 Sep 1915 inauguration of the Commonwealth's first national memorial to the 25 April 1915 Gallipoli Landing would not be WP:UNDUE. How much would you like to reinstate and would you help link and transfer the rest of the information to a new Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove article?Zbunyip (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Commemorations are events in themselves so If you want that much detail, i think you'd do better to write an article on them and link with this one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A single, short sentence would seem sufficient to me here. Or, including mention of Adelaide in the sentence that is already there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture size

Is everyone happy with the size of the pictures? I altered them to upright 1.0 to standardise them and having looked again, think they are a little large. Would upright 0.75 be better? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I don't have any dramas with that change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

At the moment the images do look a little big on my screen so I wouldn't have any issues if you want to reduce them a bit Keith. I'm a bit of a numpty with the "upright" markup though otherwise I'd have a go at it myself. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I gather that their appearance depends on the size of your equipment (ooh-er). I'll have a tinker.Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes very probably. Anyway those changes look fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice sought

What do people think of keeping this edit which has been removed? --27.99.52.82 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Image Showing Ottoman Naval Defense

In the Naval Campaign section (probably under Attempt to force straights) I think it would be nice to have an image that shows the locations of Ottoman mines and submarine defenses in the straights. I was thinking something like this image from the USMA Atlas. I think only the lefthand side of the image is relevant to the section. Any thoughts?

Jdazzle95 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Jdazzle95

If it's public domain I can't see how we can keep it out. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

When did this start? Feb or April 1915?

Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign says 17 February 1915, the main infobox of this page says 25 April 1915. Timeline of the Gallipoli Campaign says 19 February. starship.paint ~ KO 13:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, the dates in the infobox are for the land campaign. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert - okay, could we also list the naval campaign's dates as well? Since it is the same campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 10:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me. @Keith-264 and Anotherclown: thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Since the article refers to the naval campaign and the invasion was to facilitate the naval attack towards Constantinople, why not? They were means to the same end. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes seems logical to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I propose changing the infobox (and lead) dates to "17 February 1915 – 9 January 1916". Would this work for all concerned? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I've no issue with that proposal. We will also need to amend the dates in the lead. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have changed the dates in the infobox and the lede as the article is submentioned at WP:DYK now. starship.paint ~ KO 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Srich32977: Greetings, curious as to why you've changed — to –? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We should use one or the other in the text – see— generally, MOS:DASH. (Thanks for the note about 20 ems for sfns—I'll keep it in mind.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Anon comment

foi uma vitoria teuto turca a influencia alemã nos armamentos e resto é geralmente minimizada pois se pra turquia era estrategico continuar controlando as duas margens pra alemanha o era mais ainda pra continuar seu plano de via directa pro indico sem canal ingles e embora hitler tenha reconhecido os esforços turcos e se baseado algo nele tambem temos de ver que na altura turquia e russia eram potencias menos industriais e mais atrasadas a nivel tambem de caixa mesmo a frança tava ficando pra tras os grandes poderes eram anglos e alemães por zonas estrategicas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.154.77.70 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Google translates the above as: "it was a Turkish victory for the German influence in the armaments and the rest is generally minimized because if turquia was strategic to continue controlling the two shores to germany it was still more to continue its plan of direct route to indicate without English channel and although hitler has recognized the Turkish efforts and if based on it we also have to see that at the time Turkey and Russia were less industrial powers and more backward at the cash level even France was getting behind the great powers were Anglo and German by strategic zones".

I assume our anon feels the article does not adequately convey this point of view.

For me, this 'big picture' story is outside the scope of this article.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman entry into World War I, reprised

While we're on the subject of inappropriate "big picture" I see we have a subsection on why Turkey was in the war, with details about events going back several years. Seems to me, it should be moved and integrated into Ottoman entry into World War I, replaced here by a summary paragraph. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh. That will teach me a lesson about reading the existing talk page before mouthing off. I'll be pleased with a relevant counteragument either here or above. The argument that the reference books handle it that way is true enough, but this is an encyclopedia, where readers can quickly click to the explanation of events months before the campaign. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Causalities

Causalities are wrong, fix it. There's even no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.233.237 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If you mean casualties, these are cited to "Erickson2001a", which is Erickson, Edward J. (2001a) [2000]. Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

I have taken this from the lead: "However it had the long term effect of galvanizing national identity for Australia and New Zealand, whose soldiers suffered proportionately heavy casualties". This partly duplicates information in the second paragraph and is therefore misplaced. And it really overstates the case in a number of ways, going beyond what is said in the body of the article. I'm not sure that Australian and NZ casualties were so much different from UK casualties. And I don't see a source which says that the casualties suffered were the key factor. The Anzac spirit article barely mentions casualties, for example. As to "galvanizing national identity", this sentence states this as a fact, while the rest of the article merely says that some people have said something like that. I think it is hard to argue this is a serious non-partisan sense: that Australia did not have a fully-fledged national identity at Federation, for example.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree with the excisions and suggest that "national identity" is a myth and an invented tradition. Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's just duplicating stuff which is already discussed in a more nuanced way in the intro and elsewhere. The role of Gallipoli in Australian national memory deserves a full treatment, though. I just stepped in to correct blatant error, ie. a claim that most of the casualties were ANZACs. Although I suspect a lot of Australians probably imagine that to be the case. I was wrong about Fromelles in my edit summary though - it looks like somewhat fewer Aussies were killed there than at Gallipoli, although it was in much the same ballpark.Paulturtle (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Can the counties casualties be listed individually, not the vague ‘British Empire.’ It seems to devalue the actual countries contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4028:AE00:D44A:913E:ABCD:1952 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

CE

Tidied lead; is para 2 really the place to bruit Arab involvement in the campaign? It seems a bit recondite for introductory remarks. The citations don't inspire much confidence either.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Keith. Agreed, it probably shouldn't be in the lead, IMO, as it seems a minor point and breaks up the flow of the current paragraph. There is potentially a place for it elsewhere, though. Maybe in the Ottoman defensive preparations section? Agreed also, though, that the sources presented may not be the best. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Strategic Planning & Choice of Invasion Sites

Does anybody have any material about how and why the decision was taken to land at Helles and ANZAC (or rather the spot near ANZAC where they were supposed to land)?

To the layman looking at a map, Bulair at the neck of the peninsula looks like the obvious place to invade, so I'd always assumed that there must have been a good military reason why they didn't, e.g. steep cliffs rather than invadable beaches. However, the RND division conducted some decoy activity there on D-Day (Freyberg swimming ashore and lighting some flares etc - mentioned in the article). So there must have been at least a possibility of landing there.

A book I'm reading at the moment on the Asquith family (Arthur Asquith was in the RND) says that the top brass decided not to land at Bulair precisely because the Turks were expecting it and the area was defended by two divisions. I'm sure the writer copied that claim from somewhere rather than inventing it, but it probably ought to be sourced to a more heavyweight military history.Paulturtle (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Harvey Broadbent's Gallipoli: The Fatal Shore (pp. 44-45) mentions "Hamilton's plan for achieving this, however, was uncannily similar to that anticipated by von Sanders, except that it dismissed a landing at Bulair on the Gulf of Saros. Hamilton considered Saros too far from the main objectives, the forts on the Dardanelles. Instead Hamilton...opted for a dummy landing at Bulair - a demonstration at the neck o the Peninsula". Probably doesn't help, though. I will have a look through some of my other books. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's quite noteworthy how these decisions were still made by "the man on the spot" - Hamilton in this case. In WW2 such a decision, with so much riding on it, would have been signed off on by the chiefs of staff, defence ministers and heads of government of the countries involved.Paulturtle (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

John Hancox grave

Photo and short text added to the 'Graves and memorials' section is something I considered worth salvaging from the recently deleted article about John Hancox. Meticulo (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Isn’t this an invasion? If it is, why isn’t it named that way? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

G'day, do you mean the article's title, or are you referring to the wording in the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn’t talk about the superiority of the allies weaponary. Is there a reason for that? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

G'day, the article briefly mentions the advantage in terms of naval artillery (although this diminished throughout the campaign), but it also highlights that the Allies were unable to concentrate sufficient land-based artillery. In regards to your query, do you have a proposal for what should be mentioned and where you would propose this be added, as well as sources that support the proposed addition? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic Composition

Not dubious at all since it's based on scholarly work on Gallipoli published by the Oxford University[8]. You want to claim it's dubious since I always added a source from Al Jazeera. Wikipedia is not a tool for propaganda. Is good to detail the ethnic composition of the Ottoman defense. First you proposed to remove it from the header, very well. Although I do believe it should be added to the Ottoman defenses. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD This is Mickey Mouse nonsense, what does the geographical origins of Ottoman soldiers have to do with the Gallipoli campaign? Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

These were Ottoman Troops consisting of many ethnic backgrounds which need to be highlighted as it's very important to really understand the dynamics of the campaign and the defenses. I will undo your edit. As you can find me proof that the 9th division consisted of any other troops. I'm all for breaking down all divisions on the page and what they consisted of. Stop removing invaluable data. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Make your case here that the geographical origins of Ottoman troops makes a difference to the Gallipoli Campaign. Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, in its current form the information lacks context and potentially it may be too much detail for this article, which should be a summary, and should point to daughter articles to explain things in more detail. I'd suggest, though, that potentially some of the information could be added to where the 19th Division is first mentioned in the article. It should be done in a way that doesn't break up the narrative flow too much, though. For instance, perhaps The 19th Division (Kemal)—two thirds of which were Arab troops[ref]—and the 9th Division were placed along the Aegean coast and at Cape Helles on the tip of the peninsula. The topic could then be covered in more detail on the article about the division itself and also potentially the Ottoman Empire during World War I article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Something on the structure of the Ottoman army won't go amiss and I've found enough for a paragraph or two in Erickson. It could explain why the 19th and 9th divisions were there. If there is significance in their areas of recruitment it would fit in a passage like this although we don't often go into such things with the other polyglot armies. If the troops were fighting a long way from home that could be worth a mention. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Ozan33Ankara: In 1914, the defence of the Dardanelles was the responsibility of the Dardanelles Fortified Area Command (DFAC), which oversaw the forts and an artillery brigade with one heavy and two medium regiments. The forts and guns were concentrated at the mouth of the Dardanelles and along the narrows with skeleton peacetime garrisons. North of the peninsula, the III Corps had its headquarters at the garrison town of Tekirdag, comprising the 7th, 8th and 9th divisions, the 9th Field Artillery Regiment, the 3rd Cavalry Brigade and support elements. The III Corps had been the only corps of the Ottoman army to emerge relatively intact from the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The III Corps received its mobilisation order on 2 August 1914; the peacetime establishment of the 7th Division was 200 officers, 5,021 men and 724 animals and the other two divisions had similarly low establishments. III Corps was the only one in the army to meet the mobilisation schedule and by 21 August had incorporated 28,945 men and 7,402 animals. On mobilisation the 9th Division was attached to the DFAC as its mobile reserve; the Command found difficulty in filling its specialist posts but by 17 August had put the heavy artillery on a war footing and by the end of the month the commander of the 9th Division had begun discussions with the fortress command to devise a defence scheme. In September the 9th Division began to move into the peninsula and the 7th Division joined the 9th Division at the end of October; III Corps headquarters moved to Gallipoli on 4 November, the 8th Division being ordered to transfer to the Sinai Desert in Palestine, to be replaced by the mainly Syrian 19th Division.

References

• Erickson, Edward J. (2001) [2000]. Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9. Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Caption for picture of French gunners

The caption is wrong. There were no units of Artillerie Coloniale present during the Gallipoli campaign.) Those men who are manning the 75mm are from the metropolitan army of France. The word "colonial" should be removed from the caption. Keith H99 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Strength of French Corps versus number who served

There were two divisions of troops, primarily 24 infantry battalions. I do not see how this amounts to an establishment of 79,000 where other sources mention a figure of 42,000. Is it the case that although the Corps had a strength of 42,000 there were nearly double that amount of soldiers who served at Gallipoli, and that high attrition is the reason behind this? If 79,000 served and 47,000 were the "attrition", then it accounts for how these units continued to function. I'm not immediately aware of French units being wiped out. I have seen BEF battalions in August 1914 with a war establishment of 1,000 yet when you look at the 1914 Star medal roll there are 2,000 listed. Keith H99 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The given source speaks of 79.000 French engaged, with 47.000 casualties (dead, wounded, missing) during the campaign. The Banner talk 21:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The table records the strength of the forces engaged, and 79,000 is way higher than the establishment of two divisions, which is why I disputed the figure, as it is not consistent with "strength". Keith H99 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The French presence would not only have been made up of the French Corps, but also of naval and air units. Plus reinforcements. The Banner talk 22:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of transparency, can you quote the words from that page in this talk section, please? The lion's share of the French presence was 24 infantry battalions, and 79,000 cannot be "strength" but a total of all personnel who served in the theatre of war. Keith H99 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the way it is presented is misleading, but I cannot see an easy way of making the delineation. Erickson seems to have sourced his figures from page 484 of Aspinall-Oglander's official history volume II (1932)

'In March 1915, when Sir Ian Hamilton was despatched...the strength of his army was 75,000..Yet by the end of the campaign, the total numbers that had been sent to the peninsula in a vain attempt to retrieve the initial error amounted to nearly half a million (Note: 410,000 British and 79,000 French).The total British casualties, including those evacuated sick, had amounted to 205,000;† those of the French to 47,000.

†(Note 3: 115,000 killed missing and wounded: 90,000 evacuated sick. It must be noticed that, owing to the lack of hospital accommodation on the peninsula, large numbers were evacuated who were only suffering from light wounds or minor ailment.)

There seems to be a similar proportional breakout of combat casualties to evacuated based on the French official history.

Topic is considered closed, with no further action to occur. Keith H99 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

How many divisions sent from Gallipoli to Salonika?

Within the Evacuation section, there is a comment that

'In early October 1915, the British and French opened a second Mediterranean front at Salonika, by moving three divisions from Gallipoli and reducing the flow of reinforcements.

I don't think this happened. As I understand it, on 25 September 1915 Kitchener proposed three divisions ought to be moved. (Source: Aspinall-Oglander, p.376 within Chapter XXVI.) There was a compromise, and two divisions at Gallipoli (French 156th Infantry Division, 10th (Irish) Division M.E.F.) were actually redeployed in October. (See also: Aspinall-Oglander, p.377 within Chapter XXVI. This can be downloaded from https://digitallib.stou.ac.th/handle/6625047444/1848) Is there evidence, in the form of shipping reports and the like as to the actual quantity of divisions that left Gallipoli for the Salonika front? Keith H99 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I don't know about shipping reports, but the direct quotes from Baldwin are "In September, one French and two British divisions were shifted to Salonika..." (p. 61), and "On October 3, the vanguard of a three-division Allied expeditionary force, the bulk of the troops transferred from Gallipoli, landed at the Green port of Salonika, under the nominal over-all command of the French General Maurice Sarrail" (p. 66). Wahlert seems to mention Allied reluctance to send more reinforcements due to fighting on multiple fronts (p. 26), but does not seem to specifically mention Salonika or the number of divisions sent there. As a counter to this, Alan Morehead's Gallipoli provides "Kitchener and Joffre agreed that two divisions, one French and the other British, must be sent from Gallipoli to Salonika at once...he loyally sent off the two divisions to Salonika and fitted them out as well as he could before they left" (pp. 252 & 254). Peter Hart's Gallipoli provides "Reinforcements must be sent to Salonika, opening up a new front. Kitchener reacted quickly, ordering two divisions to be sent from Gallipoli. Thus the French 2nd Division and the 10th Division left the Peninsula for good in late September. In October hostilities commenced against Bulgaria" (p. 387). Given that Morehead, Hart and Aspinall-Oglander seem to agree that it was two divisions, one French and one British, I'd propose just changing the wording above from "by moving three divisions from Gallipoli" to "by moving two divisions from Gallipoli". Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, thanks for your reviewing of this query. If you look at the foot of page 376 of Aspinall-Oglander, Hamilton put forward a counter-proposal that two divisions be transferred from Gallipoli to Salonika:

'This proposal [from Sir Ian Hamilton] was agreed to; only the 10th Division and one French division were withdrawn from the peninsula, and by the end of September these troops were concentrating at Mudros for conveyance to the new front.'

When the first battle occurred in Salonika, only these two divisions were present: Battle of Kosturino The facts that I am seeing do not correspond with the statement from Baldwin. There had been talk of Yeomanry joining the force in Salonika, but they were not present at Gallipoli, and would not have been division strength. Eventually the 27th & 28th Divisions arrived at the start of 1916. If a third division had transferred from Gallipoli, I would expect such a material event to be documented in the various official histories, with its specific name appearing.

I think changing the wording, as per your proposal, is the way forward. Keith H99 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The second British division to arrive on the Salonika front arrived in November and December 1915, having travelled via France: 22nd Division (United Kingdom) As ever, longlongtrail.co.uk provides a bit more extra detail on the division's history than the wikipedia article. Keith H99 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

OH Military Operations Macedonia I has the 10th (Irish) Division being sent "as soon as possible" (from Gallipoli via Mudros, plus two brigades of the 13th Divisional artillery from Egypt, plus extras to make it capable of operating independently but no howitzers....). The 29th Brigade began its disembarkation on 5 October as did the French 156th Division.(pp. 40-42) By 17 October, the division, a composite Yeomanry regiment from Egypt and infantry drafts from England had been landed.(p. 51)

• 22nd Division: From France, began to disembark on 5 November (p. 52) 6 November (p. 85), completed 10 November.(p.85) The 26th Division sailed for Alexandria from France, one battalion landed and the rest went straight to Salonika, the first disembarking on 23 November.(p.85) The 27th Division from France sailed from 18 to 28 November (p.85) then got bumped in favour of moving the Lahore Division, two battalions went to Alexandria and remained on the ship and to brigades had to wait for about a week in Salonika harbour, the disembarkation taking until the end of the month.(p.86) The 28th Division reached Egypt from France from 29 October; by 22 November the division was complete except for two artillery brigades and on 22 November the div HQ sailed for Salonika; disembarkation continued into early December.(p.86) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Evacuation, guns destroyed and abandoned

I have a question about the source of the data for the British. There is mention of '15 British and six French unserviceable artillery pieces which were destroyed.' The source is Corbett, Volume III. Aspinall-Oglander implies on pg 471 'Of the 54 guns to be kept to the last, seventeen had now been marked for destruction.' Page 469 of Aspinall-Oglander mentions the destruction of the sole six inch howitzer. Are there other sources out there that define how many were actually destroyed?

Of interest:

Dardanelles Army Headquarters, 6 January 1916 Dardanelles Army Order n° 3.

1. Paras. 2 (b), 11, 13, and Appendix "A" of Dardanelles Army Corps n° 2, dated 1st January, 1916, are hereby cancelled.

2. The Final Stage of the evacuation of Cape Helles will, weather permitting, be carried out on the night 8th/9th January. Arrangements are being made for the evacuation of 17.000 men on that night from "V","W", and Gully Beaches, and of such guns as can be saved without jeopardising the successful embarkation of the troops.

It is hoped that it may be possible to save all the French Artillery with the exception of 6 heavy guns, all the remaining l8 pounders, and the anti-aircraft guns.

All guns left behind must be so completely destroyed that they will be useless to the enemy even as trophies.

3. The shipping to be provided for the Final Stage is given in the revised Appendix «A » (1) attached.

4. All troops evacuated on the last night will proceed direct to Mudros. Troops embarking on destroyers will be conveyed to Mudros in the destroyers and will not be transhipped into carriers.

5. Troops embarking during the Final Stage must carry one iron ration. They must embark with the greatcoats only, their packs, blankets and waterproof sheets being loaded beforehand and sent to Mudros in "G" ships.

C. F. ASPINALL, Actg. Brigadier-General, Dardanelles Army.

Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day, unfortunately I haven't been able to find much in my paper-based sources at this stage. Hart p. 449 talks in generic terms about the equipment left behind but doesn't specifically mention the number of guns; although, on p. 445 he replicates an account of two 10 inch and two 4.7 inch guns being blown up. Broadbent p. 266 mentions guns, ammunition, carriages and animals being left behind or destroyed, but does not mention the specific number of guns. I haven't viewed Corbett before, but you can view p. 255 (which mentions the numbers of guns) here: [9]. Keith-264 might have better luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)

* Aspinall-Oglander, C. F. (1993) [1932]. Military Operations Gallipoli: Appendices. History of the Great War based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section Committee of Imperial Defence. Vol. II (facs. repr. The Naval & Military Press and The Imperial War Museum Department of Printed Books ed.). London: Heinemann. ISBN 978-1-84574-946-0.

Appendix 18 Army Order No. 2 (1 January 1916) pp. 71–75 [fn1– As amended by Army Order No. 3] (6 January 1916)

The French artillery will, with the exception of two 75 mm. batteries, which are to be withdrawn at once, be evacuated gradually pari passu with the British guns. After the embarkation of the General Officer Commanding Corps Expeditionnaire des Dardanelles, the French artillery will come under the immediate orders of the General Officer Commanding VIII Corps." p.72

Appendix 20 Corps Order For Helles Evacuation

VIII Army Corps Order No. 32 (6 January 1916)

6. Withdrawal of Guns "A certain number of guns, both British and French, will remain in position until dusk when some of them will be withdrawn and embarked under the orders of the B.G.R.A., VIII Corps. During the withdrawal artillery will have precedence on roads over other troops, but guns must on no account proceed at a faster pace than a walk. The B.G.R.A. will also make arrangements for destroying completely all guns which cannot be evacuated on the final night." p.81 Keith-264 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

OH Gallipoli II has "destroy one British 6-inch gun and six old heavy French guns, which it would be impossible to withdraw on the last night."; fn1. "General Brulard himself suggested the destruction of these old and nearly worthless guns."

"...and all 37 guns to be evacuated were safely got away." p. 476.

"...since...28th December...evacuated...127 guns." p. 478

• Corbett III rev. 1939 (2009 facs. repr.) "fifteen guns, only one of which was fit for service, but all of them were blown to pieces so they might not be paraded as trophies." p. 255; fn1. "This is exclusive of the six French heavy guns, which were also destroyed." Keith-264 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gents, I hope there is something in the new Peter Hart book, once it finally leaves the printworks. Keith H99 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hart (2020) pg 270

'At Helles, despite the Turks being effectively forewarned, they managed to evacuate 35,268 men, 3,689 horses and 127 guns... As for guns, one British 6" gun and six old French guns were abandoned, along with 10 worn out 15-pounders'

No primary source citation given for these figures Keith H99 (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Change “Captain Faik in charge of the of the 27th Battalion located there verified it with his binoculars and immediately informed his commanding officer, Ismet Bey, at Kabatepe.” to “Captain Faik in charge of the 27th Battalion located there verified it with his binoculars and immediately informed his commanding officer, Ismet Bey, at Kabatepe.” The heatmiser (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Please next time don't copy the whole sentence (it made me look for a change elsewhere needlessly); just the relevant bit... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I’ll make sure I don’t do that next time. The heatmiser (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Captain Faik was in charge of the 8th Company of the 2nd Battalion of the 27th Regiment. There was no 27th Battalion. Other two battalions of the 27th were still at Eceabat at the time. Murat (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Somebody needs to check the original source (or you need to provide a more precise one) but given the military rank the above seems logical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)