I had someone ask me this question today. Lets see if your up to it. In 1915 there was a great event that happened in Turkey. This event harmed many people. What was it?
Gallipoli was the answer that I came up with. She had Armenian Genocide issue. So what can you all tell me about it. I was going to write a resarch paper on it but end up writing about the Invasion of Belgium and the German treatment of Beligian citizens.Agrippa said:There's quite a few potential answers. The Gallipoli invasion occurred in 1915, lots of people died there. There was also a Russian invasion from the Caucasus. Not only did that invasion kill quite a few people, it helped sparked the Armenian genocide which resulted in the deaths of (depending who you ask) about a million people. We also had a British invasion in Mesopotamia. Essentially, no matter how you look at it, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a good place to be in 1915.
Gallipoli wasn't Winston's adventure. Sure, he took the blame for it, and he wasn't opposed to it. But that blame was ill-placed. Winston was First Lord of the Admiralty, Gallipoli was the first attempt by the army to allow the navy to break through the Dardanelles. The diplomatic course beforehand shows that there are at least four or five people before Winston who should have got the boot. Foremost among them was the Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener. But shortly after Gallipoli he was dead anyway. The diplomatic problems concerning the Middle East in Britain during the First World War is described well in David Fromkin's book A Peace to End all Peace.oldrooster said:I would have to say Gallipoli, it was one of Winston Churchills illfated adventures to break the stalemate on the western front.
Not really the answer did not suprise me at all. Prehaps Australia has a large Armenian population in the cities.Injured Soldier said:As for the answer, I have nothing more to add to Agrippa's suggestions. Armenian genocide would have been my first choice, suprising for an Australian.
Not really. But I was referring to the fact that the Gallipoli campaign is the most famous battle in Australian history, in fact in 6 minutes time is ANZAC day here, which is on the day the Gallipoli campaign started. Most Australians like Americans would barely have even heard of the Armenian Genocide.wildthing said:Not really the answer did not suprise me at all. Prehaps Australia has a large Armenian population in the cities.
Even Hitler reasoned the Holocaust by saying "who remembers what happened to the Armenians?" Personally I think the inferred 1.5 million Armenians is too high, the numbers were always kept low by previous massacres (yes, this wasn't a one off thing, just larger), others were spared by funnily enough serving in the army (the worst Turkish casulties in WWI were in the Caucusus campaign in 1914, where about 85-95% of the army were lost). But as you said, we'll never even have figures like that of the Holocaust, and even those are extremely varied. Even now a Turkish historian might flatout deny there ever was such a thing (although he would definately acknowledge something happened).Before April 24,1915 conservative estimates state that their were about 3 million Armenians that lived in Armenia and Turkey. 8 years later (1923) 1.5 million Armenians were still alive but scattered in places like United States, Palestine, Lebanon, France and Brazil, along with Armenia and Turkey.
We will never know the exact number of victims because Armenian brith records were destroyed and Turkey kept no records of what happened.
Gallipoli Campaign had a lot of sturctural problems if I remember correctly. The one that stood out in my mind was the poorly provided troops. Everything was in short supply food, care and hospital ships. The other thing was in poor supply was the thing that the army uses, ammo. Great Britian at that time was having an hard time supplying needs to the soldiers in France at that time when you addrd the needs of another campaign you will have problems. I think the planner did not plan on how pucky the Truks would be too.Injured Soldier said:Not really. But I was referring to the fact that the Gallipoli campaign is the most famous battle in Australian history, in fact in 6 minutes time is ANZAC day here, which is on the day the Gallipoli campaign started. Most Australians like Americans would barely have even heard of the Armenian Genocide.
Even Hitler reasoned the Holocaust by saying "who remembers what happened to the Armenians?"
What about the Salonika Front in November 1918? That knocked Bulgaria out of the war, and Churchill, Wilson, and even Ludendorff saw it for what it was, a defeat for the German Army that placed it in an irretrievable position in the southwest. This is how a German army that wasn't broken on the Western Front lost the war, and with the Americans firmly in the West, there was not a single troop to spare.oldrooster said:It however proved that the stalemate in WW1 would only be decided on the western front.
The same old Allied propaganda excuses that applied during the war is what was applied after. Yes Germany was blockade, no people starved though. The situation caused by the blockade of foodstuffs in Germany in WWI was similar to the situation of the blockade of Japan in WWII. Sure, it caused hardship and was longer than the latter's case, but in itself it didn't break the country.oldrooster said:By 1918, the food blockade had taken its toll. Plus the German soldier of 1918 was not the same as 1914, revolutionary thought was spreading and the only real thought was survival. The last German offensive in the west failed and with it any hopes of even a negotiated settlement. The argument that the army wasn't broken was spread after the war to place blame on the politicians at home. If the Allies would have pressed their final offensives to their logical conclusion, they would have went to Berlin. they were still operating by old rules of warfare. A mistake not repeated in WW2.
If by this you mean that the addition of fresh troops at that moment was decisive in that it enabled the allies to take the offensive and move the front back to Belgium, then I agree with you.wildthing said:We need to understand that France and UK had lost the war on the western front. They had little effect intaking back territiory that was lost to the Germans. It was the American Army that would defeat the German army.
Oliver said:If by this you mean that the addition of fresh troops at that moment was decisive in that it enabled the allies to take the offensive and move the front back to Belgium, then I agree with you.
But reading the quote above, one would (or could) think that the British and French armies were collapsing and that the US army was the only one to take the offensive or at least break german defense. This is far from the truth.
Actually, the BEF had already stopped the german offensive in the north, and when the allied counter-offensive took place, the number of US troops involved was not yet at its maximum. (In June 1918, 85,000 US troops took part in the first battles of the counter-offensive).
There's little doubt that without US troops, this counter-offensive would not have been as decisive (or at least would have taken much more time and lives). There's also little doubt that the threat of a US involvement is what pushed Ludendorff to this offensive which proved so costly for the Germans.
But to say that "France and UK had lost the war on the western front" seems really exaggerated IMHO.
So true!wildthing said:Stupid tactices on both sides cost to many human lives.
The war has changed several times:wildthing said:But by 1918 the war had changed in some degree stalled German offenseive and counter offenseive by the Allies would bring about "peace".
oldrooster said:If Germany had not had such useless allies, Austria-Hungary especially, they might of had a chance. Basically no one had banked on the war lasting as long as it did. It really became a who can wait the longest fight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?