Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-May-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
  Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?
    Posted: 27-May-2016 at 04:41
To repeat, I am a writer and you can judge me only after reading my book. Otherwise, all the comments you would make would be non-sense...

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Robohistorian

Well I tell you that what you learnt from academical history is all false. If I had any academical skill, I would not be able to discover this.
It doesn't bode well for your writing if it follows the same illogical path as this statement.
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6072
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2016 at 12:20
Originally posted by Robohistorian

To repeat, I am a writer and you can judge me only after reading my book. Otherwise, all the comments you would make would be non-sense...

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Robohistorian

Well I tell you that what you learnt from academical history is all false. If I had any academical skill, I would not be able to discover this.
It doesn't bode well for your writing if it follows the same illogical path as this statement.
No, Robohistorian, as a writer of fiction you can get away with such things. However whenever you wish to overturn the established it can only be done by the evidence you produce. This you haven't done. Making your claims nonsense. If you produce worthy evidence many of our members may indeed wish to read your book.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-May-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
  Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2016 at 16:11
Ok lets see one evidence used in the book... Can anyone explain this? year is 1913... Who is Ottoman? Who is Turkey? Does this fit with your history knowledge??

1 April 1913... From an article... Bulgaria insists upon an indemnity being paid by Turkey if she is to be responsible for a portion of the Ottoman debt
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-May-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
  Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2016 at 16:12
By the way you can not call people fiction writer or non fiction writer. A writer can do both easily.
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6072
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-May-2016 at 02:18
Originally posted by Robohistorian

Ok lets see one evidence used in the book... Can anyone explain this? year is 1913... Who is Ottoman? Who is Turkey? Does this fit with your history knowledge??

1 April 1913... From an article... Bulgaria insists upon an indemnity being paid by Turkey if she is to be responsible for a portion of the Ottoman debt
Saying "From an article" isn't what we call evidence. If it's from an article from a newspaper or such publication chances are there will be a copy of it online so after the quote, which should be shown to be a quote, an urgent to the copy should be shown. If it's not found online then the name of the publication page and paragraph will do, along with where this can be viewed. Also, can you explain to us why the piece you have shown should be considered to be controversial? 
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-May-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
  Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-May-2016 at 08:01
If there is a way of uploading picture, I can attach it here... 

Why Controversial? 

How on earth could you talk about two seperate entities in 1913... Who is Turkey and Who is Ottoman? This is an official note sent to big powers... Cant you see how trivial official history is at the first moment. You never knew that before. 

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Robohistorian

Ok lets see one evidence used in the book... Can anyone explain this? year is 1913... Who is Ottoman? Who is Turkey? Does this fit with your history knowledge??

1 April 1913... From an article... Bulgaria insists upon an indemnity being paid by Turkey if she is to be responsible for a portion of the Ottoman debt
Saying "From an article" isn't what we call evidence. If it's from an article from a newspaper or such publication chances are there will be a copy of it online so after the quote, which should be shown to be a quote, an urgent to the copy should be shown. If it's not found online then the name of the publication page and paragraph will do, along with where this can be viewed. Also, can you explain to us why the piece you have shown should be considered to be controversial? 
Back to Top
Robohistorian View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-May-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
  Quote Robohistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-May-2016 at 08:02
Just explain me the sentence. You dont even have to be a history expert to see the point in this evidence?
Back to Top
AnchoritSybarit View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
  Quote AnchoritSybarit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2016 at 03:00
Robohistorian, I hope that the 322 page book you've been touting exists only as an e-book, because if it exists as a real paper book you will probably soon be arrested and hauled off to The Hague to be tried as an eco-terrorist for wantonly destroying so many trees needlessly.

First of all get it through your head that Turkey IS what was left of the former Ottoman Empire after all of its constituent parts were stripped off by the victorious Allies in 1918.  The quote you cite could not have ever been printed because in 1913 neither Bulgaria nor any other country on earth knew or could have possibly known that the country of Turkey would ever exist.  Secondly, you evidently are a bit weak on what indemnity means.  When you take on an obligation to pay debts that you do not currently owe someone MAY give you money to convince you to do so.  For instance if my mother died and left me her property, but the property had debts, I do not have to take the property, I can choose to walk away with nothing.  The lender could then choose to indemnify ME, that is bribe me to take the property with the debt by cutting me a break (give me more time to pay, give me a better interest rate and so forth).  Why would Bulgaria or any other country want Turkey to pay for the privilege of paying a debt that they are already paying.

Now as to a conspiracy to cover up a victory at Gallipoli--what victory.  By my last measurement I am 5'6" so there is no conspiracy to conceal the fact that I am really 6'2"

Had the Royal Navy followed Churchill's plan; had they possessed a Nelson who would turn a blind eye to danger and boldly charged up the Bosphorous, reducing the Turkish forts on the way the course of the war would have altered dramatically.  A year later when the Gallipoli campaign finally started if the British shown any competence Turkey would have been knocked out of the war, the Russian crisis been averted and Gallipoli would have assumed a place next to Agincourt, Culloden and Waterloo.

As to the fearsome Queen Elizabeth battleship, I hate to tell you but all of the battleships in the Eastern Med were second rate ships.  They were a generation behind the rest of the fleet.  Furthermore if there was a super battleship which America would have feared it would have been German not British.  One on one the top of the line German battleships were in every way superior to the Brits.

America modernized her coastal defenses because they were completely outdated.  They had not been significantly updated since the Civil War.

Lastly, as has been mentioned earlier.  The last thing in the world the British would have wanted was to offend in any way America.  Without America's sales of munitions the war would have been over in 1915 in the gunpowder crisis.

In a nutshell British grand strategy in WWI was to slaughter its soldiers en masse and whenever disaster and complete defeat looked them in the face find another country to go to war with Germany, first Italy then the US.  Without the US there would have been no British vicory.



















What I have I hold.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2016 at 09:49
Well stated and welcome to our obsession.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2016 at 17:59
Anchor has done his research. That's all that really needs be said....cept...we are indeed obsessed.

amen.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
J.A.W. View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320
  Quote J.A.W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2016 at 18:45
Actually A-S has got the bit about HMS Queen Elizabeth wrong.

Since at the time, she & her sisters were the 'super-dreadnought' battleships, 
armed with 8 excellent 15in guns, on a hull big enough to carry heavy armour protection,
yet driven by powerful oil-fired turbines to speeds other battleships could not match.

The design was proven sound at Jutland in 1916, when  facing down Germany's best.
& again later in WW2, where HMS Warspite survived a Nazi smart bomb attack of the same
type which sank the new Italian battleship Roma, & the US cruiser Savannah.

The problem was - HMS Queen Elizabeth was at Gallipoli as a token new ship, among the 
obsolescent types, which were very vulnerable & suffered horribly with mass loss of lives.

It was Churchill's  arrogant adventuring which turned the 'Young Turks' towards the Central Powers,
such as the confiscation of the new Turkish battleships built in Britain, on the outbreak of war,
& cleverly substituted for by Germany, who sent the battlecruiser Goeben, which the British ineptly
failed to intercept...

Churchill, who was keen to secure middle eastern oil supplies for the Royal Navy's new oil-fired ships,
actually contributed negatively, then, & post-war too, with ramifications that still echo in Iraq/Syria today.

Edit: Fixed typo.


Edited by J.A.W. - 17-Oct-2016 at 18:52
Be Modest In Thyself..
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2016 at 20:00
Wont argue with that...and I didn't pickup on the Qe point which is apt. There is no discredit or disrespect here directed to them admirable lads from 'down-under'. They, in the campaign, were true gallants and tough as gawdamn iron. These were tough fighting men...ask the Turks.

They suffer no dishonor as individuals or the collective....but the premise of the original post is absurd. One does not conduct a strategic with drawl and maintain it was a victory. Of any type let alone become the subject of reviasonist-ct twaddle.

amen.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
AnchoritSybarit View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
  Quote AnchoritSybarit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2016 at 16:04
I won't argue the point about the modernity of the QE BB, it's been many years since I've read much about the Gallipoli campaign.  Besides my main point was not the quality of the ships but the quality of the men who sailed them. 

Churchill's original proposal was for the RN to simply force the straights up to Constantinople destroying the Turkish forts on the way.  Had there been a modern Nelson, Rodney, Drake, etc. the course of the war would have been drastically altered.  Russia not knocked out of the war.  No Russian Revolution.  No rise of Communism.  NO WW II. No Korea, Vietnam.  Possibly not even a rise of radical Islam and the various middle eastern adventures of the past 20 years.

Even a year later when the revised plan of taking the Gallipoli peninsula was adopted, had there been EVEN competent leadership Gallipoli would have ranked among the greatest of British military achievements and not abject, total nausea-inducing failure.
What I have I hold.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.