Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36367
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 08:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?
Posted By: Robohistorian
Subject: Did Anzacs won the Battle Of Gallipoli?
Date Posted: 22-May-2016 at 13:08
|
Anzacs won the Battle of Gallipoli but due to strategic and political reasons military censorship kept this victory as a secret. Pls read below book to see the evidences gathered from Anzac/European/American archives. Than you can compare with best seller expensive books which tell nothing but official manipulated stories. There is many other facts hidden together with Anzac victory. This is a must read book...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Victory-Anzacs-Gallipoli/dp/0995459304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463171876&sr=8-1&keywords=the+hidden+victory+of+anzacs
|
Replies:
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 23-May-2016 at 13:50
|
I have used ANZAC/European/American archives to reveal this and many other grand facts covered under the pile of politically manipulated information. Every line written in the book supported with real evidences. It is like we will wander around the corridors of a big library and I will show you the sources. At the end you will decide if those evidences refute the global story or not. I bet my book will win. I am ready to take on any historian if they wish so. In Turkey no one can dare to discuss with me..They have nothing to say against my evidences and the way I bring them together.
For example; did you know that Americans were so afraid of the results taken by HMS Queen Elizabeth Battleship in Gallipoli, that they have modernized all of their forts protecting east coast just a fes months after the Battle of Gallipoli... They were so afraid of this battleship because those battleships were so effective in destruction of the Ottoman forces in Gallipoli. When you see the very obvious evidence of this information, will you say this is the fiction of Burak? And I would say hundreds of bits of information will come together to draw the real picture of what really happened in Gallipoli... Just simply believe me, you will be definitely stunned with what you will see... |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 23-May-2016 at 18:52
|
This is all a very interesting story. However, I would like to see refs. and sources.
I have more than a trivial knowledge of the East Coast Defense System as it existed at the time. The bit about the US being afraid of a British battleship, enough to overhaul the defenses, is pure nationalistic fantasy. ------------- "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. |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 23-May-2016 at 20:23
No need, red. It's Turkish conspiracy theory fiction rubbish for those with little or no mental capacity. As you might expect it is of an ultra-nationalistic bent. Its aim is to be divisive and create mindless foot soldiers for their political masters. They lack so in their originality that they make me yawn. This clown should have been called NoGoHistorian rather than Robohistorian as this is not history at all. 
------------- 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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 24-May-2016 at 06:12
|
The book is 320 pages long and every sentence of the book is supported by the evidences coming from the archives. You will find archive references screenshots of the actual sources. So you will be able to read the actual evidence. US being afraid of British Battleship...? You will see that an American Newspaper giving all the facts about from US goverment sources and providing maps for the effectiveness of HMS QE's effectiveness. There is also a scientific American article about it. Would that be enough to suspect that this could be right?:)
|
Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 24-May-2016 at 10:44
It smells cheap marketting. If you read the book, you can share parts and references from it. If you are thinking to make a profit from the sales of this book. You should still give more detail about the it.
|
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 24-May-2016 at 10:57
| Well, I think I gave a very sound example. Red Clay said, it is a fantasy to say American might have feared from British and I gave what sources I used to bring forth this fact. What do you exactly want? Do you want me to copy paste whole book here?:) |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 24-May-2016 at 14:14
|
The US military modernized some of the Coastal defense grid in response to the war that was being fought in Europe. Common sense at that time, dictated that the US would become involved sooner or later. The main fear wasn't battleships, it was the Submarine, a new and unknown threat.
BTW- Many of the blockhouses and emplacements built at the time, still exist. Some examples are- Ft Monroe Va., Cape May NJ, New Bedford Mass. Most were still active and manned during WWII. I might also point out that the US was a main supplier of ammunition and other war materials to the British. The only reason I can think of to fear the Brits, would be that they couldn't pay us.  ------------- "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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 24-May-2016 at 18:07
|
Well, If you believe that you know why these forts are modernized better than US officials and journalists of the time, what could I say:) War in Europe was a zero level danger for US. Russians were invading Ottoman cities by waving US flags... (I have provided pictures)...American scientific circles and department of defence openly confirmed the danger HMS QE posed for their defences. Red Clay, instead of saying I know it all, you should take a look at these evidences. I bet, you won't regret.
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 10:08
|
I don't know it all, I would be the first one to say that. However I do know a reasonable amount of the history of the region I grew up in and live in.
That is the East Coast. A main branch of my family has lived here since the 1700's and were centered on the coast. As to the Coastal emplacements, a first cousin was the Channel Master for the Delaware River and tributaries. He gave me several tours of the then existing emplacements. Many are gone now. But I got a ground level history from him and others. One thing I've learned from this forum is when someone presents an extraordinary claim, They must present equally extraordinary evidence. So far you have resisted any request for sources. If the only reason your here is to sell your book, I'm not interested. ------------- "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. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 16:45
|
Your lack of knowledge of the US, 1914-1918, is striking for someone who supposedly researched this.
War, a zero danger level? From the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, it was very real. Throw in the active sabotage from Germany, re-Black Tom explosion, and the Government knew where things were headed. However, the country was isolationist still. ------------- "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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 17:39
|
Red Clay, your approach is very interesting. I am telling you that I have written a book full of evidences, 320 pages long...Because you dont want to buy the book, you blame me with not providing evidence. You tell me I lack knowledge but I say what you know is false and I have written a book just because what you (I mean in general you, public) know is mostly false. Your local history information might be valuable if you could fuse it with my study. If you think poor german army and Austrians who persistently begged Italy to forgive them (There is an evidence about it in the book) would be able to wage an attack on east coast of USA, your WW1 knowledge is very little. Well, I will tell you to read my book again and you will think it is an advertisement. Well,i what else can I do:) As I say, my evidences are real evidences and they are all western sources including American sources like Scientific American magazine article, etc... I am not claiming anything... I am just telling you that your sources says this...Either you make a 3 year research and find what I have discovered or buy the book and save your time. I think what I offer is reasonable:) |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 19:01
|
OK, Robohistorian, you have your opportunity to overturn the established evidence/argument by the usual protocol, overturning by proof of evidence. If your evidence is absolute proof that everything in the book is one hundred percent accurate, showing us source material backing it up we will consider what is said with due respect. If you're intelligent enough this shouldn't be any trouble. At AE we treat everything posted with the respect it deserves unless it lacks credibility and/or breaks out code of conduct. We look forward to your detailed evidence/proof. ------------- 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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 19:37
| Well, do you want me to send you a copy of the book? |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 19:48
|
What I have used as evidence in the book was meta-datas... As you know meta-data is the raw datas which contain no comment or personal idea. Intelligence agencies also use meta datas to create knowledge about their subjects. A meta-data is like... If you analyse this post you would say robohistorian and Dragon are part of the discussion... You can not deny that... If we had a photograph taken together...Someone would argue that robo and dragon have some sort of affiliation... Well you can not say what sort of affiliation but you can definitely say some sort of affiliation exists... And if someone comes up with an newspaper article which is about an armed conflict with another forum admin where robo and dragon fought together, than someone would argue that robo and dragon are in an organizational affiliation with each other possibly aimed at destroying rival forum... As you can see facts are constructed not so easily. Thats why it takes time years to write a book.. And thats why it is not easy to show one perfect evidence which will make you think that what I say is definitely correct. It is bit of a detective work actually...
|
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 25-May-2016 at 19:51
| And Thanks for your approach as an admin was quite respectful... |
Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 26-May-2016 at 01:01
|
Don't waste our time. It shouldn't be that much hard to share a singel source. Also I have enough reason to suspect the book.
All this topic is a marketing act from "Robot Publishing(Publisher of the Book)", isn't it Robohistorian? |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 26-May-2016 at 14:23
|
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. What source you want? What do you want to see? One evidence that tell you all the facts?. You are not well educated it seems... There is no such thing in science. You dont have to read this post. You are not representing the whole forum. If you are not happy with it, just ignore...
|
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date Posted: 26-May-2016 at 15:36
| By the way I am a writer with 11 years of experience. I have sold 1 million copies in 11 years. I am a writer, I live by writing. I will do so in the future regardless of what people think about it. This is not the case. The case I have made a great discovery and I need honest historians and honest readers who would understand the grandness of the hidden fact and share my excitement... |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 27-May-2016 at 02:00
It doesn't bode well for your writing if it follows the same illogical path as this statement. ------------- 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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date 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...
|
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 27-May-2016 at 12:20
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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date 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
|
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date 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. |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 28-May-2016 at 02:18
------------- 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. |
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Robohistorian
Date 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? |
Posted By: AnchoritSybarit
Date 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. |
Posted By: red clay
Date 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. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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' |
Posted By: J.A.W.
Date 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.
------------- Be Modest In Thyself.. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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' |
Posted By: AnchoritSybarit
Date 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. |