Printable View
Think she was the one fitted out in Williamstown. If so I was on her two years ago. My brother works for the company that does all the 'tag and test' I the dock yard. The boss was invited to take all is workers for a look, I was allowed to go as well. The ship was just the shell then, recently arrived from Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vernon
#46 Sounds and probably looked a bit like Lawrence of Arabia. JS
Two of the magazines I subscribe to have excellent information about [1] "THE ECONOMIST": the cause behind the German and Turkish collective involvement in WW ll. [2] "SMITHSONIAN": a concise account of the battle. Well worth reading if you are interested in that tragedy.
History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
The link to THE ECONOMIST would not be accepted as the link contained the word Mozzie. Therefore, I have copied and pasted "the offensive article." For goodness sake don't let anyone under 55 read it. Too bad one cannot copy and paste and ship it in a brown bag like other mailed forbidden fruits...pun intended.
The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East. By Eugene Rogan. Basic Books; 442 pages; $29.99. Allen Lane; £25.
“UNTO us a son is born!” It was with great excitement that Enver Pasha, the most powerful of the triumvirate of Young Turks who ruled the Ottoman Empire, greeted the news that two German warships had sailed into neutral Turkish waters on August 10th 1914. The Goeben, a heavy battleship, and the Breslau, a light cruiser, had bombarded French Algerian ports at the start of the first world war, and were being pursued by French and British vessels across the Mediterranian.
The Turks extracted a high price for granting the ships haven, including recognition of their demands for the recovery of territories lost in earlier conflicts and financial help if they entered the war. To avoid immediate hostilities, though, the Turks ostensibly bought the German ships (and the services of their crews), replacing two dreadnoughts that had been ordered from, but requisitioned by, Britain.
Thus did Germany appear to gain a new ally, and Turkey a protector against dismemberment. The Ottomans came fully into the war two months later, when Germany sent the now Turkish-flagged Goeben to attack the Russian navy in the Black Sea. The European war turned global, with Indians, Australians and New Zealanders brought in to fight against Arabs and Turks. The conflict was to prove as disastrous for the Ottomans as for Germany, if not more so. A multinational ****** empire that had once threatened Vienna was broken up; the first modern genocide, of the Armenians, was committed; the Arab provinces were parcelled up into benighted colonial “mandates”; the foundations of the future Jewish state were laid; and the caliphate, established in the earliest days of *****, was abolished.
If Germany’s humiliation at Versailles set the stage for German revanchism in the second world war, then the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire created the festering sore that is today’s Middle East. “The legitimacy of Middle Eastern frontiers has been called into question since they were first drafted,” writes Eugene Rogan. “Arab nationalists in the 1940s and 1950s openly called for unity schemes between Arab states that would overthrow boundaries widely condemned as an imperialist legacy.” Nearly a century and several wars later, the worst exponents of that resentment—the jihadists of Islamic State—have proclaimed the recreation of the caliphate.
The story of how the Ottoman Empire stumbled into a conflict for which it was unprepared, how it put up a stronger fight than anyone expected and how its carcass was torn apart are the subject of Mr Rogan’s assured account. Amid myriad books about the slaughter in Europe, Mr Rogan, the director of the Middle East Centre at Oxford University, sets out to tell the story through Ottoman eyes. Although he does not always succeed in delivering that viewpoint, the book stands alongside the best histories. Mr Rogan ably weaves the thinking and doings of the politicians and generals with their impact on the soldiers and civilian populations. He sketches many revealing vignettes: Anzac troops rioting around the brothels of Cairo; soldiers in the desert struggling to distinguish enemy combatants from harmless sheep; and a north African soldier-poet describing the carnage in a foreign field at Charleroi in Belgium: “They perished without anyone reciting the profession of faith for them, Lords! They lay exposed to the wild beasts, eagles and birds of prey.”
Mr Rogan offers a nuanced account of the greater and lesser moments—the Allied disaster at Gallipoli, the quagmire at Kut, the mass-murder of the Armenians, the Arab revolt, the conquest of Baghdad and Jerusalem, and the messy political scramble for Damascus.
But he is arguably at his most interesting in his account of the failure of what the Kaiser called Islampolitik, the idea that alliance with the ****** power, and the authority of the caliphate, would weaken Britain and France by subverting the ****** populations of their colonies in India and north Africa. There were isolated successes, including the enlisting of French north African prisoners-of-war to serve in Ottoman armies. But despite the call to jihad, for the most part ****** populations and soldiers remained loyal to their colonial masters. Even the revelation of Allied double-dealing to carve up the Middle East, as detailed in the Sykes-Picot agreement, did not blunt the rebellion of the Arab Hashemites against the Ottomans.
The Bolshevik revolution of October 1917, which took Russia out of the war, might have ensured survival or even some kind of victory for the Ottomans, by freeing up troops from the east to go south. But it was squandered. Their capture of the oilfields of Baku left them vulnerable to the British breakthrough in Palestine. In the end, Mr Rogan writes, the Ottomans were more influential than many imagined; instead of being the weakest link among the Central Powers, they held out to the end.
The Ottomans had lost wars before, but never the empire itself. This time it was different. The demands imposed by the Allies provoked a revolt by Mustafa Kemal, the hero of Gallipoli, who pushed the Greeks and Italians out of Anatolia, deposed the sultan and abolished the caliphate. Turkish nationalism thus salvaged the rump of Anatolia. But Arab nationalism was stillborn; the promise of self-determination made by America’s president, Woodrow Wilson, was not applied to Egyptians demanding the end of British rule. ***** was the sword that the Kaiser had hoped to use; instead it was later grasped by disgruntled, disenfranchised ******s against their own rulers, and against perceived foreign foes.
#49... Puts into context the oppositions side of the story, and shows there are always at least two sides to a story, propaganda is not going to achieve very much to those who already have their minds set on, neither is the olive branch. There obviously have been mistakes made all through history, probably Ghengis Khan made his when he didn't follow through with his ambitions and a lot of his modern day disciples want to carry on. Most wars in the past and in the present are caused by bad diplomacy, and are therefore put at the governments doorstep. The world has never been war free and never will be by the looks of it. However the present day upheavals are to my mind one of the most dangerous in History as are not isolated but nearly world wide at present. The leaders of what we like to call the Free World are going to have to make some very unpopular choices, either to meet the present threat of being overrun by idealogical and distasteful laws, and the running of countries under the governmanship of religious fanatics, or by meeting it head on and doing the best to exterminate, or just try and put off the inevitable by talking round it and finally succumbing. The present conflicts without those in Africa and other places now emerging shows the extent to which this world cancer has grown, it will finally have to be solved whether we like it or not by the ordinary foot soldiers and civilians fighting for their very lives and ideals, there will be no middle ground available. JS
Excerts from an Article in todays WA newspaper titled " Gallipoli foot-in-the mouth". Channel 9"s mini series Gallipoli has been criticised for inaccurate, offensive and racist captioning including getting basic Aussie terms wrong and calling Maories cannibals. The Turkish battlefield of Lone Pine is mistakenly called Lonely Pine and the Aussie greeting of cooee is subtitled whoo-eee when closed captions are selected during viewing. An Aboriginal soldiers mention of Blackfella stories was subtitled , like folk stories. While a pretty young nurse sighing hmm was captioned grunts. I thought I'd bring the mountain to Mohammed became I thought I'd bring them out, while God in Heaven became God in Heron. The Article goes on to another page or so with faults. The people doing the captions obviously are not used to the English language, its a pity they don't name them so one can see from whence they came and how they passed the so called English test for immigration status. The Article closes with - The worst mistake was in a scene showing Turks listening to a Maori haka as they waited for an attack by New Zealand forces, which was subtitled , cannibals chanting. The cannibal reference is racist and downright offensive- a classic racist chestnut directed at our Maori neighbours, Ms................said. JS
Watched the first 40 minutes or so of this channel 9 'Version' of Gallipoli debacle, it was such a poor account that like many I turned off. Apparently the worst show of the year so far, obviously n real research done by the producers. If it comes to UK TV give it a miss.
#48... John have you found (as probably has always been the same) the utter disregard of timing for programmes and even changing at the drop of a hat. Must be in line with 3rd world countries TV services, the programmes unless are copies from the UK are usually a waste of time, unless you like Neighbours or Home and Away. Its a good job they don't try and charge a TV Licence otherwise the Telly would be on its way to the tip. JS There seems today be no morals as people speaking the truth, which seems immaterial to any news item. I remember as a kid the BBC was world famous for being above board and could take any news with faith, the BBC may be the same, but the ABC is certainly not, I have watched some programmes where the interviewer or Chairman of the program does not even try to hide his leanings to left or right. Most programs re current affairs are that politically prejudiced it is no longer funny, but a total disgrace. Is only a wooden box like they have on Hyde Park Corner. JS
John #49 you are correct, without some UK TV there would be no TV. But have noticed with channel 7 they get half way through a series then drop off as they have only bought half of it.. .