Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If attitudes were different, then more people might take the time to understand.
True...but how often do most people take that time to understand?? It's just so much easier to believe what is normally held as the "truth" as told by the media..
Are you familiar with the Gallipoli campaign? With Lawrence of Arabia? The Turks were the opponents.
The Empire was already in **** poor state before WW I began. They had just lost major chunks of their territory in the Balkans Wars of 1912 and 1913. For years before that they had been propped up by the British as a check against the Russians. Then the Germans took over the same task as WW I approached.
The Turks did win a few early battles, the previously mentioned Gallipoli was a severe defeat for Great Britain. There was also the siege of Kut (in what is today Iraq) where they forced the surrender of a 13,000 man Allied army. They did less well when they attempted to invade Russia via the Caucasus Mountains route. There were a great many casualties and nothing of consequence accomplished in three years of bloodletting. The Turks were losing their part of this war until the Russians knocked themselves out of the conflict via the Bolshevik revolution. The Turks also were pounded and driven out of Arabia and Palestine by British forces and the Arab revolt.
Unable to hold their own in their own sector, the Ottomans were never in a position to send any troops to the western front. They required more help from their allies than they provided. Turkey was to Germany in WW I, what Italy was to the Nazis in WW II.
Let me disagree. Everyone says the Ottoman Empire was finished when WW1 started. The young Turks staged a coup and they surprised everyone who fought them. Not only they defeated the allies at Gallipoli (Churchill also was certain of a quick victory), but as you correctly say, they also defeated the British at Kut (another surprise for the allies). Alenby started his campaign in Palestine, but after conquering Jerusalem, he stalled for more then a year before advancing north towards Damascus. If the Ottomans were finished, how could they put such resistance, keeping him back for so long?
As for Italy in WW2, how many major battles did they win? Before Mussolini, Italy wasn't much of a colonial power, but the Ottoman Empire had about 400 years experience in dominating large areas and fighting wars in both Asia and Europe. The Ottomans were considered undeveloped, yet they had a great army who fought very well under dire circumstances. Can anyone explain why the Turkish soldiers didn't put down their arms and ran home?
Let me disagree. Everyone says the Ottoman Empire was finished when WW1 started. The young Turks staged a coup and they surprised everyone who fought them. Not only they defeated the allies at Gallipoli (Churchill also was certain of a quick victory), but as you correctly say, they also defeated the British at Kut (another surprise for the allies). Alenby started his campaign in Palestine, but after conquering Jerusalem, he stalled for more then a year before advancing north towards Damascus. If the Ottomans were finished, how could they put such resistance, keeping him back for so long?
As for Italy in WW2, how many major battles did they win? Before Mussolini, Italy wasn't much of a colonial power, but the Ottoman Empire had about 400 years experience in dominating large areas and fighting wars in both Asia and Europe. The Ottomans were considered undeveloped, yet they had a great army who fought very well under dire circumstances. Can anyone explain why the Turkish soldiers didn't put down their arms and ran home?
You ramble around, but it is unclear to me what it is that I wrote which forms that with which you disagree. You will need to be much more specific.
You ramble around, but it is unclear to me what it is that I wrote which forms that with which you disagree. You will need to be much more specific.
Rumble
In WW1, the Ottoman empire was weakened indeed. However, in spite of their relative weakness, they put up a serious fight and fierce resistance, surprising their enemies again and again. I don't understand what motivated them to continue fighting. Anyway, there is little resemblance to Italy in WW2.
I would agree, i think that in America WW2 is so popularized because we fought in it almost from the beginning (or at least sooner then we did in WW1) even though WW1 was bloodier, and probably more important.
WW1 was so tragic largely becase it was fought because of the whims of 3 monarchs in Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. It is shocking the people of Europe, considered to be intelligent wouldnt have insisted on democracies long before. At least in countries like Sweden, Spain, England, etc. the monarchs had beenstrictly figureheads by then for quite some time. Can you imagine Elizabeth actually telling Blair or Brown what to do, they would laugh in her face! Or george trying to tell Chamberlain ot Churchill what to do, same thing!
Rumble
In WW1, the Ottoman empire was weakened indeed. However, in spite of their relative weakness, they put up a serious fight and fierce resistance, surprising their enemies again and again. I don't understand what motivated them to continue fighting. Anyway, there is little resemblance to Italy in WW2.
Ramble, not rumble.
Okay, so you take issue with the analogy I employed.
The Italians were certainly not without some negative impacts on the British war effort. The reason for one of the most regretted British actions of the war, the sinking of the French fleet to keep it out of German hands, was very much a product of Great Britain having the resources to either bottle up the Italian fleet in the Eastern Mediteranean, or bottle up the French fleet in the western part of the sea, but not both. Because the Italians were there, the French fleet had to go.
And though they put up an inept effort in Africa, they still put up an effort there, forcing the diversion of British troops from other theaters.
Turkey in WW I functioned much in the same manner. They served to divert resources which could have been used in other theaters. However,the Turkish war effort against the Russians was never any sort of serious threat to them, and the collapse of the Russian war effort was unrelated to Turkish contributions.
Gallipoli was over in January of 1916 when the British completed their evacuation, the war was only 16 months old at that point and had 34 months left to run, so the impact on the outcome of the war was negligible. The rest of the war was Germany having to send more and more money and more and more officers to help sustain the Ottoman's as a viable war partner.
Rumble
In WW1, the Ottoman empire was weakened indeed. However, in spite of their relative weakness, they put up a serious fight and fierce resistance, surprising their enemies again and again. I don't understand what motivated them to continue fighting. Anyway, there is little resemblance to Italy in WW2.
The Turks have long been known as fierce fighters. My dad fought alongside them during the Korean War. He said that when they killed a Chinese or North Korean soldier, they would cut their heads off and impale them on a stake next to their tent or foxhole. Now that is a warrior mentality!
I have a question for all of you. My Father Arthur George Willoughby was a pilot in the RFC in WW1.
He lost his hearing in a sand storm in Egypt when his plane was forced to land,he never talked much about what happened, he never received any pension and died in Sept 2 1976.
That was long ago but it is always on my mind that he lost his hearing and was reduced to silence while serving his county for nothing.
The Turks have long been known as fierce fighters. My dad fought alongside them during the Korean War. He said that when they killed a Chinese or North Korean soldier, they would cut their heads off and impale them on a stake next to their tent or foxhole. Now that is a warrior mentality!
Having heard such stories myself I wonder how many guys may have mixed up Turks with Ghurkas.
The turks fought against the Russians in the Caucaus area. Some historians suggest had they had more success then they did there they might have stired up Russian and English Muslims to rebellion - which would have had major impact on the war. The battles in the region were a lot closer than the final results (Ottoman defeat) reflected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
