FitzSimons conveys the horror of Gallipoli
Books & Poetry
2015 is the centenary of the ill-fated Gallipoli campaign that began on April 25, 1915, and we will undoubtedly be inundated with television documentaries, film and media coverage commemorating the event.
Peter FitzSimons’ Gallipoli (William Heinemann Australia; $49.99) is a complete and thorough description of the circumstances that led to the disastrous attack on the Dardanelles by the Allies and the battles that took place, with an epilogue that provides information about what happened to some of the central characters in the war.
FitzSimons writes history in a way that is accessible and appeals to all: there are facts and figures, helpful maps, snippets of diaries, Ellis Silas’s illustrations, photographs, official documents and letters, and a great deal of storytelling about individuals that personalises the war and creates emotional impact. A reasonable portion of time is spent analysing the campaign from the Turkish and German perspective, and so the book appears balanced and reasonable.
Chatty colloquialisms give the reader the sense of being in the crowd cheering on soldiers, in a submarine, charging the enemy’s trenches or evacuating the slopes in the dead of night. Gallipoli was ill conceived and the disastrous consequences can fairly be blamed on the egos of Winston Churchill and Lord Kitchener, who knew a year before that an attack from the sea on the Dardanelles would be an “extremely difficult operation of war”.
The military leaders operated on the premise that the Turks would either not expect them, would be poorly armed or would run away at the sight of an enemy: they presumed there would be no military opposition and their solution to a campaign going poorly was only ever to “send in more men”.
Unfortunately, the planning and military strategy before the campaign and during was often done by incompetent men many miles from the actual battlefield. While reading Gallipoli, you can’t help feeling anger at the strategic blunders ordered by bloody-minded generals who had no regard for casualties that resulted in incredible unnecessary loss of life.
Gallipoli was described by one man as “innocent men served a veritable death sentence at the utterance of a fool”.
The first casualty of war is, of course, the truth and Gallipoli follows the experiences of war correspondents Charles Bean and Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett who, along with Keith Murdoch, played significant roles in providing reports of how the war was actually going compared with the heavily censored versions that were being released to the public.
The Australian forces were seen as just another division of British troops and they were under British command: one good that came from the Gallipoli campaign was that Brigadier-General Monash and other Australian military leaders became resolved that Australian troops should never be under the command of another country.
It is interesting to read of the respect the Turkish and Australian soldiers had for each other, particularly when Australian soldiers were being sent senselessly to their deaths in wave after wave and the Turks actually called out to them to stop and not run before their machine guns.
FitzSimons doesn’t glorify the occasion, but the reader is swept up in his well-written descriptions of major events such as the tension, anticipation and confusion involved when the Anzacs first landed on the beaches; the horror and bravery of trench warfare; the suspense of being in a submarine in enemy waters and, especially, the cleverly executed evacuation – the most successful of all the planned military strategies. Throughout the book, FitzSimons shifts from being historian to personalising the thoughts and feelings of individual politicians, generals or soldiers: it is an effective technique that usually allows the reader to connect more immediately with what is happening.
Warfare is horrific and no human should have to suffer the tragedies Australian, British, French and Turkish soldiers suffered at Gallipoli: the stench, disease, gruesome sights of comrades being killed, and living in trenches with dead bodies alongside or nearby. Gallipoli was described by one man as “innocent men served a veritable death sentence at the utterance of a fool”.
Gallipoli vividly describes what the poor bastards went through, including those who were frightened, self-harmed, disobeyed and committed suicide; it brings home the devastating effects on all involved at close hand and the long-lasting impact after the event. Gallipoli also highlights the stupidity of military and political decision-makers, and their lack of concern for soldiers who would be killed or maimed (although some heroic commanders fought and died with their regiments).
Get InReview in your inbox – free each Saturday. Local arts and culture – covered.
Thanks for signing up to the InReview newsletter.
The telling of this tale gives those of us who weren’t there some understanding of the conditions they experienced and the ordinary soldiers’ devotion to their cause and commitment to each other, as well as how a sense of humour was integral to their state of mind and attitude to war.
I hope that Peter FitzSimons’ effort in writing Gallipoli reinforces the need for citizens to demand the truth to be told from their governments, question the motives of military leaders, expect our country to be autonomous and remember solemnly the sacrifices previous generations have made on our behalf.
Support local arts journalism
Your support will help us continue the important work of InReview in publishing free professional journalism that celebrates, interrogates and amplifies arts and culture in South Australia.
Donate Here
Comments
Show comments Hide comments