What if the Anzacs won at Gallipoli - effects on Australia

Forget about the larger picture of WW I, Russia, the Middle East, etc.

OTL Gallipoli is one of the defining events of modern Australian culture. The terrible sacrifice there made a great impression and helped form Australia's national identity. The anniversary of the initial landings is a solemn holiday.

However, that sacrifice was in the course of a defeat. Blame for the defeat was laid primarily on inept British commanders, which led to a certain distancing between Australians and "the mother country" (or at least its government).

How would Australian culture have developed if Gallipoli had been a victory. Say, if the Anzacs had taken Hill 971 and pushed on to Sari Bair? The Turks have to evacuate the whole southern half of the peninsula, and that's enough for the Navy to clear the minefields and push through - the campaign is a success instead of a fiasco.

How does that change Australia?

First, it's possible that casualties are much less, so the emotional impact is less.

Second, British commanders haven't bungled at the expense of Australians.

Third, it's not a tragic sacrifice, but a definite step on the road to victory. Which could be most important. One possibility - the emotional value placed on Gallipoli and Anzac Day came about in part as compensation for the fact of defeat. A remote analogy is how Southern white Americans commemorated the Confederacy, though Southerners had actual victories to celebrate within the context of overall defeat. If Gallipoli was not a tragedy, would it resonate so much?

Or would Australia come to celebrate its particular triumph - i.e. Anzac Day with cheery vibes?
 
IMO If we won, ANZAC day wouldn't be such a big event in our history. It would have been seen as just another victory against the Central Powers, similar to how we see D-Day and the Kokoda Track.
 
"We'll we won *hic* the war you know" - NZ and Australia on ANZAC day pretty much forever.
Fixed it for ya.

Actually go and look up Sir John Monash and you'll soon realize the claim Australia won WW1 for the allies isn't too far off the mark in OTL...
:openedeyewink:
 
Well, the limited amount of 'anti-pom' sentiment amongst some Australians would be even smaller. Given that, in reality, there were more British casualties at Gallipolli than ANZAC, and that the commanders involved were a mixture of British and other (including ANZAC) individuals, the operation could come to be regarded as an example of successful pan-Empire cooperation rather than British leaders using the colonies as cannon fodder.
 
Graphic_map_of_the_Dardanelles.JPG


The idea of Gallipoli being an Anzac only battle is one of these strange semi-mythological constructions that are constructed as part of national identities. In reality much of the fighting was done by the Franco-British forces, who also took most of the ground. ANZACs were landed with the objective of flanking Turkish defenders in the Hellas sector, and hopefully pushing across the peninsular to cut them off whilst the French and British pushed up to join them.
Unfortunately they were landed on the wrong side of the Gaba Tepe headland and had to advance steep hillsides and well entrenched defenders instead of open farmland.
Had the Anzacs been landed in the right position, and the landing itself better carried out, they might have been able to compromise the Turkish defences in the Helles sectorm allowing the French and British troops to move up and secure the forts on the Canakkale straits.

This wouldn't have been the end of the campaign though, as the Allied forces would have had to advance though the valleys and ridgelines to Gallipoli itself. Only after that city and its defences are taken can the Naval taskforce push into the sea of Marmara and threaten Constantinople.

IMO given the ferocity with which the Turks defended the initial landing, achieving this would have required more troops devoted to the campaign, and possibly another landing north of Gallipoli itself near Guneyli.
 
I suspect it would be - look at how important Vimy Ridge is to Canada.

The reason why I don't think it would be similar to how Canadian's remember Vimy Ridge is because that the reason why ANZAC Day is so important in Australian and New Zealand's heritage is because it is a day of remembrance of those who went to war to serve our countries over the many wars over the years, but never returned. The reason why April 25 was chosen was that the Gallipoli landings had a profound effect on the general populace of Australia and New Zealanders. This was because thousands of ANZACs died for what Australians and New Zealander saw as a defeat. It had a big impact on our nations, which were and still are quite small in population numbers (The population of the Tokyo metropolitan region is 14 million people larger than the population of Australia).
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
The reason why I don't think it would be similar to how Canadian's remember Vimy Ridge is because that the reason why ANZAC Day is so important in Australian and New Zealand's heritage is because it is a day of remembrance of those who went to war to serve our countries over the many wars over the years, but never returned. The reason why April 25 was chosen was that the Gallipoli landings had a profound effect on the general populace of Australia and New Zealanders. This was because thousands of ANZACs died for what Australians and New Zealander saw as a defeat. It had a big impact on our nations, which were and still are quite small in population numbers (The population of the Tokyo metropolitan region is 14 million people larger than the population of Australia).

I think a large factor is that it was the first significant action where they took part as national formations (the contributions to the Boer Wars being rather different). It being a defeat gave more emphasis to certain feelings, but those feelings will be there regardless ('doing our bit for Empire', 'cannon fodder for the Poms'), especially if casualties are substantial.
The date was being marked during the war, and I think it would be regardless of the success of the action.
 
Top