Australia: the cuisine, the history, the music, the workshop!

[pengolodh_sc]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter, Rita the Catlady wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter, "Tabouli" wrote:
> 
> > there is from WW1, when the ANZACs landed at Gallipoli and got 
> > annihilated.  In true Australian fashion, we now get a public 
> > holiday in memory of this event.  Yes, other countries celebrate 
> > glorious military victories,
> 
> Back during US/UN military action in Kosovo, the New York
> Times mentioned the Serbian deep emotion attachment to Kosovo
> Pec (the Field of Blackbirds), site of 'a' glorious military
> defeat in IIRC 1368.  Molly Ivins (columnist, Texan) wrote a
> column suggesting that Texans might be the only Americans
> who can understand the Serbs: the above  citation was written
> in a tone of mockery that shows that New Yorkers and the like
> think there is something weird about considering a defeat to
> have been glorious; clearly they do not understand how Texans
> feel about the Alamo. 

But then the battle of the Alamo was not truly a defeat, was it?  As 
I recall, General Santa Anna, the Mexican commander, was prevented 
from doing what he had to do to win the war because of the holdout of 
Alamo, and thus the Alamo was a Texan victory, not a defeat.  

While I do not know much about the battle of Kosovo Pec, but what 
little I have heard of it indicates to me that it was a defeat on all 
levels, resulting in Turkish occupation of all of Serbia, and it 
seems to me to be more a case of "not going silently into the 
night".  Winning that battle would have preserved the then Serb 
kingdom, at least for some time, while the defeat meant the end of 
that nation.  For the Serbs that war was also a religious war (or 
came to be seen as one):  noble and pure Christians fighting against 
evil, filthy, barbarian Moslem hordes, and all those usual 
stereotypes.

Gallipolli is a different thing again.  It is of course a military 
defeat - the Turkish forces prevented the Entente's forces from 
achieving their goals, and they Entente had to withdraw, after having 
suffered losses big enough to be felt.  I do not believe it seriously 
affected the war much for the Entente, though - the losses were 
smaller than some of the hideous battles on the Western Front.  It 
was a close call, though - I believe that when the campaign was 
called off, the Turkish coastal fortresses were almost completely out 
of ammunition.  The defeat was also contributed to by some strange 
decisions on the part of command-staff, which can be equated to being 
stingy with the penny while throwing shillings all round.

I suspect the significance of ANZAC for the Australians and New 
Zealanders lies not in the outcome of the campaign there.  As I 
recall, it was the first time that New Zealand and Australia were 
involved in any war of any noticeable scale, and they were involved 
in large numbers; large enough to be felt in the homelands.  They 
were also trusted with being a major part of a campaign, and while 
that campaigned failed, it was not because of any fault with the 
ANZAC-units, and they had indeed shown great courage and skill in 
that campaign, almost great enough to compensate for the blunders 
from generals and admirals, as I recall.  It was a uniquely 
Australian/New Zealandish experience from these nations' POV, and 
contributed towards making them nations of note and repute in the 
Empire and the Commonwealth, and the equals of the British forces in 
courage and spirit.  

[snip]

Best regards
Christian Stubø