Simviation Forums

I've realised that racism is a pretty big factor in the morale and success of an army.

It can boost morale and/or increase complacency.

E.gs

1) Gallipoli: soldiers beleived that the Turks were inferior beings and fighters...result: Allies are masticated.

2) Pacific War:
   Allied soliders beleive that the Japs are racially inferior and are sub human.
Ruthless fighting....
Result: Japs are smashed.


A.

Not sure what it's like now but I think you'll find that this has always been the case. The Turkish & Japanese soldiers in your examples probably believed the same thing about the Australians & Americans. The enemy was always presented as inferior & sometimes subhuman by governments & top brass of both sides in a conflict to encourage the ordinary soldier to fight.

I think racism is too strong a word. Propeganda would be better. It sometimes has been racially motivated. but in general its not. Just remember as Doug said, to the Germans/ Japanese we were the evil enemy. Your hardly gonna want to kill your enemy if your being told their a bunch of nice guys who dont have anything against you.

mmm true.....


A.

I'd have to disagree with you on the Gallipoli front there Andrew.  The truth of the matter is that the Turkish forces in the peninsula were (initially at least) very low quality troops.  The Brit's invaded with some of the finest troops that we had.  A large quantity were regulars in addition to several battalions of Royal Marines and of course the ANZAC contingent.

Gallipoli failed because it was badly planned and badly lead.  If you look at the terrain that was fought over it is clear that a 90 year old granny with a blunt tooth pick could have defended it.

Gallipoli is a stain on British high command that will never be wiped clean.

True, however, I've heard and seen many pre action accounts, many ANZAC solider making comment on the beleived Turkish fighting ability.
I have to say, that even though an "old granny could defend the territory"(or thereabouts) that it was NOT well defended in someplaces, the ANZAC forces easily overcoming the opposition....

A.

Good point Andrew.  Most of the peninsula was not defended at all until one or two days after the landings.

The troops came ashore and stopped as they had no orders to continue.  If high command had taken their collective fingers out from their bottoms it would have been a different story.

The story of the Gallipoli landings has always fascinated me.  Bleedin' depressing tho'

Will

I was recently reading an account of the Allied landings in Italy in WWII. Basically the same thing happened there & the opportunity for an early victory was lost. This was a decision by the local C in C which turned out to be wrong.

I'm not trying to defend anyone, including Winston Churchill, for the tragic events at Gallipoli but things in wartime are not always as simple as they might appear in hindsight. More so when the orders are coming from long distance with poor communications.

The thing you have to remember about WWI is that generals who had learnt their trade in a time when infantry fought with muskets and at best single shot rifles were planning battles with machine guns, artillery and tanks. They simply didn't know how these weapons worked and how effective they were so in a way it isn't exactly fair to blame the generals entirely for what happened.

Just remember, intill the first world war no two armies equipped with machineguns and repeating rifles had met on the battlefield. Up intill then Germany hadn't really had a chance to fight anyone while the british could only use their machineguns on tribes that were armed at best with muskets. Basically no one knew how to fight a war against modern weapons and it's just a damn shame it took them over three years to learn.

I don't think that it's as simplistic as that Woody.  Granted it was the first time that modern armies had met but our generals didn't learn from lessons that they had in the Boer War.  Read about Modder River (28/11/1899) and the assault on the Boer Trenches.

It was slaughter of our Infantry, much of it Guardsman, 15 years before the start of WW1 when they attempted to assault trenches held by men with repeating rifles.

The junior officers at this battle were the senior officers during WW1.  

Maybe so. But I'm not suprised that no changes in tactics came about through that battle. One bloody defeat doesn't always mean that your fighting in the wrong manner. Cause if that was so then think about what reforms would have been made to the army after Isandhlwana.

We've often commented before that very few military commanders appear to learn anything from history, even recent history. Almost every time there's a new conflict they have to start learning all over again. There are many examples of this, one being the RAF Fighter Command tactics in the early days of WWII. Another thing they seem to overlook. People will always fight the hardest when defending their homeland.

We did learn after Isandlwana.  We learnt that Zulu armies can cover "impossible" terrain and then chew up a couple of thousand British troops.

One of the Generals involved in WW1 was one of the survivors of Isandlwana.  I forget which one though  Sir John French dumped on him from a great height.

[quote]One of the Generals involved in WW1 was one of the survivors of Isandlwana.

This first world war General was one of those who got completely wiped out by a bunch of Zulu's with cowhide sheilds and spears

Not quite, he survived.  It was unlikely that he would have been promoted so high had he been a festering corpse.

The first time it can be forgiven .

My point was more to do with Gallipoli than the Western Front.  Andrew was asking if we felt there was a degree of rascism behind the failure in Turkey and I don't think that there was.  The western front was acknowledged by the general staff to be a battle of attrition, it didn't matter if an assault took four months to take a mile of German line at the cost of 5000 lives because the Germans lost 7500 men so we won the battle.

Will