Battle of Gallipoli - World War 1 History

https://karve.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/battle-of-gallipoli-world-war-i/

Military History - Gallipoli

WHOSE GALLIPOLI IS IT ANYWAY...?
(Courtesy Shrikant Kesnur - from a Military Veterans Forum)

Some battles of the World Wars achieve great fame and recall value. Flanders, Kohima, Alamein, Midway to name just a few. And some are destined to oblivion. Gallipoli would perhaps rank the foremost among them where India is concerned. And yet we must recall it, if not for anything, at least to remember the Indian contribution. At least today, 25 Apr, which is the Gallipoli day. Or ANZAC day as it is known in Australia and New Zealand.

The campaign has an interesting history. The WW 1 had reached some sort of stalemate on the Western Front. Russia was also facing difficulties in sustaining herself and accessing supplies through the frozen seas in the north. When the Ottoman Turks decided to side with rhe Central powers ( Germany and Austria- Hungary), the Black sea route was also threatened. So Britian hit upon opening a new front in the Dardenelles to seize the Bhosphorus and ultimately take over Istanbul. Hence the plan to launch an amphibious attack on the Gallipoli peninsula, the European part of Turkey. ( Map below for ease of understanding). It was also designed as an out flanking manoeuvre by the Brits to penetrate Germany through its 'soft underbelly'. The Ottoman Empire derisively referred to as the ' sick man of the world' was in decline and hence it was presumed that they would just roll over.

But the invasion of Gallipoli that commenced on 25 Apr 1915 as part of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force was a disaster. Led by the British it consisted of troops from Ireland, France, Australia, New Zealand and above all India. For nine long months, until 09 Jan 1916, the campaign trudged along but the Turks fought hard and would not give up. Both sides took heavy casualties.  The unexpected ( at least to the Allies) loss had far reaching consequences. Winston Churchill lost his job as the First Sea Lord and the idea of approaching Germany from East was put in cold storage. For the Turks, the victory formed the basis of their new nationhood and their leader at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal went on to become the first President of the newly formed Turkish Republic. A grateful nation went on to christen him Ataturk ( Father of the Turks).

The Brits, French and Irish perhaps preferred to forget the war, but to the Aussies and New Zealanders it was a great heroic loss, which in some ways defined their nationhood too. Thats why 25 Apr is commemorated as the Anzac day in both these countries and observed with due ceremony, dignity and remembrance of the departed. This battle formed the basis of ANZAC culture which is a strong theme in these nations even today.

What about India? India was a part of the ANZAC (Australia New Zealand Army Corps) division. 5010 Indians took part in the war of which a staggering 1926 were killed and 3863 injured ( i have not got my math wrong. Some were injured more than once). India's Expeditionary Force G ( Gallipoli) consisted of 29 Inf Bde supported by Artillery Batteries of 7th Mountain. Arty Bde. Further, Mule Carts from ASC and Transport Corps and 108 Field Ambulance Unit serviced the entire ANZAC division. In pro rata basis Indians had the highest casualty rate in the ANZAC division because the Aussies and NZ had higher numbers in this theatre. They had a casualty rate of about 14 % of troops deployed and we about 40%.

The Indian units that took part in the campaign were 69 Punjab ( now 2 Punjab and 1st Bn Bde of Guards. It is the Seniormost Infantry Battalion of the Indian Army), 14 KGO Ferozpur Sikh (now 4 Mech Inf) and 1/5 Gorkha Rifles (FF). 89 Punjab and Arty elements went to Pakistan and 1/6GR and 2/10 GR went to Britain after the partition. And 29 Inf Bde continued to be in the Indian Army's ORBAT (Order of Battle).

For three years in Nairobi, I was a regular part of the ANZAC day commemorations at the most beautiful and treelined Ngong Commonwealth wargraves cemetery. Usually organised by the Australian High Commission one of the most moving that I attended was a joint commemoration by Australian and Turkish Ambassadors. ANZAC day is an early morning service at the crack of dawn, perhaps because the atrack was launched at dawn. Once the poignant ceremony is over you adjourn for tea and special ANZAC biscuits. Thereafter, the Defence Attaches would get together for breakfast and exchange notes. And each time all the DAs and other guests would be surprised that India had such a large contingent at Gallipoli.

Why did the Indian contribution to this doomed campaign go unheard, unsung and unwept. It was natural for Brits not to focus on it too much. They had lost to an 'inferior' race, the brown skinned Turks and did not want their loss to be advertised among people of other colour. In any case, Gallipoli had no strategic consequences in the final outcome of the war. For Indian national leaders pre and post independence, wars fought under a foreign flag were problematic and met with ambigious response. So a war that formed the foundation of nationhood of 3 countries viz. Turkey, Australia and New Zealand, became one of little importance for India. Sad, because in such wars may be interred millions of heroic tales and poignant moments. 

The centrality of Gallipoli to the Aussie psyche can be gleaned from the fact that for one tough Ashes series in England, Steve Waugh, arguably Australia's most inspiring Captain, took his team to Gallipoli enroute to England so that they could be motivated by the exploits of their forebears. Can you imagine something like this in India? For all of Dhoni's brio and Viraat Kohli's aggro, I don't ever see them assembling at Kohima or Rezangla to get inspired. And if per chance any of our sportsmen did get into a venture like this, our liberal media would be hauling them over coals for unnecessarily 'militarising' sport.

We are still observing the centennial years of the Great War of 1914 to 1918. It was a War that saw 62000 Indians dead and 67000 injured. By World War 2, two decades later, we were at 2.5 Million, the largest volunteer Army in the world. Gallipoli may be only a small footnote in the history of war or of Indian Army and it simply might be of no interest to our media and current elites, but to those to who died or were injured in the war, today we must pay homage.

The last word on this must belong to Kemal Ataturk who told a visiting British, Australian and NZ delegation in 1934 "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives. You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side Here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, Who sent their sons from far away countries Wipe away your tears, Your sons are now lying in our bosom And are in peace After having lost their lives on this land they have Become our sons as well." Alas, even Ataturk did not know that the Indian Army not only had Mehmets and Johnnies but also Singhs and Gurungs and Kumars and Thambis all who went by the name of Jawans. For those wondering whose Gallipoli it was, we must also stake claim.

Srikant Kesnur
25 Apr 17

PS - I owe a debt of gratitude to Cdr CH Gomes ( Retd), my first Commanding Officer in the Navy and a man of many causes including Gallipolli. He provided much of the content and context for this piece.

Book Review – A Soldier’s Story

MY FAVOURITE MILITARY AUTOBIOGRAPHY 

A Soldier’s Story by General Omar N. Bradley

BOOK REVIEW

by

VIKRAM KARVE

In the Navy, an officer is supposed to be a “jack of all trades and master of one” – the one trade of which you are supposed to be a “master” is your professional job at sea – but beyond that, you can be tasked with anything and everything including “bum jobs”. 

Hence, during my career in the Navy I had to do a lot of “bum jobs” like Mess Secretary, Wine Secretary, Food and Snack Bar Manager, Canteen Manager, Club Manager, Officer in Charge Poultry and Piggery, Officer in Charge of Dairy Farms and Grow More Food Agricultural Farms, Sports Manager, Audit and Accounts, Librarian, Event Manager and Organizer of all sorts of events ranging from Social Parties and Dance Balls to Navy Melas (fêtes and carnivals) and Fleet Family Days – you name it – we did it. 

These jobs were in addition to our professional work and we were expected to excel in both our professional and extra-curricular duties.

But one of the jobs, which I will certainly not call a “bum job” was instructional duties – yes, the navy asked me to teach and train – and maybe I was good at teaching and training (and I liked it too) – because the Navy repeatedly appointed me on teaching, training and academic assignments.

One of the things I insisted my students do was “BOOK REVIEWS” –  wherever I taught, whoever I trained – they had to review one book per week.

I learnt one thing in the Navy – before you ask your subordinates to do anything, you must be able to do it yourself.

So, I reviewed books myself – before I asked my students to do so.

Here is my review of my favourite military autobiography – A Soldier’s Story by General Omar Nelson Bradley. 

I wrote this review more than 25 years ago, in the early 1990’s, when I was a “Professor” at IAT Pune.

Book Details

Title:  A Soldier’s Story

Author: Omar Nelson Bradley

ISBN:  0375754210

ISBN-13: 9780375754210, 978-0375754210

Binding: Paperback

Publishing Date: First Published 1951 (Latest Paperback Edition 1999 by Random House Publishing Group)

Book Review By Vikram Karve

AN INSPIRING MILITARY AUTOBIOGRAPHY and A Classic on THE ART OF LEADERSHIP

I love reading autobiographies, as there is nothing more inspiring and authentic than learning about the life, times, thoughts and views of a great person in his own words.

I browse through my bookshelves and pick out the book:

A Soldier’s Story by General Omar Nelson Bradley

This book is one of my favourite autobiographies. 

And certainly this book is my all time favourite military autobiography.

Come Dear Reader, sit with me for a while, and let’s leaf through and peruse this fascinating book.

General Bradley (1893-1981) known for his calm and resolute leadership and affectionately called the “Soldier’s General” commanded the largest American combat force in history and rose to be the first Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At the beginning of his autobiography A Soldier’s Story, General Bradley states:

“This is a story, not of my life, but of a campaign ... I have sought ... to tell a story of how generals live and work at their chosen profession ...” 

and then he goes on to tell us his memoirs which focus on his participation in World War II.

Candidly written with remarkable humility in beautiful expressive language, this is a wonderful memoir embellished with interesting episodes and lucid characterizations of many renowned military personalities.

In the preface General Bradley says:

“In this book I have tried to achieve one purpose:

 

To explain how war is waged on the field from the field command post ...

 

To tell a story of how and why we chose to do what we did, no one can ignore the personalities and characteristics of those individuals engaged in making decisions ... 

Where there are people, there is pride and ambition, prejudice and conflict.

 

In generals, as in all other men, capabilities cannot always obscure weaknesses, nor can talents hide faults ... 

I could not conscientiously expurgate this book to make it more palatable ... 

if this story is to be told, it must be told honestly and candidly ...”

The author writes in a wonderfully readable storytelling style and starts his riveting narrative on September 2, 1943, driving to Messina along the north coast of Sicily when, suddenly, General Eisenhower summoned him to tell him that he had been selected to command the American Army in the biggest invasion of the war – the liberation of Europe from the Germans. 

He then goes back in time and starts his story with vignettes from his early formative days of soldiering.

General Bradley vividly describes how, from General Marshall, he learnt the rudiments of effective command which he himself applied throughout the war:

“When an officer performed as I expected him to, I gave him a free hand. 

When he hesitated, I tried to help him. 

And when he failed, I relieved him”

I am sure this leadership lesson is valid even in today’s world, the new IT driven world, where delegation seems to be taking a back seat and excessive micro-management, monitoring, interference and intervention seem to be on the rise.

Rather than encourage yes-men, ego-massage, sycophancy and groupthink, General Marshal sought contrary opinions:

“When you carry a paper in here, I want you to give me every reason you can think of why I should not approve it. 

If, in spite of your objections, my decision is to still go ahead, then I’ll know I’m right”.

When it was suggested to General Marshall that a corps commander who had an arthritic disability in the knee be sent home rather than be given command of a corps in the field in war, he opined:

“I would rather have a man with arthritis in the knee than one with arthritis in the head. Keep him there”.

General Bradley writes on his assignment overseas in February 1943 to act as Eisenhower’s “eyes and ears” among American troops on the Tunisian front in North Africa:

“For the first time in 32 years as a soldier, I was off to a war” 

He vividly describes the chaos after the American defeat at Kasserine, the arrival of General George S Patton on the scene who growled:

“I am not going to have any goddam spies running around in my headquarters”

Then Patton immediately appointed Bradley as his deputy. 

This was the defining moment of Bradley’s illustrious combat career.

This is easily the best book on Patton’s stellar role in World War II.

A Soldier’s Story complements General Patton’s Memoirs:

War As I Knew It 

and 

Patton: Ordeal and Triumph by Ladislas Farago

These three books are a must for any student of military history who wants to study General Patton. 

Though his admiration for Patton is evident, General Bradley writes about his long association with Patton with fairness and honesty and reveals unique and remarkable facets of Patton’s leadership style and character.

Sample this:

“Precisely at 7 Patton boomed in to breakfast. His vigour was always infectious, his wit barbed, his conversation a mixture of obscenity and good humour. He was at once stimulating and overbearing. George was a magnificent soldier.” 

Can there be a better description of General Patton...?

Bradley vividly describes how Patton transformed the slovenly and demoralized II Corps into a fighting fit formation:

“The news of Patton’s coming fell like a bombshell on Djebel Kouif. With sirens shrieking Patton’s arrival, a procession of armoured scout cars and half-tracks wheeled into the dingy square opposite the schoolhouse headquarters of II Corps ...

In the lead car Patton stood like a charioteer ... scowling into the wind and his jaw strained against the web strap of a two-starred steel helmet.”

General Bradley writes superbly, as he describes how Patton stamped his personality upon his men and by his outstanding charismatic leadership rejuvenated the jaded, slovenly, worn-out, defeated and demoralized II Corps and transformed it into a vibrant, disciplined, fighting fit organization that never looked back and went on winning victory after victory in most difficult circumstances and against all odds.

There are bits of delightful humour in this book. 

Commenting on the ingenuity and improvisation abilities of Patton’s staff, the author writes:

“ ... Indeed had Patton been named an Admiral in the Turkish Navy, his aides could probably dipped into their haversacks and come up with the appropriate badges of rank ...” 

Though, at times, the author appears to be in awe of and enamoured by Patton’s larger than life charisma, he is candid, dispassionate and, at times, critical when he describes how he was bewildered by the contradictions in Patton’s character and concludes:

“At times I felt that Patton, however successful he was as a corps commander, had not yet learned how to command himself.”

Their techniques of command varied with their contrasting personalities. 

While the soft-spoken unassuming Bradley preferred to lead by suggestion and example – the flamboyant Patton chose to drive his subordinates by bombast and threats, employing imperious mannerisms and profane expletives with startling originality; and both achieved spectacular results.

Many of us are at a loss for words when asked to qualitatively appraise our subordinates. 

Yes, fair and objective performance appraisal, bringing out both the strengths and weaknesses of individuals in a dispassionate and balanced manner is a difficult task, especially while putting your appraisal down on paper.

See how easily General Bradley lucidly evaluates his division commanders, bringing out their salient qualities, in so few words with elegant simplicity and succinctness:

“ ... To command a corps of four divisions, toughness alone is not enough. 

The corps commander must know his division commanders, he must thoroughly understand their problems, respect their judgment, and be tolerant of their limitations ... 

Among the division commanders in Tunisia, none excelled the unpredictable Terry Allen in the leadership of troops ... but in looking out for his own division, Allen tended to belittle the role of others 

… Ryder had confirmed his reputation as that of a skilled tactician ... his weakness, however, lay in the contentment with which he tolerated mediocrity 

... the profane and hot-tempered Harmon brought to the corps the rare combination of sound tactical judgment and boldness 

... none was better balanced nor more cooperative than Manton Eddy ... though not timid, neither was he bold; Manton liked to count his steps carefully before he took them.” 

Isn’t the author’s understanding of his subordinates profound, his observation thorough and fair, and his communication and articulation skills precise and remarkable?

Throughout the book, we find honest, frank and incisive appraisals of characters in this story – superiors, peers and subordinates – most of them renowned and famous personalities. 

He writes with candour about the problems of command during the planning of the invasion of Europe.

From then on the story gathers speed and moves in such a captivating and engrossing manner that you are is spellbound as you read the author fluently narrate the events of the campaign with remarkable preciseness and detail, and you realize what an engaging and compelling book this is – it is simply unputdownable.

All important events, turning points, and personalities are vividly described with the aid of maps, charts, pictures and appendices - from D Day (the Normandy Invasion) to the surrender of the German forces, the whole story is recounted vivdly. 

Towards the end of his memoirs General Bradley reflects:

“Only five years before ... as a Lieutenant Colonel in civilian clothes, I had ridden a bus down Connecticut Avenue to my desk in old Munitions Building ...

I opened the map-board and smoothed out the tabs of the 43 US divisions now under my command… stretched across a 640-mile front of the 12th Army Group ... 

I wrote in the new date: D plus 335 ... 

Outside the sun was climbing in the sky. The war in Europe had ended.”

I feel that this autobiography is a “must read” for military men and students of military history.

I am am sure it will benefit management students and professionals for it is an incisive treatise on Soft Skills encompassing aspects of Leadership, Communications, and most importantly, the Art of Human Relations Management in the extremely complex and highly stressful scenario of War where achievement of success (victory) is inescapably paramount. 

It is a primer, a treasury of distilled wisdom, on all aspects of management, especially human resource management. 

One can learn many inspirational, motivational and management lessons from this book.

Nothing can surpass the experience of learning history first hand from a man who lived and created it rather than a historian who merely records it.

The Art of Leadership is better learnt from studying Leaders, their lives, their writings, rather than reading management textbooks pontificating on the leadership and giving how-to-do laundry lists.

The Art and Science of Business Management owes its genesis and evolution to the military.  

Modern Management Theories, Concepts, Techniques and Practices emerged from the experiences and lessons learnt during World War II (particularly in The United States of America).

It is ironic that the reverse is happening today and the military is trying to relearn management from civilians – and military men are running to business schools to acquire MBA degrees.

It was the military that gave modern management principles to the civilian corporate world.

And today we see the amusing spectacle of military officers running to civilian management institutes to “learn” management – and to acquire the coveted MBA degree which is the sine qua non and all important passport for entry into the corporate world. 

I love reading stories, all kinds of stories, fiction, fantasy, parables, fables, slice of life. 

I like Life Stories, Biographies, particularly Autobiographies, as there is nothing more credible, convincing and stimulating than learning about the life, times and thoughts of a great person, especially from his own writings. 

It’s called verisimilitude, I think.

A Soldier’s Story is a magnificent book. 

It is a unique masterpiece, a classic!

This autobiography is enjoyable, engrossing, illuminating and inspiring.

Dear Reader, I commend this superb book.

Do read it. 

I am sure you will learn a lot about the art of leadership and human resource management and feel inspired by this engrossing life story.

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Revised Abridged and Updated Version of My Book Review written in 1992 and earlier posted online by me Vikram Karve in my Academic and Creative Writing Journal Blog g at 12/04/2008 03:55:00 PM at url:http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2008/12/art-of-leadership.html  and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/01/a-soldiers-story-classic-military.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2014/12/book-review-my-favourite-military.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/04/a-soldiers-story-book-review-inspiring.html and http://karvediat.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-classic-military-autobiography.html and http://creative.sulekha.com/book-review-a-soldier-s-story_183174_blog and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2011/12/classic-on-art-of-leadership-soldiers.html etc

Old Soldiers Never Die - They Just Fade Away

Old Soldiers Never Die - They Just Fade Away

General Douglas MacArthur's Farewell Speech to Congress (19 April 1951)

Courtesy: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurfarewelladdress.htm

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:

I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride -- humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia's past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.

Mustering half of the earth's population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.

In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support -- not imperious direction -- the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war's wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.

Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.

The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Marianas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore -- with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore -- and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.

*Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort.* No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.

Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.

This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.

Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.

There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.

I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists' support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.

The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war's wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.

Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war's terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them -- as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited.

On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.

With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President's decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we -- as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.

This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China's coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter  destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

"Why," my soldiers asked of me, "surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?" I could not answer.

Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a worldwide basis.

The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy's sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.

Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.

They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: "Don't scuttle the Pacific!"

I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that "old soldiers never die; they just fade away."

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.