In his own way Mark Latham's patent hatred of all things Islam is just as disingenuous and divisive as Hitler, with his well recorded attitude to Jews.[It wasn't just a tecticle that was missing?]

Some of whom served/gave their lives in the german trenches during WW1.

Lathem seems to be one of those (hasbeen) "politicians" who use propagandized misinformation to divide and rule as the only tactic after shouting down disagreement, and has a, I believe natural ally in Hanson.

Given that is so, it seems he has at least studied and taken on board some Germanic history?

At the time in our history we need to come together and be as vigilant as never before, we just don't need this risible rubbish!

The thing to hate is extremism, even when it comes from drop kicks like pot stirring Latham or Hansen. (Would you like some fries with that?)

What comes next, a bit of book burning or attacking places of business, just because the owner has a typical muslim name? Smashing fun eh?

It's surprising what a little bit of carefully targeted hate can achieve or accomplish? Always providing the target audience has a combined IQ, just a little north of complete moronic?
Rhrosty.

If, as the author suggests, Mark Latham is in need of a history lesson regarding Gallipoli, then he definitely requires a better teacher than this Helen Pringle.

Indian Army commitment during the battle is estimated by Prof Stanley, military historian, UNSW as being of the order of 15,000, which is very likely to be about right.

Notwithstanding the numbers involved, Pringle here, infers that the greater number of Indian Army troops were Islamic. This is very difficult to understand seeing as how the predominant religion of India is Hindu. Islamists make up a minority demographic of religious culture in India.

Refer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India
"According to the 2011 census, 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism and 14.2% adheres to Islam, while the remaining 7.37% adheres to other religions..."

Of course that's as at 2011. Modern times, after world travel has increased and many Islamists have chosen to disperse from their homelands.

The same Wikipedia reference provides data for 1951, but not earlier.

In 1951 - Hinduism 84.1%, Islam 9.8%.

Using that data, even though the 1915 proportion of Islamists in India was probably less, it certainly doesn't provide any reason to assume that the majority of Indian Army troops were Islamic as inferred in the article. In fact the data suggests that 90% - 95% of Indian Army troops were Hindu and Sikhs.

Helen Pringle is either very poorly informed (likely if she reads leftist journals such as the Guardian) or in serious need of a history lesson herself.

Big fail Helen!

Do better research next time.

> Pringle here, infers that the greater number of Indian Army troops were Islamic.

> that the majority of Indian Army troops were Islamic as inferred in the article.

I neither said nor inferred (I think you mean implied, btw) that the 'greater number' or the 'majority' were 'Islamic' – or that they were Muslim.

As for calculating the number of 'Islamists' (why not say Muslims?) in the Indian army by reference to the percentage of 'Islamists' in post-Partition India, that's just silly, on so many levels.

thank you for the comment, Helen
ps yes I do read the Guardian, along with many other newspapers.

Sorry darling but voxUnius is quite correct but still missing one vital ingredient. The British in those days had segregated units EG, regiments were 100% Hindu, Sikh or muslim & they would NEVER have sent a muslim regiment to fight other muslims.

"loyalty of Australian Muslims."

Hands up all those who are aware of such a fanciful notion of Muslims being loyal to Australia!

"this is just not radical Islamic ideology, it is also people with too much time on their hands, too many opportunities to sit around in groups, bitching about western culture, bitching about the American President, bitching about the Australian Prime Minister, and getting up to no good'."

Right on the mark, Mark! And all on welfare that is sapping ther hosts' s economy

Gallipoli as implemented was a cockup. However, the idea behind Gallipoli was sound. It was to clear a way to send support to the Russian armies who were fighting the Central Powers. If Gallipoli had been successful the Russian armies might have been able to beat off the German attack. Their success would have probably meant no Russian Revolution, no Lenin, no Stalin, no Soviet Union. Czarist Russia could have developed into a constitutional monarchy like the UK.

Frontline commander on the Turkish side at Gallipoli was Kemal Atatürk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

"His military campaigns led to victory in the Turkish War of Independence. Atatürk then embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern and secular nation-state. Under his leadership, thousands of new schools were built, primary education was made free and compulsory, and women were given equal civil and political rights, while the burden of taxation on peasants was reduced. His government also carried out an extensive policy of Turkification. The principles of Atatürk's reforms, upon which modern Turkey was established, are referred to as Kemalism."

Islam was not an issue on either side.

I can't comment on Lathams interpetaion of history although not long back the regressives backed him for PM over Howard (which shows their judgement). What I do know is that Pringle is totally ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of Islamic ideology. Not surprising though. Her ideology is far more dangerous than Lathams knowledge or lack of in regards to history.

Voxunis

Estimates of the proportion of India’s population that is Muslim taken after independence are unlikely to be a good measure of the proportions from before independence, as a large number of Muslims wound up in Pakistan and Bangladesh not modern-day India.

There were apparently thousands of Punjabi mule drivers at Gallipoli:

http://www.sbs.com.au/radio/article/2015/04/25/remembering-contribution-indian-troops-gallipoli

As Islam is the predominant religion in the Punjab, it’s likely that many of these were Muslim.

David makes the most important point - religion was not the issue in WW1 for either side. If Latham thinks it was, he's ignorant.

It's perfectly true that Islam nor any other religion was connected with WW1. Few Westerners even uttered the word 'Islam' those days. But I have read, within the last month, (sorry can't remember where) that some Turks were asking for their victory at Gallipoli to be recognised as a victory for Allah. Bit late, I would have thought, especially as Muslims are not permitted come up with any new ideas after Mohammed had his say.

ttbn
the German Army in both world wars routinely used the motto "Gott mit uns", and in WWI both sides often attributed their victories to divine approval. That doesn't mean they were fighting a religious war.

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/religion/gott-mit-uns/

> Sorry darling but voxUnius is quite correct but still missing one vital ingredient. The British in those days had segregated units EG, regiments were 100% Hindu, Sikh or muslim & they would NEVER have sent a muslim regiment to fight other muslims.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Monday, 30 November 2015 10:17:09 AM

First, I am not your darling.

Second, I suggest you read some military history, and in particular the book by Peter Stanley cited in my piece before you make inaccurate statements about segregated units. The general question you raise is discussed by Stanley at various points. As an example, Stanley notes that around 50% of the mountain artillery brigade, and around 75% of the supply and transport units were Muslim, ie the rest being non-Muslim Punjabis. But presumably you know better than a conscientious historian working in the archives? There is further discussion in the book of the concern of some officers about Muslims being sent to fight other (Turkish) Muslims, but why don't you spend the money, buy the book, read it and then speak/write on the basis of something other than ignorance? I would be happy to engage further once you have done that. I am sure that the Muslim soldiers who died at Gallipoli would also be interested in your view about their non-existence.

thanks again, Helen

For a person who claims that Mark Latham does not know his historical facts, Helen Pringle, you might be interested to know that Latham is correct.

The primary purpose of Gallipoli was to drive the Turks out of the war. It was also to destroy the Ottoman Empire which had already invaded Europe twice, and also to drive the Muslim Turks out of Constantinople. Both the Russian and Greek governments made enthusiastic representations to the allies to take over the administration of Asia Minor once the Muslim Turks had been driven out.

Your claim that Muslims troops may have fought at Gallipoli on the empire's side is hardly an endorsement of multiculturalism. Professional soldiers go where they are told to go, and fight who they are told to fight. Muslim soldiers fought alongside Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, but they were unreliable fighters, and some of them shot Aussie soldiers in the back.

What interests me, is that woman of your intelligence is trying to be an apologist for Islam? If you consider yourself a social progressive, then the Muslims hate you even worse than they hate me. The targets of the Paris attacks were your own leftist demographic. And here you are, still trying to claim that Muslims and their religion are not a problem.

Islam is a religion which wants world domination. It's own holy scriptures authorise the use of extreme violence and terrorism to get it. That is the problem. If you haven't figured that out yet, then you must live in a bubble. Islam is the complete antithesis of everything that you believe in. But you are so enamoured of the already failed concept of multiculturalism that you avert your eyes from what you most definitely do not want to see.

I have seen this psychosis previously. Since 1918, educated and supposedly intelligent, tertiary educated people claimed that the Soviet Union was the workers paradise. They ignored the ethnic cleansing through deportations, the 30 million who starved to death, the Berlin Wall, and the ever failing harvests. The human minds capacity for self delusion is just amazing.

isabelberners, sorry again darling, why would i read a book written by a left wing academic? i didn't even read your article, the first 2 paragraphs showed me "where you are coming from" flipped forward to the last paragraph without even knowing it was based on a book written by yet another left wing academic. "repeat the big lie, until it becomes the truth" Lenin.

My grandfather was an RSM in WW1 leading an Indian regiment on the Eastern front darling. Whose recollections do you think i will listen to?

My response, as ever is so what?
The wider Turkish campaign during the great war was an old school Islamic Jihad complete with Fatwah's, Shahadas, mass executions of religious and ethnic minorities and the now familiar war cry Allahu Akbar!
We have Muslim allies in the counter Jihad now as we did then, though under Islamic doctrine those gunners and lancers on the peninsula in 1915 were apostates so the term Muslim doesn't really apply anyway.
There's a difference between allies and comrades too, but being a woman Helen you wouldn't understand such masculine concepts.

In "Giving Mark Latham a history lesson" Helen Pringle comments that there was mutual friendship between Australian and Indian soldiers in World War I. One point which illustrates this is that Douglas Grant of the Australian 13th Battalion, after being captured at Bellecourt, was interred with Arab, Senegalese, Indian and French-Chinese troops near Berlin in 1917. da Cruz (p. 14, 2015) points out that Grant was elected to the prisoners Help Committee and wrote to the Red Cross asking for spices suitable for a non-European palate. Da Cruz suggests that the resulting combination of spice with German sausage could be the origin of Berlin's "curry wurst".

Reference

da Cruz, Marghanita (2015). Annandale's Great War : a short walk (Second edition). [Annandale, New South Wales] [Marghanita da Cruz]
URL http://amzn.to/1O4KfOg

It's easy to hate Islam, it hates you. Get real for the hundreds of Westerners killed annually there are thousands of co-religionists slaughtered