"The Blunder of Gallipoli - a failed campaign dissected" Topic

"The landing on the Gallipoli peninsula was only undertaken after the failure of the Royal Navy's attempt to force the Dardanelles using ships alone.

This operation, to push ships through the Dardanelles and capture the Turkish capital Istanbul (then still known to the Allies by its older name of Constantinople), was initiated in response to the combination of a number of key strategic opportunities: providing direct assistance to Russia, bypassing the inertia of the Western Front and galvanizing the undecided countries of the Balkans to join the Allied side.

It was on this basis that the campaign received Cabinet approval at the end of January 1915…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Great article, thanks! The Gallipoli campaign was brilliant strategy, horribly executed. I've visited Gallipoli and was totally stunned that they didn't land initially at Suvla Bay at the northern end of the peninsula on the Aegean side. The Bay is broad, with gentle flat beaches and is connected to the Dardanelles side by a large valley that cuts right through the mountainous terrain. It was the ideal landing zone, which is why IIRC they assumed it would be heavily defended and thus made no effort to find out and landed at the worst locations possible. How &*@#()~?!^^& stupid!! Criminally stupid. Had they landed initially at Suvla they could have won the campaign pretty swiftly. They tried to land at Suvla months into the campaign, too late, and did an awful up of a job too.

Here's an old post I did some years back, for what its worth

Impressions of Gallipoli
I visited Gallipoli several years ago, and was struck by how much occurred in such a small area. My family has ancestors who were on both sides, btw. My great uncle was on a British battleship and my wife's great grandfather was shooting at him with a shore battery. The terrain is very confined, an arid Mediterranean area. Those who've seen parts of Greece, southern France and the central California coast line would recognize it instantly. Rugged hills and ridgelines, covered in low brush, scrub pines and oaks, plunge sharply into the sea. A scattering of small coves and beaches are your only places to land…except for the broad, gentle sweep of Suvla Bay to the north.

It is sobering to see the fields of headstones, realizing that they represent only a small portion of the actual fallen on both sides..and how young they were. John Simpson (22), Fred Wilkinson (18), Mehmed Ali (19), Murat Hassan (17)….tens of thousands. The ANZACs and the Turks lost a whole generation there. On the Turkish side (they call the campaign Cannukale btw), the so-called "Istanbul Boys" – students, intelligentsia, shop keepers and trades apprentices took unbelievable casualties -- 10,000 dead in their first counter-attack.

As an armchair general with 20/20 historical hindsight, the sheer incompetence and human waste of the campaign is also mind-boggling. The strategic reasoning was sound. The execution was execrable. Looking at ANZAC Cove, it's stunning to think that the Allies would make that their focal point (if even inadvertently) of the campaign – fighting up sheer ridgelines and craggy valleys instead of landing at Suvla Bay. No logistics follow through. Not enough water or food. Almost no medical support for the wounded. Indecisive generals, many of whom led from their staterooms on battleships off-shore. Gah!

Also interesting to understand just who close the Turks and the ANZACs were to each other. Trench lines were often literally a stone's throw away…rather, a grenade's throw away. Our local Turkish guide went to great pains to convey the feeling that the Turks and ANZACs may have fought each other, killed each other, but didn't "hate" each other. The guide recounted how the trench lines were so close that sometimes Turks and ANZACs would speak with each other, trade sweets and tea and the like. Perhaps a more modern impression, but many examples of compassion on both sides were cited. The movie "Gallipoli" btw gets the charge of the Light Horse completely wrong. The charge took place on the narrow confines of "The Neck" over a very short distance – perhaps less than 30 meters…across confining ground straight into Turkish Maxim guns. First 100, charge – buddabuddabudda…next 100 charge…next 100 charge. Insane.

Chunuk Bair. Lone Pine. Johnson's Jolly. The Neck. Now, as a gamer I can see the possibilities for making that come to life on my kitchen table…in a safe, small lead bashing arm-chair general way. But I am also keenly aware of how much human history and pain occurred in such a small area and I hope we never see its like again.

My impression, for what its worth. It's not easy to get to, but worth the visit if you are in Turkey.

What I've read has led me to conclude that the naval force failure to decisively act to open the straits initially was a horrible and avoidable blunder -- a lot had to go wrong for that to fail, and a lot did, most of all a stunning lack of perseverance on the part of British naval commanders.

After that, the landings only compounded the errors.

Many thanks SBminisguy!

Have you seen the last Mini-Serie about Gallipolli?… quite good!.

Amicalement
Armand

As a minor aside to SBminisguy: do you suppose any allied soldiers apart from ANZACs were at Gallipoli?

As a minor aside to SBminisguy: do you suppose any allied soldiers apart from ANZACs were at Gallipoli?

Of course there were! Not to diminish the sacrifice and experiences of those from other allied &commonwealth nations, but from an historical site perspective the sheer number of Aussies and Kiwis that fought and died there was overwhelming for them. On my tour I encountered so many Aussies and Kiwis, it seemed like there almost doing a pilgrimage to a site that holds special meaning for them.

Many thanks SBminisguy!

Have you seen the last Mini-Serie about Gallipolli?… quite good!.

Amicalement
Armand

I have not, but I have seen the Water Diviner -- very good movie!

imdb.com/title/tt3007512

Yes, I enjoyed the Water Diviner very much also…highly recommended.

Despite the mythology surrounding the Australian participation Steele's article gets it right in that it was a diversion from the main attacks in the south. The myth about Anzac Cove being the wrong landing site has been dismissed even by the historians at the Australian War Memorial as a myth. This is mainly because of lack of primary source material and that Anzac Cove is right in the centre of the ordered landing area and by the end of 25 April 1915 over 16000 had crossed that beach and were fighting in the hills while British troops at Cape Helles were still trapped on the beaches.

Suvla and the August offensive were an attempt to break out.

As for the movie Gallipoli the attack at the Nek is pretty much spot on narrow front, trenches close together and slaughter. The Nek battlefield is about the size of two tennis courts side by side.

Argued that over 1000000 men fought over that peninsula. Men from Australia, New Zealand, India, Newfoundland Britain, France, Syria, Anatolia,Turkey and Zion Mule Corp made it a rather multinational affair.

More Frenchmen died at Gallipoli than Aussies and Kiwis combined.

Interesting that some people still like to blame Churchill for the failure, despite the fact that it was local decision-making that caused it.

very interesting thanks for posting it again

Nobody takes note that the Turkish maybe fought very well?

Amicalement
Armand

Much like nobody takes any account of the Germans on Day 1 of The Somme, I'm afraid.

Spoils the "all British generals were upper class twits" theme.

We often forget that the Turkish army fought very well. Not surprising since they were defending their homeland.

As for Churchill there needed to be a scapegoat. There are some aspects such as failing to support the operation with sufficient troops that can be laid at London's door.

Poor local decisions, the terrain and the Turkish army.

Interesting that while the British and Commonwealth troops were struggling with water issues the French had daily wine rations.