It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gallipoli Campaign Myths

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

2. Gallipoli could have shortened the war
The entire plan was nonsense. The theory was that the Royal Navy would pass through the Dardanelles, bombard Istanbul (Constantinople), and knock Turkey out of the war, which would strengthen Russia and weaken Germany, and shorten the war. But Turkey was propped up by Germany, not the other way round. The Ottoman Empire was huge and there was no guarantee that taking the capital would knock it out of the war.
Even if a supply route could be opened to Russia, Britain had no spare weapons and munitions to send it, and the Russian railway system was too primitive for that country to send grain the other way.


Full story



Even if the mines in the straits had been cleared and the battleships had got through (and it was not a given that the fleet would arrive at Constantinople unscathed) the question remains: what would happen next? The foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, admitted it was hoped that the presence of a hostile fleet would bring about a coup d’état that would lead to Turkey dropping out of the war. There is no credible evidence that such a coup would have been triggered. If that didn’t happen, and lacking soldiers to fight a ground campaign, the fleet would have had little choice but to turn tail and retrace its steps, humiliated. The whole concept was founded, to a remarkable degree, on wishful thinking.


Full Article

I thought that I would start the discussion by taking a look at the strategic logic behind Churchill's advocacy for the Gallipoli Campaign. The state of the Russian Railway's is a very compelling argument against Churchill's argument. Still I do lean more in favor of the strategic logic of looking for a way to circumvent the deadlock on the Western Front. What really vindicates Churchill's strategic logic (and not the conduct of the Campaign) is the collapse of the Russian front in 1917. Germany was free to move reinforcements to the Western Front a event only off set by the US entry into the war.

I don't deny that Gallipoli Campaign was conducted in a 19th Century manner while taking place what was than modern day warfare. IMO the attempted by allied naval vessels to force the Dardanelles stand alone very much belonged to a past era. The fact there was wide spread panic at the prospect of the warships arriving at the Turkish Capital doesn't prove that a coup would have taken place. If the Turkish Civil Service had fled the resulting power vacuum would have made the situation interesting.




A documentary that I have on DVD at home that may be of interest to those not familiar with the Campaign.

Ultimately in a strategic sense: Germany lost two world wars on the Eastern Front. In 1917 they couldn't get their troops from Russia to the Western Front in time, before the USA entered WW1. In WW2 German losses at Stalingrad and on the rest of the Eastern Front are well documented .




edit on 18-12-2015 by xpert11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2015 by xpert11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2015 by xpert11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
OMG

Ive been researching this recently.

I was trying to understand churchills plan that was thwarted.

Also I wanted to know if woodrow in his mind had already decided
to go to war but needed the american public behind him.

propaganda at the time was...interesting.

Great thread op, I need to digest now.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Churchills plan was hatched 2 months prior to the gallipoli landing, Australia and allies walked into a shi# fight.
Germanys problem is that they had an furer and not a leader.
Think of it like a religion.
My sadness lays with Germany now.
My furer how they've changed

Still watching BTW.... cheers
edit on 18/12/2015 by scubagravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Thanks to the Germans, the Turks had the .3o cal water cooled, fixed machine gun able to fire continuously, overlooking the English and Aussie trenches.

link to image

A good movie that carries the same name captures the events pretty well… well, except if you don't like Mel.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ismynameimportant
Also I wanted to know if woodrow in his mind had already decided
to go to war but needed the american public behind him.


Woodrow was determined to keep the US out of the war. As far as I know the American farming sector wasn't pushing for the Gallipoli Campaign to succeed. Opening up a supply route to Russia would have been a boom for American industrial and agricultural producers.


propaganda at the time was...interesting.


You could easily devote a thread to it in this forum.



edit on 19-12-2015 by xpert11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Gallipoli was a disaster. A level of stupidity in planning an execution that defies belief. The loss of young boys and young adults was staggering. The Christmas cease fire where the Turks and Aussies played cards and exchanged gifts a poignant moment going against the grain of humanities usual senseless geo-political aggressions.

I walked through there decades ago and you easily could kick a shell.

I read Liddell Hart's History of the First World War back in high school to learn about the Gallipoli campaign/clusterf***
Its an excellent read.




top topics
 
12

log in

join