I think it was less a product of Churchill's (anyone else's) defects in planning than it was a total underestimation of the capabilities of the Turkish defenders. They were much much better than anyone in France or the UK (or anywhere else) gave them credit for. Mustafa Kemal is a good example.
Robert K. Massie's _Castles of Steel_ has (iirc) a different version of things. First off you can't separate the two aspects of the battle - as one was heavily influenced by the other. Also - this campaign grew out of what had preceded it. Early on in WWI - you have the flight of the German Battle Cruiser Goeben. Caught in the Med at the beginning of the war - it - being pursued by the British - flees to the Dardanelles - and requests permission from the Neutral Turks to enter. Permission is granted. At this point - the Turks (because they are still neutral) can only allow it to stay there for a short time. So - what the Germans and the Turks agree on - is that the Germans will GIVE the Goeben to the Turks. At that point - it will technically NOT be a German ship any more - it will be an Ottoman Ship (and they change the name). What they did not change - was the crew. The Goeben still had a German Captain and German Crew - which bring the Ottomans into the war - by attacking Russian Shipping. The British see this - and wonder if the fact that the Goeben was sitting a few hundred yards off the coast of the Ottoman Capital - with those 11" Guns - had had any effect on getting the Ottomans to join Germany. The British think - what if WE put ships with big guns off the coast of the Ottoman Capital? So - they begin coming up with a plan to do so. Then - as I understand it - the plan was for the Army to land troops at the base of the Peninsula to cut it off. At this point in time - the Peninsula was not heavily defended as the Turks didn't expect anyone to do anything like this. With the Peninsula cut off the British would then be able to attack South against an un-reinforced garrison and together the Army and Navy would reduce the Turkish Defenses, With that done the fleet could sit a few hundred yards off the Ottoman Capital - and maybe - the Turks would quit. If it succeeded they'd have eliminated a Major Central Powers Ally - and - gained access to Russian Ports on the Black Sea. If it failed - they could hardly have taken losses as serious as those on the Western Front. As mentioned - the ships they planned on using were already scheduled to be scrapped anyway. The Army refuses. The Navy is like - _"OK. We'll do it ourselves"_ . The British Naval guns - are in fact effective against the Turkish Forts. The thing they have trouble with - are the smaller guns - but these smaller guns can't really hurt the Battleships - and - being that these are mostly Howitzers that are indirect fire weapons - they aren't that good at hitting moving targets. Here the main problem is simply the Civilian Crews of the Mine Sweepers. The moment they take fire - they flee - and the Navy can't stop them. So - the Navy tries it's big push - AFTER - the Turks have become VERY much aware of what's going on. The Turks put in that extra mine field that they had the time to put in - because the Civilian Mine Sweeping Crews had kept running away - and the Navy loses some ships. Now - the Navy is going to put entirely Navy Crews on the Mine Sweepers - and try again. At this point - with the Navy Ready to go on with the Campaign - as the casualties they have suffered are nothing in comparison to what's happening in Western Europe - the Army decides it will participate after all. The Navy drops the idea of running the Strait - and moves into a supporting role for the Army. This puts an end to any possibility of the Campaign not being a failure. The problem is - the idea of cutting off a weakly held Peninsula by landing at the top of it - is long since gone. Once the Navy began it's efforts to run the Straits - the Turks realized the danger and put troops on the beaches at the top of the Peninsula. With no ability to do the type of Assault Landings that were done in WWII - the Army can't be landed there any more. So - the Army lands where it can land - on whatever undefended beaches it can find - with the major landings on the far tip of the Peninsula. The problem here - is that the Turks NOW have Reserves - ready to respond to any British Landings on the Peninsula - so when they do - these Turkish Forces move to block the expansion of these British Landings. Here - we now have the exact same situation as on the Western Front - with it's trenches and barbed wire, machine guns and artillery. Most of the British are at the tip of the Peninsula - where they are worthless - and the ANZAC Beach is to weak and to hemmed in by the Turks to break out. The Navy doesn't try to run the Straits again. Since the Navy is now tied to supporting the Army Landings - which are hopeless - the Campaign has failed - they just don't know it yet. Eventually they figure that out - and withdraw. The Campaign failed - first, because it was not a joint plan by the Army and the Navy - and second because the Navy, with it's lack of experience clearing mines - was not aware of the difficulties of trying to do so with the Civilian Crews that came with the boats they bought if those boats came under fire. These two things CAUSED the failure - but that doesn't mean it could have succeeded. Had these two aspects of the Campaign succeeded - we don't know what else might have happened - such as what the Ottoman Response would have been or what else they might have done. The Ottomans would after all - even if the Peninsula was taken - still occupy the Eastern Shores of the Strait. It was not however - a bad idea. The losses incurred in the failure - would have been well worth it had it succeeded and knocked the Ottomans out of the war. Churchill got all the blame though - was sacked - and joined his Regiment (he did after all have a membership in an Army Regiment) as a Battalion Commander and spent some time in the Trenches before returning to the Government. .
The only demurral I would make is that navy crews on the minesweepers didn't give them the ability to sweep mines under heavy fire without getting sunk, so your emphasis on the civilian nature of the crews is misplaced. Also, your story doesn't seem all that "different" from (i.e., inconsistent with) Bell's. Or am I missing something?
Churchill was reckless, my grandfather fought at Gallipoli in 1915 and my father at Anzio in 1944, both were bloodbaths, both were Churchill’s projects.
Not all wars can be Desert Storm and with a peer or near-peer opponent attritive bloodbaths are inevitable. The proper criticism of these operations is that they were failures, and Churchill was not the sole cause of that.
The French suggested the campaign 1st months before., the Brits rejected the plan and attempted to bribe the Ottomans. The campaign only took place, because the bribery was rejected and Churchills plan was to send outdated warships, that could not be used on the Western front.
The idea sound and not all sound ideas bare the desired results. What did happen was that over 200,000 Ottoman were no longer combat able which would make a difference in Arabia, Judea, Syria, Caucasus. There was also an offensive not far from the Dardanelles through Thrace/Macedonia that would cause Bulgaria to surrender and Ludendorf to have a break down.
Anyone who reads the history of these campaigns will recognise it was the commanders responsible for their execution who fouled them up, not the strategist who thought them up.
churchill always liked these weird schemes :) I believe it is the Royal Navy. In the late 1950's, I was stationed on the sea of Maramara near Karamursel, Istanbul had a million people at that time.
Here comes a question nobody thought before,if the Turkish searchlights made the mission impossible it should be remembered that equally if not more the searchlights were even more vulnerable in the dark for being seen why didnt the admiral just give the order to knock the lights off...I mean you cant use a searchlight from behind a hill and level it towards the water right?...
@@gl2773 you’re right. I heard the number was as high as 27%, ie., of ‘Australian’ forces were British born, the rest had parents born there. It was not a foreign country as we understand the phrase. They tended to think of themselves as British and Australian (just as there are Welsh and English Britons) and most were proudly part of the British empire to a degree hard for us to imagine today (there were obviously exceptions, often those of Irish extraction). In this part of the world (NZ and Australia) few realise that the British were there in much larger numbers (than us) and suffered higher casualties. It was far from a case of fighting to the last Anzacs and in fact the British went ashore where the heaviest resistance was expected (the Anzacs not including experienced professional soldiers while the British included a small professional core). I have only looked into all this quite recently and must say I was hugely surprised, shocked even, despite the fact we are taught a lot about Gallipoli over here (or at least were in the 1980s). Nothing though has dimmed my admiration and gratitude for all these men, all of whom were volunteers (the only conscripts being some on the French side). Sorry, I just meant to share that 27% figure which I thought may be of interest to you!
@@b.alexanderjohnstone9774 there were a lot of poms who had migrated in the 1900s and the war presented an opportunity for a cheap ticket home eg. Simpson of Donkey fame. Must have been a huge disappointment to have been diverted to Egypt.
The French didn’t want the British Empire to end up with Constantinople (though this had been promised to Russia) so sent their own forces to make it into a joint venture.
... which got a lot of Frenchmen unnecessarily killed. It's really infuriating that Churchill was trying to save his career, or to hear about Haig and Foch and Pershing, etc., bickering about precedence and the like, when large numbers of troops get unnecessarily dead as a result.
None. Although, of course, new inventions needed oil, but the main fuel of that period was coal. Oil was used at that time and even 3000 to 4000 years earlier (think about oil lamps, streetlights), but at that time it had almost no military purpose. Don't forget, almost every where on the planet oil could be found and it was more than sufficient to supply the needs of the country where it was found. Later on in WW2 oil (or the lack of) became a major factor. And the large oil fields (especially the real huge ones we still use today) in the Middle East, where discoverd after WW2.
Will anyone enlighten me on Churchill's naval career. Did he in fact have a naval career? He was First Lord of the Admiralty for Christ sake!! He sent the fleet into a narrow channel that was Heavily mined. We lost 6 Battleships and several hundred men. Do not get me started on Gallipoli. (My grandfather fought at Suvla Bay) Can we please stop deifying this man. He was an alcoholic incompetent.
agree.... he was important for 6 months ( after Dunkirk), for his speeches and for sending a bomber to bomb Berlin in the same period which caused more than 40000 British civilian deaths but won the Battle of Britain. Otherwise awful.....
First Lord of the Admirality is a political post. There was also a First Sea Lord of the Ad. Usually an admiral. Why don't you research these questions,?
He wasn't booted from the Admiralty for the plan. His departure from the Admiralty was the price that Balfour demanded of Asquith to get a coalition government, Balfour himself becoming First Lord. Asquith acquiesced.
It was a typical "look at a map make a snap decison" plan. Killing the Ottomans off first made sense, they where exposed to Britain, close to British bases and also held and threthened areas key to Britain. Britain could have fought on many fronts vs the Ottomans, as they later did. The general strategy is sound but then comes concrete planning and achiving the strategic goals. The idea to surprise an enemy capital in a strong defensive position is ... extremly opptimistic not to say unrealistic. "We can threathen Constantinople so fast the turks just have to give in". Why whould the Turks at war with Russia and naval powers like the UK & France not fortify the straights or keep forces at their costal capital?
Shows some of the worst of Churchill's thinking that he thought it would be fine if the navy lost ships - the lives of the Royal Navy sailors on those ships were irrelevant.
Not good, light on detail, heavy on opinion. Very distracting with the speaker pacing to & fro. The problem with Churchill was he thought that he was the equal to his ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough. The Navy plan was poorly thought out & poorly executed. It warned the Turks who were able to bring up troops to the peninsular & strengthen the beach defences. The Army was badly led and as usual reinforced failure & ignored success.
Classic cultural difference. Germany punished failure (von Moltke, its admirals, for not achieving "decision") but britain rewarded failure (gort, haig, beatty, churchill -- the secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain to war against Germany should she invade France, dithering around in Summer 1914 leading the Germans to believe in british neutrality, Dardenelles/Gallipoli, Sykes-Picot, Versailles, the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939 ensuring WW2, Narvik, Dunkirk, Tobruk, the sinking of HMS Renown and HMS George V, Singapore, Dieppe, the betrayal of Russian and East European PoWs forced to return to the ussr to their deaths... a string of massive failures with churchill's footprints all over them, yet he went on to become PM and national hero. In any other country he'd have been booted out for failure... but “History,” churchill said, “will be kind to me, for I intend to write it myself.” Thus one of the great incompetents and mass murderers of the 20th century preserved his "legend" and, unlike Hitler and stalin, escaped any blame. britain still rewards failure today -- hello philip green, fred goodwin, carillion... What is it about the brits that makes them love failure?
What German admiral was cashiered "for not achieving 'decision'"? (Which would anyway have been completely unfair, as the failure was on the part of Tirpitz/Wilhelm to give them a fleet competitive with the British one, something that was anyways too foolish to attempt given the respective shipyard capacities. And it was abandoned BEFORE WWI.) Your idea for avoiding WWI or WWII is that the Brits should have let Germany win? Both the HMS Renown and HMS George V survived WWII. I presume you meant the Repulse and Prince of Wales. The Admiral responsible for attempting to reach the Japanese invasion fleet without air cover, even such as could have been arranged, died in the attempt rather than being rewarded. The business of sending POWs to the USSR may have been morally deficient, but it wasn't a failure in the sense you otherwise use that word. I could fisk you further, but suffice it to say that your paragraph is a mishmash of misinformation and confused thought.
Cherry picking nonsense. The Fact that throughout history, Britain has been dominant militarily and culturally contradicts your narrative.I suppose you think they were just lucky. The French were the 1st to suggest this offensive, then Britain attempted to bribe the Ottomans 1st, the strategy that worked so well in the Napoleonic wars. Bottom line is that The Brits showed that they were superior strategically, with vision and dipllomacy, whereas the Germans were like children, with their Ridiculous Decision to go to war, going through Belgium in the 1st place, Stupid wasted effort starting a naval arms race, and then abandoning it, using chemical warfare and skulls et cetera on their uniforms, torpedoing US ships, and then"The stupidest decision iin history"which was to send the telegram to Mexico.
Regardless of what people think about this campaign, he turned out to be probably the greatest wartime leader of any country of any time in the history of the world. So i guess it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it was less a product of Churchill's (anyone else's) defects in planning than it was a total underestimation of the capabilities of the Turkish defenders. They were much much better than anyone in France or the UK (or anywhere else) gave them credit for. Mustafa Kemal is a good example.
Churchill usually had a good grasp of strategy but not of operations. He had a good idea if what to do but not how to do it.
Chris you were amazing. You will be missed.
Very interesting presentation. This man, Dr. Christopher M. Bell, passed away on May 15th 2024.
Robert K. Massie's _Castles of Steel_ has (iirc) a different version of things.
First off you can't separate the two aspects of the battle - as one was heavily influenced by the other. Also - this campaign grew out of what had preceded it.
Early on in WWI - you have the flight of the German Battle Cruiser Goeben. Caught in the Med at the beginning of the war - it - being pursued by the British - flees to the Dardanelles - and requests permission from the Neutral Turks to enter.
Permission is granted.
At this point - the Turks (because they are still neutral) can only allow it to stay there for a short time. So - what the Germans and the Turks agree on - is that the Germans will GIVE the Goeben to the Turks. At that point - it will technically NOT be a German ship any more - it will be an Ottoman Ship (and they change the name).
What they did not change - was the crew. The Goeben still had a German Captain and German Crew - which bring the Ottomans into the war - by attacking Russian Shipping.
The British see this - and wonder if the fact that the Goeben was sitting a few hundred yards off the coast of the Ottoman Capital - with those 11" Guns - had had any effect on getting the Ottomans to join Germany. The British think - what if WE put ships with big guns off the coast of the Ottoman Capital? So - they begin coming up with a plan to do so.
Then - as I understand it - the plan was for the Army to land troops at the base of the Peninsula to cut it off. At this point in time - the Peninsula was not heavily defended as the Turks didn't expect anyone to do anything like this. With the Peninsula cut off the British would then be able to attack South against an un-reinforced garrison and together the Army and Navy would reduce the Turkish Defenses, With that done the fleet could sit a few hundred yards off the Ottoman Capital - and maybe - the Turks would quit. If it succeeded they'd have eliminated a Major Central Powers Ally - and - gained access to Russian Ports on the Black Sea. If it failed - they could hardly have taken losses as serious as those on the Western Front. As mentioned - the ships they planned on using were already scheduled to be scrapped anyway.
The Army refuses.
The Navy is like - _"OK. We'll do it ourselves"_ .
The British Naval guns - are in fact effective against the Turkish Forts. The thing they have trouble with - are the smaller guns - but these smaller guns can't really hurt the Battleships - and - being that these are mostly Howitzers that are indirect fire weapons - they aren't that good at hitting moving targets.
Here the main problem is simply the Civilian Crews of the Mine Sweepers. The moment they take fire - they flee - and the Navy can't stop them.
So - the Navy tries it's big push - AFTER - the Turks have become VERY much aware of what's going on. The Turks put in that extra mine field that they had the time to put in - because the Civilian Mine Sweeping Crews had kept running away - and the Navy loses some ships.
Now - the Navy is going to put entirely Navy Crews on the Mine Sweepers - and try again.
At this point - with the Navy Ready to go on with the Campaign - as the casualties they have suffered are nothing in comparison to what's happening in Western Europe - the Army decides it will participate after all.
The Navy drops the idea of running the Strait - and moves into a supporting role for the Army. This puts an end to any possibility of the Campaign not being a failure.
The problem is - the idea of cutting off a weakly held Peninsula by landing at the top of it - is long since gone. Once the Navy began it's efforts to run the Straits - the Turks realized the danger and put troops on the beaches at the top of the Peninsula. With no ability to do the type of Assault Landings that were done in WWII - the Army can't be landed there any more.
So - the Army lands where it can land - on whatever undefended beaches it can find - with the major landings on the far tip of the Peninsula. The problem here - is that the Turks NOW have Reserves - ready to respond to any British Landings on the Peninsula - so when they do - these Turkish Forces move to block the expansion of these British Landings.
Here - we now have the exact same situation as on the Western Front - with it's trenches and barbed wire, machine guns and artillery. Most of the British are at the tip of the Peninsula - where they are worthless - and the ANZAC Beach is to weak and to hemmed in by the Turks to break out.
The Navy doesn't try to run the Straits again. Since the Navy is now tied to supporting the Army Landings - which are hopeless - the Campaign has failed - they just don't know it yet.
Eventually they figure that out - and withdraw.
The Campaign failed - first, because it was not a joint plan by the Army and the Navy - and second because the Navy, with it's lack of experience clearing mines - was not aware of the difficulties of trying to do so with the Civilian Crews that came with the boats they bought if those boats came under fire.
These two things CAUSED the failure - but that doesn't mean it could have succeeded. Had these two aspects of the Campaign succeeded - we don't know what else might have happened - such as what the Ottoman Response would have been or what else they might have done. The Ottomans would after all - even if the Peninsula was taken - still occupy the Eastern Shores of the Strait.
It was not however - a bad idea. The losses incurred in the failure - would have been well worth it had it succeeded and knocked the Ottomans out of the war.
Churchill got all the blame though - was sacked - and joined his Regiment (he did after all have a membership in an Army Regiment) as a Battalion Commander and spent some time in the Trenches before returning to the Government.
.
The only demurral I would make is that navy crews on the minesweepers didn't give them the ability to sweep mines under heavy fire without getting sunk, so your emphasis on the civilian nature of the crews is misplaced. Also, your story doesn't seem all that "different" from (i.e., inconsistent with) Bell's. Or am I missing something?
@@gandydancer9710nah it was similar just more emphasis on different perspective elements
Churchill was reckless, my grandfather fought at Gallipoli in 1915 and my father at Anzio in 1944, both were bloodbaths, both were Churchill’s projects.
Not all wars can be Desert Storm and with a peer or near-peer opponent attritive bloodbaths are inevitable.
The proper criticism of these operations is that they were failures, and Churchill was not the sole cause of that.
The French suggested the campaign 1st months before., the Brits rejected the plan and attempted to bribe the Ottomans. The campaign only took place, because the bribery was rejected and Churchills plan was to send outdated warships, that could not be used on the Western front.
The idea sound and not all sound ideas bare the desired results.
What did happen was that over 200,000 Ottoman were no longer combat able which would make a difference in Arabia, Judea, Syria, Caucasus.
There was also an offensive not far from the Dardanelles through Thrace/Macedonia that would cause Bulgaria to surrender and Ludendorf to have a break down.
Anyone who reads the history of these campaigns will recognise it was the commanders responsible for their execution who fouled them up, not the strategist who thought them up.
churchill always liked these weird schemes :) I believe it is the Royal Navy. In the late 1950's, I was stationed on the sea of Maramara near Karamursel, Istanbul had a million people at that time.
the idea of knocking the ottamns out of war was a good idea but was badly stuffed up in the execution
Armies and navies are the Post Office at war. See the "N" in SNAFU.
Very true.
The Otttomans WERE knocked out of the war In mid 1918.
You knock out the fort, you take out the mines, you attack the capital, what next?
"We'll win, because our enemies won't fight"
Here comes a question nobody thought before,if the Turkish searchlights made the mission impossible it should be remembered that equally if not more the searchlights were even more vulnerable in the dark for being seen why didnt the admiral just give the order to knock the lights off...I mean you cant use a searchlight from behind a hill and level it towards the water right?...
Churchill fighting till the last Aussie/Kiwi
Yep. Though he didn't mind killing his own either. Read up on the River Clyde. Those poor bastards.
Many of whom were British immigrants and first generation... not forgetting the 31,000 British and 9,000 French dead...
@@gl2773 you’re right. I heard the number was as high as 27%, ie., of ‘Australian’ forces were British born, the rest had parents born there. It was not a foreign country as we understand the phrase. They tended to think of themselves as British and Australian (just as there are Welsh and English Britons) and most were proudly part of the British empire to a degree hard for us to imagine today (there were obviously exceptions, often those of Irish extraction). In this part of the world (NZ and Australia) few realise that the British were there in much larger numbers (than us) and suffered higher casualties. It was far from a case of fighting to the last Anzacs and in fact the British went ashore where the heaviest resistance was expected (the Anzacs not including experienced professional soldiers while the British included a small professional core). I have only looked into all this quite recently and must say I was hugely surprised, shocked even, despite the fact we are taught a lot about Gallipoli over here (or at least were in the 1980s). Nothing though has dimmed my admiration and gratitude for all these men, all of whom were volunteers (the only conscripts being some on the French side). Sorry, I just meant to share that 27% figure which I thought may be of interest to you!
Not really but don't let facts cloud the internet.
@@b.alexanderjohnstone9774 there were a lot of poms who had migrated in the 1900s and the war presented an opportunity for a cheap ticket home eg. Simpson of Donkey fame. Must have been a huge disappointment to have been diverted to Egypt.
Good presenter nice graphics❤
A good solid review of both sides of a still troubling campaign.
...
The French didn’t want the British Empire to end up with Constantinople (though this had been promised to Russia) so sent their own forces to make it into a joint venture.
... which got a lot of Frenchmen unnecessarily killed.
It's really infuriating that Churchill was trying to save his career, or to hear about Haig and Foch and Pershing, etc., bickering about precedence and the like, when large numbers of troops get unnecessarily dead as a result.
What part of any did the Mid East oil fields play in this operation?
None. They weren't discovered until after the war.
None. Although, of course, new inventions needed oil, but the main fuel of that period was coal.
Oil was used at that time and even 3000 to 4000 years earlier (think about oil lamps, streetlights), but at that time it had almost no military purpose. Don't forget, almost every where on the planet oil could be found and it was more than sufficient to supply the needs of the country where it was found.
Later on in WW2 oil (or the lack of) became a major factor.
And the large oil fields (especially the real huge ones we still use today) in the Middle East, where discoverd after WW2.
Everything. Plus the prosperity of mainland Europe. Crush your enemies while you can.
None.
Will anyone enlighten me on Churchill's naval career. Did he in fact have a naval career? He was First Lord of the Admiralty for Christ sake!!
He sent the fleet into a narrow channel that was Heavily mined. We lost 6 Battleships and several hundred men. Do not get me started on Gallipoli. (My grandfather fought at Suvla Bay)
Can we please stop deifying this man. He was an alcoholic incompetent.
agree.... he was important for 6 months ( after Dunkirk), for his speeches and for sending a bomber to bomb Berlin in the same period which caused more than 40000 British civilian deaths but won the Battle of Britain. Otherwise awful.....
First Lord of the Admirality is a political post. There was also a First Sea Lord of the Ad. Usually an admiral.
Why don't you research these questions,?
It was reckless plan and Churchill was booted from the Admiralty due to it.
He wasn't booted from the Admiralty for the plan. His departure from the Admiralty was the price that Balfour demanded of Asquith to get a coalition government, Balfour himself becoming First Lord. Asquith acquiesced.
It was a typical "look at a map make a snap decison" plan. Killing the Ottomans off first made sense, they where exposed to Britain, close to British bases and also held and threthened areas key to Britain.
Britain could have fought on many fronts vs the Ottomans, as they later did. The general strategy is sound but then comes concrete planning and achiving the strategic goals.
The idea to surprise an enemy capital in a strong defensive position is ... extremly opptimistic not to say unrealistic. "We can threathen Constantinople so fast the turks just have to give in". Why whould the Turks at war with Russia and naval powers like the UK & France not fortify the straights or keep forces at their costal capital?
In other words; it was a high risk, thoughtless and irresponsible operation.
Typical British ahoe string operation.
not sure why 1917 keeps on coming up? It was over and done long before 1917
Shows some of the worst of Churchill's thinking that he thought it would be fine if the navy lost ships - the lives of the Royal Navy sailors on those ships were irrelevant.
They were in fact insignificant losses compared with those on the Western Front. That's just realism.
He had several completely hare-brained schemes, which fortunately were stopped by the military.
Çanakkale geçilmez
cok tesikerediram~
Why does the lecturer go between 1917 and 1915 instead of just 1915? Premeditated ambitions; and already oil for the Navy?
Not good, light on detail, heavy on opinion. Very distracting with the speaker pacing to & fro.
The problem with Churchill was he thought that he was the equal to his ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough.
The Navy plan was poorly thought out & poorly executed. It warned the Turks who were able to bring up troops to the peninsular & strengthen the beach defences. The Army was badly led and as usual reinforced failure & ignored success.
Classic cultural difference. Germany punished failure (von Moltke, its admirals, for not achieving "decision") but britain rewarded failure (gort, haig, beatty, churchill -- the secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain to war against Germany should she invade France, dithering around in Summer 1914 leading the Germans to believe in british neutrality, Dardenelles/Gallipoli, Sykes-Picot, Versailles, the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939 ensuring WW2, Narvik, Dunkirk, Tobruk, the sinking of HMS Renown and HMS George V, Singapore, Dieppe, the betrayal of Russian and East European PoWs forced to return to the ussr to their deaths... a string of massive failures with churchill's footprints all over them, yet he went on to become PM and national hero. In any other country he'd have been booted out for failure... but “History,” churchill said, “will be kind to me, for I intend to write it myself.” Thus one of the great incompetents and mass murderers of the 20th century preserved his "legend" and, unlike Hitler and stalin, escaped any blame. britain still rewards failure today -- hello philip green, fred goodwin, carillion... What is it about the brits that makes them love failure?
Churchill was on the winning side. In both wars. (Also, I think what ensured WW2 was the German invasion)
What German admiral was cashiered "for not achieving 'decision'"? (Which would anyway have been completely unfair, as the failure was on the part of Tirpitz/Wilhelm to give them a fleet competitive with the British one, something that was anyways too foolish to attempt given the respective shipyard capacities. And it was abandoned BEFORE WWI.)
Your idea for avoiding WWI or WWII is that the Brits should have let Germany win?
Both the HMS Renown and HMS George V survived WWII. I presume you meant the Repulse and Prince of Wales.
The Admiral responsible for attempting to reach the Japanese invasion fleet without air cover, even such as could have been arranged, died in the attempt rather than being rewarded.
The business of sending POWs to the USSR may have been morally deficient, but it wasn't a failure in the sense you otherwise use that word.
I could fisk you further, but suffice it to say that your paragraph is a mishmash of misinformation and confused thought.
Cherry picking nonsense. The Fact that throughout history, Britain has been dominant militarily and culturally contradicts your narrative.I suppose you think they were just lucky.
The French were the 1st to suggest this offensive, then Britain attempted to bribe the Ottomans 1st, the strategy that worked so well in the Napoleonic wars. Bottom line is that The Brits showed that they were superior strategically, with vision and dipllomacy, whereas the Germans were like children, with their Ridiculous Decision to go to war, going through Belgium in the 1st place, Stupid wasted effort starting a naval arms race, and then abandoning it, using chemical warfare and skulls et cetera on their uniforms, torpedoing US ships, and then"The stupidest decision iin history"which was to send the telegram to Mexico.
Regardless of what people think about this campaign, he turned out to be probably the greatest wartime leader of any country of any time in the history of the world. So i guess it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
@@pearly872 It wasn't just British lives that Churchill sacrificed,it was Irish lives.That old bastard is the greatest Britain??????????????,
> The greatest wartime leader of any country of any time in the history of the world.
Hyperbole much?
@@lhaviland8602 Exactly… That could be Nelson, or Wellington, or Caesar.Obviously would be Napoleon, if he had won