What I believe was the greatest error after the landing, was the failure of command to reinforce and secure the third spur, the objective of the first day. The brave soldiers, Australian and New Zealanders, were ordered to fall back and consolidate. They would never again reach this objective.
What didn't go wrong ... reminds me of Tarawa. Amphibious landing was a disaster with almost 1,000 Americans being killed. For an island the size of Manhattan.
There was nothing to be proud about concerning this conflict. Churchill was clueless as to how organised the Turks could be, and obviously all the troop ships could be seen approaching for miles across the med. So two key aspects for a successful attack were lost. I'm no historian, but I seem to remember that the Turks even put a floating barrage across the Dardanelles to block our ships, then shot them up. It was a complete mess. And to land troops under cliffs is suicide. Even if there wasn't any Turks up there, it would have been torture climbing up. Then there was the weather - roasting when they arrived, then rain and freezing in later months when they were dug in trying to survive. Then re-enforcement's arrived. The guys under fire on the hills could see the troops arrive on the coast in the distance - but they didn't come to relieve them. They were seen making camp on the beach and swimming in the sea. And to add immense insult to injury, when the survivors were evacuated in December 1915 and thought they were sailing home - the lads were told they were actually being dropped off at France - to fight in the mud. Disgraceful abuse of volunteer soldiers.
What happened at Gallipoli? A young colonel named Mustafa Kemal happened! British couldn’t defeat him. Just as Brit supported Greek forces could not defeat him in Turkey’s liberation war a few years later. Gallipoli did not give you what you wanted but it gave us our hero, the saviour and revolutionist of modern Turkey. It gave us “the Father of the Turks”!
Gallipolli is mistunderstood. I do agree it was a mistake. But Churchill's idea was not so wrong. Britain had a huge surplus of ageing dreadnoughts that could arguably break through the Dardanelles, and those ships were, everyone would concede otherwise somewhere between dispensable and useless. Churchill's initial idea was to make this purely a naval assault. If it failed, the loss would be regrettable but very acceptable in the context of WWI losses. The problem is that the plan morphed into a land assault on the straits -- it was never meant to be that and it was severe folly to let the plan become that.
@@willhawkins9806 well those boats had thousands of sailors. they died, just to start. im not saying churchill was right. but he was right something new had to be tried because trench warfare was bleeding europe to death.
ww1 was a sickening waste but i give credit to any officer or politician trying to adapt and find a way to end the bloodletting and to be fair, i really think there were people on both sides who tried
Where on earth do you get your death list from? 200,000 dead Allied soldiers? Add at least 3 wounded to one death that gives a total casualty number of 800,000 then add the thousands of troops that survived and that number goes to a million troops. Your figures are absolute nonsense. Approximately 21, 000 Brits died and 9,000 ANZACs died with several thousand French etc.
Hi Michael - thanks for this. I should have mentioned this - an oversight on my part. These videos are structured around the GCSE module which focuses (somewhat narrowly) on Britain's involvement in the First World War. But that isn't an excuse - just an explanation. I certainly did not want to imply that the Turkish were not important. They fought incredibly bravely defending their country throughout the Gallipoli campaign.
Thank You. Fine explanation. @willhawkins9806 It was an excellent piece and it hits me, so often... The adversary never exisits Never feels pain Never anything! 😢 Thank You will, for Your reply.
Very well explained, thank you. The Australian mini-series Gallipoli was very good, but didn't explain why as you have done. Churchill was overated and the British commanding General was utterly stupid helping lead to more heartbroken mothers & fathers. Churchill was delighted when America joined both World Wars to save the mess Britain got themselves into.
@@Breeanna73 Hmmmm, for an Australian girl "that hates liars", you must practice self-loathing. 🤣 Ahhhh, so tired of schooling Brits & their Commonwealth minions. No, the war was not over, or well in hand by the time America sent men to die for spoiled unappreciative Europeans from the mess they got themselves into, smh. so you don't know America spent huge amounts of money, fed, supplied, & sent men to die in 2 World Wars b/c Briton got themselves into messes the USA had to get them out of?! Boy, Austrlian education sure is lacking.😵💫 The sinking of the Lusitania, for example, one thing that swung sympathy towards the UK was a typical dirty Brit lie. The UK said nah, there was no armaments on the Luisitania, so Germany illegally sank it. Well, the same technology that allow the world to see the Titanic wreakage, another Brit screw-up, showed that the Lusitania's hold was full of all kinds of munitions & artillery! Look it up! America's help lead to that well-in-hand win you claim, so your welcome. Friendly advice dishonest Aussie, know of what you speak beofre you speak it, not what you want it to be, it's LYING. Oh, don't forget, come to this American w/ facts, not garbage.😁
No, he's 100% correct. Instead of just being weak, state what you say is wrong, I bet you can't, lmao. Instead of being the lush that can't hold his liquor at the pub, offer some proof. Your ignorant comment Aldo shows that you answer on emotion, like a woman. Can't wait for your lame come back.🤣
From the beginning of this video there are three glaring error. He pronounced Cape Helles as Cape Hells, and he spelt Suvla Bay as Sulva Bay. A bad start but he also talks of great losses during the landings on all beaches. The landing at Anzac Cove was UNOPPOSED.There are contemporary photographs of the beach with stores and equipment being off loaded with troops strolling around at ease. Why do Australians keep telling the story as though it was just like DDay 1944.
What I believe was the greatest error after the landing, was the failure of command to reinforce and secure the third spur, the objective of the first day. The brave soldiers, Australian and New Zealanders, were ordered to fall back and consolidate. They would never again reach this objective.
What didn't go wrong ... reminds me of Tarawa. Amphibious landing was a disaster with almost 1,000 Americans being killed. For an island the size of Manhattan.
love it
thank you for another great video
Thanks @shadzywarrior - that's very kind!
If the allies needed a ‘cunning plan’, maybe they should have asked Baldrick. It couldn’t have been any worse.
And it was all the British fault. Yet it part of the ANZAC legend.
There was nothing to be proud about concerning this conflict. Churchill was clueless as to how organised the Turks could be, and obviously all the troop ships could be seen approaching for miles across the med. So two key aspects for a successful attack were lost. I'm no historian, but I seem to remember that the Turks even put a floating barrage across the Dardanelles to block our ships, then shot them up. It was a complete mess. And to land troops under cliffs is suicide. Even if there wasn't any Turks up there, it would have been torture climbing up. Then there was the weather - roasting when they arrived, then rain and freezing in later months when they were dug in trying to survive. Then re-enforcement's arrived. The guys under fire on the hills could see the troops arrive on the coast in the distance - but they didn't come to relieve them. They were seen making camp on the beach and swimming in the sea.
And to add immense insult to injury, when the survivors were evacuated in December 1915 and thought they were sailing home - the lads were told they were actually being dropped off at France - to fight in the mud. Disgraceful abuse of volunteer soldiers.
the "stiff upper lip" of the british empire was given a huge black eye
Doesn’t it occur to you the a ANZACs might been crap soldiers which most were at Gallipoli.
What happened at Gallipoli? A young colonel named Mustafa Kemal happened! British couldn’t defeat him. Just as Brit supported Greek forces could not defeat him in Turkey’s liberation war a few years later. Gallipoli did not give you what you wanted but it gave us our hero, the saviour and revolutionist of modern Turkey. It gave us “the Father of the Turks”!
Churchill was Johnson’s hero…it follows!
Lion led by donkeys!
Churchill had nothing to do with the landings.
Canada Newfoundland gallipoli war 19 september suvla bay extraction they withdrew peninsula coribou hill campaign 🇨🇦
Gallipolli is mistunderstood. I do agree it was a mistake. But Churchill's idea was not so wrong. Britain had a huge surplus of ageing dreadnoughts that could arguably break through the Dardanelles, and those ships were, everyone would concede otherwise somewhere between dispensable and useless. Churchill's initial idea was to make this purely a naval assault. If it failed, the loss would be regrettable but very acceptable in the context of WWI losses. The problem is that the plan morphed into a land assault on the straits -- it was never meant to be that and it was severe folly to let the plan become that.
Thanks @williamtell - that's really interesting. I certainly agree that Britain felt it had to use their dreadnoughts - what a waste otherwise!
@@willhawkins9806 well those boats had thousands of sailors. they died, just to start. im not saying churchill was right. but he was right something new had to be tried because trench warfare was bleeding europe to death.
ww1 was a sickening waste but i give credit to any officer or politician trying to adapt and find a way to end the bloodletting and to be fair, i really think there were people on both sides who tried
Where on earth do you get your death list from? 200,000 dead Allied soldiers? Add at least 3 wounded to one death that gives a total casualty number of 800,000 then add the thousands of troops that survived and that number goes to a million troops. Your figures are absolute nonsense.
Approximately 21, 000 Brits died and 9,000 ANZACs died with several thousand French etc.
How many Turks were killed?
😜🇮🇪
Or, we're they not important?
Hi Michael - thanks for this. I should have mentioned this - an oversight on my part. These videos are structured around the GCSE module which focuses (somewhat narrowly) on Britain's involvement in the First World War. But that isn't an excuse - just an explanation. I certainly did not want to imply that the Turkish were not important. They fought incredibly bravely defending their country throughout the Gallipoli campaign.
You don't have to worry about what the brits think. Australia acknowledges how many Turks were killed and that's all that matters.🇦🇺❤️
Thank You.
Fine explanation.
@willhawkins9806
It was an excellent piece and it hits me, so often...
The adversary never exisits
Never feels pain
Never anything!
😢
Thank You will, for Your reply.
Don’t be so childish.
Very well explained, thank you. The Australian mini-series Gallipoli was very good, but didn't explain why as you have done. Churchill was overated and the British commanding General was utterly stupid helping lead to more heartbroken mothers & fathers. Churchill was delighted when America joined both World Wars to save the mess Britain got themselves into.
You must remember America didn't turn up until 1917 the war was well and truly done.
@@Breeanna73 Hmmmm, for an Australian girl "that hates liars", you must practice self-loathing. 🤣 Ahhhh, so tired of schooling Brits & their Commonwealth minions. No, the war was not over, or well in hand by the time America sent men to die for spoiled unappreciative Europeans from the mess they got themselves into, smh. so you don't know America spent huge amounts of money, fed, supplied, & sent men to die in 2 World Wars b/c Briton got themselves into messes the USA had to get them out of?! Boy, Austrlian education sure is lacking.😵💫 The sinking of the Lusitania, for example, one thing that swung sympathy towards the UK was a typical dirty Brit lie. The UK said nah, there was no armaments on the Luisitania, so Germany illegally sank it. Well, the same technology that allow the world to see the Titanic wreakage, another Brit screw-up, showed that the Lusitania's hold was full of all kinds of munitions & artillery! Look it up! America's help lead to that well-in-hand win you claim, so your welcome. Friendly advice dishonest Aussie, know of what you speak beofre you speak it, not what you want it to be, it's LYING. Oh, don't forget, come to this American w/ facts, not garbage.😁
You have just shown how little you know of the subject . You quote from the bloke in the pub.
No, he's 100% correct. Instead of just being weak, state what you say is wrong, I bet you can't, lmao. Instead of being the lush that can't hold his liquor at the pub, offer some proof. Your ignorant comment Aldo shows that you answer on emotion, like a woman. Can't wait for your lame come back.🤣
From the beginning of this video there are three glaring error. He pronounced Cape Helles as Cape Hells, and he spelt Suvla Bay as Sulva Bay. A bad start but he also talks of great losses during the landings on all beaches. The landing at Anzac Cove was UNOPPOSED.There are contemporary photographs of the beach with stores and equipment being off loaded with troops strolling around at ease. Why do Australians keep telling the story as though it was just like DDay 1944.