A general summary of source B is that it’s like a diary extract and explains a few conditions and the lack of communications. The evidence that agrees with the reasons why the campaign failed, are that the Turkish sited their trenches very well and were prepared for trench warfare. This was because a German general who had been fighting over in the western front had trained them. Also it says how the soldiers were kept to long in the trenches and so were tried and worn down when fighting. There was organisation to the attacks and there wasn’t any method. The soldiers were also continually using the same tactics. The reason there was no method or organisation is because the Turks were thought to be a push over. The approach to the campaign wasn’t very professionally at all as the communications were terrible and so the Turks knew about the on coming battle and where they were going to land. Also the men were ignored meaning that no advances in the fighting could be made. The evidence that disagrees with the reasons why the campaign failed is that the source doesn’t show any evidence about what actually happened on the battlefield and in the trenches. Also the soldiers did manage to secure their positions for 8 months. Captain Myers Farmar who fought at Gallipoli wrote the source, however it was written some time after the campaign. If he was there then it means that he was an eyewitness to the campaign and so will have a more actuate account of the campaign. This could mean that he would focus on the more disastrous points of the battle because after something has failed it’s easier to focus on those points. Also he doesn’t say which side he’s on.
A general summary of source C is that it’s like a diary extract. It talks about the landings and the waiting around. It talks about how the landings weren’t very organised that there wasn’t any instruction from the generals. The evidence that agrees with the reasons why the campaign failed are that, one of the landing forces did nothing all day and another was totally wiped out and another managed to get to land and cover but with a huge loss of life. This therefore shows that with the lack of organisation and lack of instructions it was too ambitious to capture Constantinople. This also shows that because of the lack of organisation and the fact the navy and armed forces didn’t work together it resulted in a huge loss of life; also the air force didn’t help by giving an advanced status of the Turkish troops. This would have prevented the loss of life. The evidence that disagrees with the reasons why the campaign failed is that the source doesn’t give any credit to the Turks for managing to preparing and fighting well. Two British soldiers who were at the campaign wrote the source. They wrote this after the war, and as the campaign was seen as such a failure they may have wanted to force blame on the generals and not themselves.
A general summary of source D is that it talks about lack of supplies and room for fighting. The evidence that agrees with the reasons why the campaign failed are that there wasn’t a sufficient amount of supplies and men. This meant that men were weak and injured for a large duration of the campaign. It also says that the peninsula was too small and that there wasn’t enough room for the campaign to take place. Therefore it was the wrong place to attack, and as it was small the Turks would know the area very well as it’s their own land. It also didn’t help that there was a limited area for the landings to take place, so it wasn’t much of a surprise that the Turks were waiting for them. Also as the naval attack had taken place it was obvious to the Turks that there was going to be another attack and that it would be a land attack. The evidence that disagrees with the source is that the source says that the campaign could have been a success which isn’t true at all because at no point in the campaign did the battles ever come close to a victory. The only success of that campaign was the evacuation. This source was written by a history in 1965, therefore he would have had sufficient time to research the subject and as he’s a historian he would have no reason to be biased.
A general summary of source E is that it concentrates on the British interest in the campaign and on Winston Churchill. The evidence that agrees with the reasons why the campaign failed are that the British under estimates the task and therefore doesn’t take enough time in organising it. Therefore uses poorly trained troops and therefore lacks tactics. The troops that were sent were trained for the western front and this was totally different as it’s more mountainous and has very varied weather. The evidence that disagrees with the reasons why the campaign failed is that the source tries to show that the campaign was all Churchill’s fault. However even though he did push for the campaign he was in charge of the navy not he troops, so he didn’t have as much of a hand in it the decision as it suggests. It also wasn’t just down to Churchill’s judgement. Cate Brett wrote this source for a GCSE history book in 2001. This means that the source would have to have educational value as it’s written for a GCSE history book, and she would have had modern resources evadible to her. However it might have a certain edge to it as it might be aimed at provoking a debate.
A general summary of source F is that it’s a map of the Turkish fronts and mines at the Gallipoli Peninsula. This source shows how well the Dardanelles was defended. It shows that there were many mines and there were also many fortresses. It shows that the campaign wasn’t approach very well because this information was already known before the naval attack took place, and if that was the case why did it continue. It also shows that even when the campaign continued there weren’t any extra precautions to prevent defeat. The old navy ships were used, not enough mine sweepers were taken and as the campaign was being organised on islands near the Turkish boarders there was no surprise. Also there was total lack of support from home, the air forces could have helped prevent the failure however they didn’t even bother to support the attack. The British Government minister, Lloyd George, wrote this source he was writing this before the campaign took place. However there reason why this information was over looked might be because the resources evadible to the government at the time were very limited. As they only had an old tourist information booklet on turkey to create this campaign from.
Therefore I conclude that overall using all the sources there is enough evidence. However each source separately doesn’t have enough information to back up the reason for the failure of the campaign. Each source covers only certain factors of the failures so therefore there isn’t enough evidence if that source is used alone. The missing factors in the sources include the terrible conditions of the soldiers in the trenches. The soldiers were kept in terrible conditions and after staying in these conditions for weeks they were just sent out to fight. The trenches over in Gallipoli were even worse than those on the western front. There was little water and the water was contained in empty food tins and this then spread dysentery throughout the troops. Also in the summer the heat and dust was dreadful and the rotting bodies smelled terrible and were causing some sickness and there had to be a days truce were the troops from either side would help clear no mans land. As well as these terrible conditions there were the terrible illness that infected the troops. These included gunshot wounds, gangrene, de-hydration, respiratory problems, fly plaques (open wounds attack flies but in some cases this helped the men as the maggots ate dead tissue, which otherwise might have become gangrenous). So overall there is enough evidence when the sources are used together, but not if each source is used alone as they are missing other vital factors to why the campaign failed