• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is there sufficient evidence in sources A to F to explain why the Gallipoli campaign failed? Use all the sources and own knowledge from your studies to help you explain your answer.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Is there sufficient evidence in sources A to F to explain why the Gallipoli campaign failed? Use all the sources and own knowledge from your studies to help you explain your answer. Gallipoli is in Turkey, near the Dardanelle's. The campaign was started on March 18th 1915. It was started to try and knock Turkey out of the war, because they had just signed an agreement with Germany and were now attacking Russia. There were many other reasons why this campaign was started, however each aim had failed as the campaign itself failed. The campaigned failed because the plan was too ambitious and it lacked organisation. An example of the poor organisation is that there wasn't any co-operation between the naval and the armed forces, therefore it campaign would start in confusion and chaos. However in this answer I'm not just explaining why the campaign failed I'm analysing the sources to see whether there is enough evidence to show why the campaign failed. A general summary of source A is that it's a cartoon of two Anzac soldiers, drawn by an Australian artist in 1916. The evidence that agrees with the reasons why the campaign failed are that the soldiers were ill-equipped, disorganised, battered, lack of hope, ordinary men (working class), and heroic. The source shows that the soldiers are heroic as they are still smiling even though there seems to be no hope of the campaign ever succeeding. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Britain 1905-1951 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Britain 1905-1951 essays

  1. Britain And The Western Front - Sources Questions

    Question 8: Study the sources G and H. What similarities and differences can you find in the opinions of Haig and Foch? The similarities between Foch and Haig's opinions were, that success depends on morale and determination, and with them it is possible to capture machine guns and trenches.

  2. Dunkirk - Defeat, Deliverance or Victory?

    Dunkirk Conclusions Over a third of a million allied soldiers escaped those beaches and ports of Dunkirk in 1940, and to evacuate such a number in such a short time is quite an achievement. As Churchill said in his memoirs 'The tale of Dunkirk beaches will shine on'.

  1. The Gallipoli campaign in 1914 went down as one of the worst military failures ...

    Churchill hadn't wished making life very hard for the English and French military. His plan was to send warships through the Dardanelles which seemed a satisfactory plan, but they were sunk and damaged by mines which in Churchill's defence were unforceable but was a big setback for the campaign.

  2. Haig in sources

    Using the 2 sources and your own knowledge, to what extent did his predictions come true? From Sources D and E, I think Field Marshal Douglas Haig thought that the first of the Battle of the Somme would be a hard battle and a large death toll, but he thought his forces were ready to fight.

  1. Do the sources provided give sufficient evidence to fully explain what happened in Belfast ...

    Its usefulness is limited to informing about the overall number of raids, casualties and damages and can be used to check the reliability of other sources but there is no individual or personal account and doesn't tell how the people reacted to the raids.

  2. How useful are sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes ...

    it is from a GCSE textbook and hence is very unlikely to be biased. Source K also has evidence to support that Haig was a highly efficient soldier - "Even on the Somme a German officer called the battlefield 'the muddy grave of the German army.

  1. womens crsk history

    World War One provided women many opportunities to try and get the vote. Women could now take the jobs that the men had left, so that they could go and join in fighting the war. After the war, women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote.

  2. Why do sources A to F differ in their attitudes to the evacuation of ...

    For example, the government only briefly mentions that the evacuees are extra work for the foster parents but mainly points out how grateful the government and the children are for the foster parents. From my own knowledge I know that many children arrived into the countryside with lice and diseases.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work