Source H suggests that poor planning and Winston Churchill were responsible for what went wrong at Gallipoli. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources D-J to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
Source H, the basis of this essay, is an extract from a GCSE book written by Cate Brett. Brett says that Gallipoli was a complete failure due, in part, to Churchill's involvement. She also blames the British in general for the lack of planning. Perhaps the theme is both about bad planning and also that there was not enough of even that. This source was written for a GCSE audience. Usually GCSE versions of the truth are far more simplified than the view and writing of historians. Therefore it is safe to assume that this source may either be not entirely accurate, or not very detailed. The author does not say whether she blame the British civilian leaders or military leaders. It does not say anything of the spirit of the soldiers, nor how the campaign went in relation to other battles including the stalemate on the western front. Brett does not recognize the fact that the Russians had put a lot of pressure on the Allies to break through the Turkey into the Black Sea and save the Russians from starvation. Indeed, without the idea of the Gallipoli, the whole area would have certainly destabilised the region resulting in Germany acquiring many new allies. As a politician said after the war, Churchill's plan was "the only imaginative conception of the war." Imagination was exactly what the British war effort needed in 1915. Brett would have obviously done a great deal of research but, in my opinion, she clearly has no basis from which to attack Winston Churchill. It is very easy to criticize people in hindsight. Churchill merely created the plan in order that others might plan it meticulously. Obviously the planning was never meticulous. It is notable that when the Allies landed, according to A.J.P Taylor, it was a total success and Stopford (the Allied commander) decide to take a "nap" instead of pressing home the advantage that they had, which was that there were almost no defenses at the time between them and Constantinople. Therefore Stopford and other (not necessarily Churchill) must have been more than partially to blame for the failure of the campaign. Taylor's work far outranks the level of GCSE. Indeed, Brett it right about the fact that Gallipoli was an example of how war was not to be conducted as, in the end, the campaign succeeded only in 200,000 casualties and good practice at a full scale naval retreat.
Source H, the basis of this essay, is an extract from a GCSE book written by Cate Brett. Brett says that Gallipoli was a complete failure due, in part, to Churchill's involvement. She also blames the British in general for the lack of planning. Perhaps the theme is both about bad planning and also that there was not enough of even that. This source was written for a GCSE audience. Usually GCSE versions of the truth are far more simplified than the view and writing of historians. Therefore it is safe to assume that this source may either be not entirely accurate, or not very detailed. The author does not say whether she blame the British civilian leaders or military leaders. It does not say anything of the spirit of the soldiers, nor how the campaign went in relation to other battles including the stalemate on the western front. Brett does not recognize the fact that the Russians had put a lot of pressure on the Allies to break through the Turkey into the Black Sea and save the Russians from starvation. Indeed, without the idea of the Gallipoli, the whole area would have certainly destabilised the region resulting in Germany acquiring many new allies. As a politician said after the war, Churchill's plan was "the only imaginative conception of the war." Imagination was exactly what the British war effort needed in 1915. Brett would have obviously done a great deal of research but, in my opinion, she clearly has no basis from which to attack Winston Churchill. It is very easy to criticize people in hindsight. Churchill merely created the plan in order that others might plan it meticulously. Obviously the planning was never meticulous. It is notable that when the Allies landed, according to A.J.P Taylor, it was a total success and Stopford (the Allied commander) decide to take a "nap" instead of pressing home the advantage that they had, which was that there were almost no defenses at the time between them and Constantinople. Therefore Stopford and other (not necessarily Churchill) must have been more than partially to blame for the failure of the campaign. Taylor's work far outranks the level of GCSE. Indeed, Brett it right about the fact that Gallipoli was an example of how war was not to be conducted as, in the end, the campaign succeeded only in 200,000 casualties and good practice at a full scale naval retreat.