If something fails, there has to be reasons why it fails and the Gallipoli campaign is no exception. In fact there are many reasons, long and short term why it failed. Long term factors seemed to be the scheme’s biggest downfall and there was definitely a misunderstanding at the planning stage, when Winston Churchill was trying to sell his plan to the government. He said that the plan could succeed on naval supremacy alone, which was a gross underestimation of the Turkish armed forces and as a result caused the plan to go ahead on false impressions which ultimately lead to defeat.
There was also the preoccupation with the Western Front. As Churchill’s scheme received relatively little troops from the Western Front, compared to Fisher’s more demanding plan in the Baltic there was a major miscalculation. If the Western Front needed to be won, then young, fit troops needed to be sacrificed from the deadlock to break it. The problems of not having these requirements was clear when an ageing, retired Stopford was appointed instead of more able, experienced generals.
Another haunting factor in the campaign’s downfall is the novelty of the situation. From a geographical perspective, the Turks had an immediate advantage, because of their positioning on the cliffs above the beaches. This made it impossible to attack easily, as the Anzac troops could not charge uphill, and secondly made it easy to defend for the Turkish soldiers.
There was also a problem with the climate. In the summer, it would be hot and ground conditions would be sometimes impossible which would lead to slow attacks and the inability to gain control of vital landmarks in time.
Further to the lack of planning, there were no maps available to the troops and no proper briefing for them. If they had been told where exactly they were going and what to do in certain situations then perhaps there could have been a victory.
Adding to this point, the allies did not know what weapons or how many troops the Turks had and this led to a stereotypical view of the Turks as them being bad fighters and an easy victory would ensue. These would prove to be important factors in the downfall of the scheme.
There are also many short term reasons to why the campaign failed. Firstly, there were missed opportunities such as on March 18th when the original campaign to take the Turkish troops by surprise failed and then the Turkish had time to defend the area in preparation for another attack. If only De Roebeck had pressed on, instead of stopping and turning back then there could have possibly been a different outcome.
There was also the factor that there was no water available at Gallipoli and water had to be then shipped in or made in desalination ships which were found just off the coast of Suvla. If water was available it was usually ridden with disease and this would cause more men to be lost.
As highlighted above there was a problem with disease. The lack of water caused infected water to be used which caused a fast spreading of deadly diseases such as dysentery. Death and disease meant that there were less fit soldiers available, which would prove there to be less chance of a victory due to the lack of functional soldiers.
There is also the fact of general bad luck which caused the campaign to fail. Every time the Anzac and British troops came close to success it was taken away by bad leadership on Hamilton’s part and reckless decisions by commanding officers. In the August landings, if Hamilton had overruled Stopford’s decision to keep attacking V beach when there was clearly an opening at X and Y beach the troops would have possibly got ashore at a less well defended beach which may have changed the outcome of the campaign.
Also there was a problem with communications. Aspinall sent a cable to Hamilton informing him of Stopford’s inability to press on. Hamilton immediately asked for his destroyer which was temporarily out of action and the only replacement was a yacht which wasn’t available until the late afternoon. This caused Hamilton to be half an hour late to an important decision which would have led the British, to have a strong hold at Suvla and perhaps even have defeat the Turkish troops. This was a missed opportunity, which may have swayed the campaign to favour the allies and would have prevented many casualties from the impending suicide.
Some of the long and short term reasons overlap to show an overall greater factor why the Gallipoli campaign failed. The lack of fit, able officers caused unsuitable generals such as Stopford to be appointed, who made rash decisions. The outcome of the campaign sometimes depended on these judgments and the campaign may have been successful if generals such as Byng and Rawlinson were sacrificed from the Western Front and employed in the Gallipoli campaign.
Even basic resources were missing such as water. This had a knock-on effect in that soldiers were drinking infected water which led to disease and death. This caused many troops to be lost from battle and therefore an easier victory for the Turkish troops.
If the officers such as De Roebeck had been briefed properly and earlier then they could have pressed on to a foreseeable easy victory, which is even highlighted by German commander Liman Von Sanders who said:” Had it been effected with resolution and energy, it would probably have effected very far-reaching results.” (Khaki and Gown (1941))
Overall, I feel that it was a good idea to pursue the Gallipoli campaign but due to long and short term factors such as inexperienced generals, the lack of supplies and poor preparation it failed. Although it was not a complete failure, it was good ideas which lead to future victory and was always remarkably close to success.
