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

The failures of Gallipoli

Extracts from this document...


The failures of Gallipoli The objectives of the campaign were to capture Gallipoli, and then invade Constantinople. This would knock Turkey out of the war and encourage Turkey's neighbours to join on the allied side. Then they would invade Austria through the South and leave Germany isolated and unable to continue the war. The allies failed these objectives due to many reasons. The first reason for failure was due to lack of training and training in the wrong terrain. The allied and ANZAC troops were trained in the desert for a short period while Gallipoli was rocky with hills and trenches. They were not trained for landings on enemy beaches and therefore a lot of soldiers died. This shows the ill thought out plan, they should have trained the soldiers in similar terrain and also trained them for landings, which they didn't. The equipment was also very bad. ANZAC troops would make homemade bombs and use them as grenades due to lack of equipment and ammo. The allied tactics were also very bad, they would always shell the trenches and then attack so there was no element of surprise. Also they used stupid tactics which were to send men over no mans land knowing that there was hardly a chance that they would make it and even if they did it would be maybe one or two men against 100. This is also a sign of the ill thought out plan and also lack of supplies. ...read more.


If the plan were thought through better then the commanders would have noticed that this campaign was much harder then they thought and would take longer to take over Gallipoli. If they had noticed this then they would have maybe got more supplies to the trenches because they would have known how much was needed and prepared it earlier on. But because they didn't plan out the campaign very well there was a lack of supply since Britain had to also supply all the other soldiers fighting elsewhere. The commanders underestimated the Turks and therefore they thought the campaign would be so easy. Just like in Russia in WWII, there were many more Turkish soldiers then British soldiers. The Turks were simply "ordered to die" by their commanders. The Turks were of course more enthusiastic about the war and had a higher morale because they were fighting for their country. Of course it is much harder to invade then to defend because of this reason. The commanders were also too ambitious, the plan had no chance of success, even Churchill's sidekicks, for example, Admiral Fisher, did not believe in the plan and resigned due to knowing the plan wouldn't work. If the commanders thought the plan through carefully they would have noticed that their plan to have an open sea route to supply Russia was much harder then they thought. ...read more.


All of these reasons are linked together; it is hard to say which reason was the most important for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. The most obvious links are the links between poor command and bad organisation, and between the ill thought-out plan and the lack of soldiers and supplies. But I think the main reason for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign is poor command. I think that if there were better command, there would have been a much better thought-out plan because they would have given more thought to it and seen that their objectives were harder to do then they thought. Also if there was better command, they could maybe negotiated with other commanders and gotten more than 20,000 soldiers, which were not enough to take over Turkey. If the plan had been thought out better there would not have been soldiers dying needlessly, like the soldiers on the battleships hitting the mines, and therefore there would maybe not have been a lack of soldiers in Turkey. Also if there were better command, then there would have been better organisation. For example, if the commanders gave the soldiers better orders to follow then they might have been more successful. For example when the British troops dug in instead of over-running the Turks, which they could have done, the British troops did not know what exactly to do, and therefore they dug in. If the commanders gave orders not to dig in and keep going then they could have beaten the Turks in that battle. ...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 International relations 1900-1939 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 International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. Who Was Responsible for The Tragedy at Gallipoli in 1915?

    This movie is obviously an Australian point of view, and as a result is biased, which is definitely a limitation. However, it gives a clear indication of how the troops landed, and just how bad communications were in the trenches.

  2. Why did the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 fail?

    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.

  1. Which of the four reasons given below was most to blame for the failure ...

    The maps also didn't show all of the guns and mines which surrounded the straights which meant they were not included in the plan so troops were unsure of the terrain and main landmarks which meant they were disorganised when landing and launching attacks The plan was put together in

  2. Australia's role in World War II - The Gallipoli Campaign.

    British navigational error caused the ANZACS to land about 2 Km north of the expected spot. Here they were not faced by a gentle sloop but by a steep cliff almost 100 meters high. * The British had under estimated the size and quality of the Turkish forces on the peninsula.

  1. Conditions in the trenches.

    Trenches were not dug in straight lines. Otherwise, if the enemy had a successive offensive, and got into your trenches, they could shoot straight along the line. Each trench was dug with alternate fire-bays and traverses. Duckboards were also placed at the bottom of the trenches to protect soldiers from problems such as trench foot.

  2. Trench Warfare between 1914-17

    Most of the German trench lines were connected with two exits; they felt their trenches were unbreakable. What they created was a fortress not a trench, barely visible at ground level except for the barbed wire which guarded the trench, the trenches were up to 40 feet deep.

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