
Churchill’s disaster – Gallipoli - daddy_drank
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/04/churchills-disaster-gallipoli/
======
spectre
In New Zealand and Australia, the landings at Gallipoli are commemorated with
a national holiday (ANZAC day, 25 April). I've always found it ironic that
what is probably our most important holiday is a commemoration of one of
Britain's greatest blunders.

~~~
Mandatum
ANZAC day is a commemoration to those that died. Don't confuse commemoration
with a party/celebratory sense, the event is usually pretty stern.

~~~
spectre
I'm well aware of the nature of, and reason for the ANZAC day commemorations.
The irony was that an event that served to define New Zealand and Australia's
national identities, is also one of British Empires greatest failures.

~~~
EdwardDiego
I don't think that it's ironic that Gallipoli and WW1 in general is what led
to Australia and New Zealand starting to view themselves as distinct from the
"Home Country" \- our experiences in WW1 made it very clear that England
didn't consider us colonials to be English, even if we still did at the time.

~~~
dwd
It's estimated that between 1/4 and a 1/3 of the ANZACs were born in the
"Mother Country", so their rejection as being not-British was probably a
contributing factor to the passing of the Nationality Act of 1920.

------
brianstorms
If you read the actual histories, including Churchill's own accounts and
biographies of Churchill, your conclusion might differ from Eric Margolis'.
Churchill came up with the daring plan, sure, but the execution and
implementation were botched pretty much across the board by the military
commanders responsible for carrying it out. They were largely unwilling to
commit to the venture with the necessary speed, focus, and commitment
necessary to see it through. They kept dragging their feet, ignoring
Churchill's urgings to speed up and deal with minesweeping while they still
could. Basically the result was a true disaster but it really wasn't
Churchill's. Churchill was the only believer in the plan, basically. So the
plan was doomed. Go read the histories.

~~~
bjones22
An interesting add-on here from Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast: The
initial plan to force the strait involved risking a large number of out-dated
ships, judged by Churchill and co. to be expendable in the context of their
utility in the war. However the admiralty, who included a number of men who
had served on said ships, shared an emotional attachment to the old-war-dog
fleet which they had earned their stars and stripes on. Thus they were
unwilling to fully commit the necessary expenditure for the plan to work
(microcosm of why the greater plan failed).

A good example of ineptitude in war. Churchill was no saint, and I couldn't
get to OP's article (hug of death?), but history is always viewed through a
lens and is mostly op-ed pieces.

------
fredkbloggs
The author's snipe at the United States (relative to Russia and China) is both
jarring, for being woefully out of place in an essay on a WWI engagement, and
unwarranted. None of these three major powers has fought another major state
for at least 4 decades. The Russians have been fighting disorganized "natives"
in places like Georgia, Chechnya, and Ukraine, and rarely openly. Before that,
they fought "natives" in Afghanistan… and lost. The PLA has mostly been
oppressing ethnic minorities within China's expanded imperial borders
(Uighurs, Tibetans, Tiananmen) since it fought "natives" in its own Vietnam
War in 1979. Its last combat with a major state was 1962 (India). Meanwhile
the Unites States has also been fighting small states (Iraq, Afghanistan),
proxy wars, and minor actions since its last major war against "natives" in
Vietnam… which they lost.

Not one of these powers has fought an open war against another major state or
combination of states in over 5 decades, and the Indians, militarily, probably
shouldn't have counted in 1962, either. Realistically there is no one
currently serving in any of these services who participated in an open war
against a significant power.

That this is destabilizing would have been a fair point. That the world's
major powers are probably all feeling somewhat insecure about their own
military capabilities (or ought to be) is worrying and worth some analysis.
The kind of error made by Churchill and the French at Gallipoli will be made
again. But I do not pretend to know who will make it next. There are a lot of
inexperienced commanders running around out there, and a lot of major powers
that have not been tested within living memory. Singling out the United States
while exalting the Russians and Chinese seems overtly political and is out of
place in a historical essay without substantial modern analysis to justify the
analogy.

------
EdwardDiego
What I like about Gallipoli is how these days it serves as a national memorial
for three nations - Australia, New Zealand, and Turkey - and how forgiving the
Turkish are and were of people who had come as invaders.

~~~
jballanc
For those not familiar... Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the commander at Gallipoli
and later founder of the Turkish republic. During the initial invasion, he
famously told one of his units: "Men, I am not ordering you to attack. I am
ordering you to die. In the time that it takes us to die, other forces and
commanders can come and take our place." Later, after the war, he commemorated
the memorial for Australia, New Zealand, and Turkey with what I still think is
the most moving thing ever said about war:

    
    
        Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives! You are 
        now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest 
        in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and  
        Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this 
        country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from 
        far away countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now 
        lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost 
        their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

------
polemic
Tragic that in the same year we commemorate the centennial, we (New Zealand)
and Australia are committing forces to Iraq at the behest of the current
pseudo-imperial power, the United States.

~~~
Taniwha
yes and today a certain PM claimed they were "sons of ANZAC" which formally
puts these two PMs in the position of the bumbling british aristocrats who
caused so much death

------
handelaar
Not Churchill's only disaster:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street)

There's a _reason_ people in the UK paid no attention whatsoever to Churchill
during the 1920s and '30s. It wasn't that they disagreed with his
increasingly-urgent warnings about Hitler -- it's that the only man issuing
them was a "known idiot".

~~~
cjensen
There is a difference between being a scapegoat and being at fault. Churchill
was the former with respect to Gallipoli; his actual plan was simply not
followed.

~~~
kchoudhu
"It was a beautiful plan on paper!"

\-- every terrible manager ever.

~~~
mpyne
Sure, but in a military operation there's no substitute for planning and
coordination, and _execution_. The plan will always need to change, and you
can find a dozen generals with famous quotes that will back that up. But the
solution after the plan breaks down isn't _no plan_ , it's _the next plan_.

Only at the most tactical level can you get by with just your wits and the
gear you have with you, everything else needs good planning of some sort.

------
Lorento
History really distorts things. This story is always portrayed as a failure,
and the soldiers as "fought with honor and gallantry". They were invading
another country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We wouldn't say
ISIS fighters "died for no good purpose" or are "brave soldiers".

~~~
riffraff
everyone who dies in any war is remembered as someone who fought with honor
for the motherland, by their own.

The ISIS people regard their dead as heroes even today, they don't need 50
years.

------
capkutay
It's pretty significant that this battle also served as the pre-cursor to the
current, secular republic of Turkey.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
It is very significant.

~~~
waps
Exactly. This battle ended islam as a political entity, and ended the war
between muslims and the west that had existed for a millenium by that point.
It was an event that would be comparable to nuking Mecca would be today.

------
dba7dba
Having read more history books than I should have, I have much respect for
Churchill and English people.

------
ra1n85
Singapore, Dunkirk, Dieppe...

The Allies performed terribly for most of the war, and only seemed to hang on
until Hitler defeated himself.

The perfect combination of British time, Russian blood, and American weapons
helped, as well.

~~~
jsweojtj
You're thinking WWII.

