Not football related but if you are not having dinner with Curbs on the 26th January and at a loose end, I am giving a talk on the Gallipoli Campaign called "Daring Deeds of the Dardanelles" at Petts Wood British Legion, starts at 19:30 and the bloke who runs the meet says all Addicks are welcome, come up and say hello, there is a bar on site and its not a dry lecture but a series of cameos of fascinating characters that fought in Gallipoli, I always mention a Charlton connection with the campaign as well, if there is a cover charge its a quid at most they are expecting around 50 but can take around 75 in the place
0
Comments
Interesting to get your thoughts on the whole Dardanelles campaign - are you planning any trips out there in the near future?
Always an interesting evening at PW.
Hi Addickted, I am a westerner, I think anyone who studies the Great War has to be as ultimate Victory could only really be achieved against the main enemy on the main front, whilst its often and with some justification summerised as an ill conceived, poorly led, side show I do feel thats a little simplistic and a number of important tactical developments are overlooked, on top of that its a cracking story and my favourite battlefield to visit, I am there seven times this year leading groups...I always try to catch a local game with Cannakale Dardanelles Spor who play in the Turkish 3rd Division, they play at the brilliantly named 18 March 1915 stadium to commemorate the naval battle and an Addicks plaque sits proudly in their main stand as they dont get too many British visitors...see you on the 26th
I'm a Churchill man, so very much in the Eastern camp when it went ahead - but that is of course with hindsight. I still think the RN let us down badly with too much concern about some knackered old battleships and cruisers.
A fascinating campaign which to be honest I don't know that much about despite reading Moorhead and Ericksons books a couple of years back. The evacuation of the troops was a phenomenal exercise in subterfuge and secrecy - not one troop even wounded I believe?
Its a fair shout that had the Navy attempted to break through the Dardanelles again on the 19th the Turks would have thrown the towel in, low on ammo, damaged forts and morale dipping, the linear minefield struck 3 large ships in very quick succession that changed the tide on the day somewhat and the mobile gun batteries were very difficult to hit from off shore, that said had we gone again on the 19th who knows, one aspect often overlooked was the submarine fever that was sweeping Constantinople, merchant seaman were panicking when ever anything broke the surface and it really interupted their supplies for a week or two.
Dont want to break any rules on here about advertising etc but....as I have sold out for 2012 and have nothing to advertise you could look on www.battle-honours.com
Good couple of Gallipoli books you mentioned earlier, I can suggest afew more on the 26th, bonus point for the tenuous addicks link with Gallipoli?
What was the size of the two forces facing each other?
What really surprises most people is to hear that the British outnumbered the Australians by 9 to 1 and there were more French Casualties that Australians in the campaign, for many Australians it has become shrouded in mythology and a focal part of remembrance. Its a fascinating campaign on so many levels.
Sounds like an interesting talk, I wish I could make it. A couple of questions for you, if you don't mind -
1. Was the theory behind the operation flawed in the first place ie, would a successful outcome for the allies have made a significant difference in the war against Germany?
2. Flipside of that - if the allies had applied the Gallipoli resources to the western front, would it have made a material difference?
3. What share of the blame should Chruchill shoulder (if blame there is)?
Your right about it being the nations story for many Australians, I have quite a lot of family in Melbourne and subjects such as "mateship" forged from the Anzac story are key in a youngsters education. They do sometimes overlook the fact that they suffered as many losses at Pozieres on the Somme a year later but Gallipoli was their first major action so the one thats remembered
To answer your three questions, firstly you do need to view them in the context of 1915, in fact the whole " what were Australians doing there in the first place" question that naturally comes up is rarely countered by the fact that their entire economy, trade links both import and export were based around the Empire. Had they not entered the war and we had lost, they would have been left renegotiating a lot of contracts with the new dominant power, an important point also is that of the Australians that fought at Gallipoli around 55/60% were British born.
1. The planning was flawed on three counts, firstly they based the Turkish resistance on their fighting performance against the Russians (also an often forgotten attempt to rush the Suez Canal when a force of 10,000 attacked us before we had even landed at Gallipoli) as opposed to one defending their homeland.
Secondly, you either land ground forces in secrecy i.e. Unnopposed and then blast your way up the straights with Naval Power or you have faith in your Navy and allow them a sustained campaign at bombarding forts and forcing the Dardanelles in which case Constantinople may well have fallen.
We did neither but an ill fated mish mash of both.
Lastly, once the force had been launched it needed backing from London with regards to re-supply and man power, this came all too late to make a difference and when it did it was very poorly led, General Stopford to name a real villian of the Campaign. Would a succesfull outcome have had an impact on the Germans, yes, not so much because we would have attacked them from a second front ( the soft underbelly of Europe theory) more because it would have opened up the Dardanelles for the Russians and the Black Sea so arms in and coal out would have been a major blow for the Central Powers
2 flipside, a great question, In my opionion (and thats what discussing history is about), the problems with the Western Front had already been created by the end of 1914, two sides to large to push out of the way is part of it but leadership really affects the British Army, prior to the war staff college graduates were well drilled in the command of brigades and divisions both tactically and stretegically. Often this would involve flying a desk for a living so whilst critical to victory was unpopular among regular officers in August 1914. Too many of them pulled strings, called in favours and found themselves leading their Regiments in heroic yet wasteful bayonet charges against the advancing Germans. By 1915 we simply did not have enough trained staff college officers and this is demonstrated not only by leadership in Gallipoli but also that shown at the offensives of Aubers Ridge, Neuve Chapelle, Festubert and Loos in the same year but on the Western Front.
I am not sure that the numbers would have had an impact, it was leaders we needed during that stage of the war. When you compare that to 1918 when our leadership did excell and decisive military victories were won its intruiging to me that the many of the most applauded commanders of the time, Monash, Braithwaite, Solly Flood and Byng all share one thing in common, Gallipoli
3 Churchill, now there is a can of worms, firstly I am a fan of his generally but he does have a few "bad days at the office" in his career, with regards to Gallipoli and not judging him as a statesman or his decisions before or afterwards, the fact that he was First Lord of the Admiralty and an advocate of the campaign means he has to shoulder blame but no more than Ian Hamilton his ground commander for most of it. I suspect that had he had the same job in 1918 and launched the offensive in that year he would have done things differently, it cost him his job and by the end of the year he found himself in a wet dugout in Flanders commanding a battalion of Royal Scots Fusiliers....whatever happened to him after that ,-)
Hope this is of use and sorry for any lifers who are now in a coma having had to read through it and are not into history!
My pleasure Jints, I am rubbish at DIY and maths so Football, history and ska music is all I have in the locker!
Ian Hamilton himself referred to "strange disapearance taking place" in his official despatches, this has led various stories that there were abducted by aliens (seriously), turning up in the Bermuda Triangle (again a serious claim) and being part of an organised execution by the Turks. Current thinking and probably the most likely is that they were simply overun after a long days fighting and around 25 were taken prisoner, the facts being lost in the fog of war.
The David Jason program "All the Kings Men" was at best a piece of faction but a fascinating story none the less.
The same Battalion lost more men on the 19 April 1917 in Palestine.....but thats another story
Before Gallipoli they didn't really exists and made a name for themselves during the campaign.
very interesting reading se7tosg3
Some nice digs at Palace and Millwall and I now know the connection between Charlton and the Gallipoli landings.
Smudge - The war cemetery in Basra has recently been repaired by the CWGC, the local kids used to play football into prior to Op Telic, did you get to the Basra Memorial, Saddam moved it brick by brick to a road junction out in the desert, it no doubt saved it during the air phase of ops and by 2005 there were a number of families who had moved in, people living in a war memorial, quite bizzare. I got some fairly recent photos of it from a mate in 1/Rifles and it seems to have survived intact. With regards to the dates, the campaign in Mesopotamia did drag on somewhat and tribal uprisings that continued after the Armistice in the west that resulted in a number of casualties. Whilst this would be the official answer, you boss got it about right! Ps I was a scaleyback, who were you with?
And what is the connection between Charlton & Gallipolli?