PoW1988 Posted 3 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 3 October , 2007 The Eastern Front gets two hours. That's one of my lecturers specialist areas, so no doubt his bias has nothing to do with it. Lynz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 3 October , 2007 Share Posted 3 October , 2007 If you are looking for someone to blame .............. Consider the episode of the 4th Aussie Infantry Brigade at the time of the Suvla Bay landings - a whole brigade "lost" and therefore not making a key attack at the right time. The Dardanelles Commission report would be key reading and has been reprinted ....... You may also like to consider whether the naval attempts were pulled at a crucial moment. You should also find John Hargrave's "The Suvla Bay Landings" (1964), it being an interesting account by one who was there and who writes well. Lastly thereare Ian Hamilton's diaries which are available online ("gutenberg" if I remember rightly). Do let us all know what your outcome is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Squeeth Posted 5 October , 2007 Share Posted 5 October , 2007 One hour in a 12-week course to Gallipoli? It is, to be sure, a peripheral campaign, but it was the Empire's key effort in 1915 and surely worthy of more. I hope they give the Eastern Front due credit (a long overlooked campaign IMHO...) I would have thought there was room for an analysis of Gallipoli as an example of the politico-strategic need to do something to help the French and Russian war efforts confronting the military need to digest the huge expansion of the British army to a continental size and convert industry to supply it. Isn't the Gallipoli campaign a microcosm of this dilemma which was repeated on the grand scale on the Somme in 1916? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 5 October , 2007 Share Posted 5 October , 2007 I usually blame the Turks. They were tough men who fought well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 5 October , 2007 Share Posted 5 October , 2007 A contemporary view 'Gallipoli' by John Masefield published 1916, Available free on line: http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?auth...story=_contents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted 6 October , 2007 Share Posted 6 October , 2007 I've read about a third of Gallipoli: The Turkish Story and so far there hasn't been a whole lot on the Turks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted 7 October , 2007 Share Posted 7 October , 2007 I just finished Gallipoli: The Turkish Story and I must say that I'm a bit disappointed. While the book was an interesting read there was very little about the Turkish perspective of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoW1988 Posted 7 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 7 October , 2007 Gyrene, I am with you on this one. My lecturer put it down as essential reading for the module. It gave a good overview of the campaign but not much of a turkish perspective. I was quite disappointed! Lynz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 7 October , 2007 Share Posted 7 October , 2007 Lynz, For the August Landings you might also read "Chap 6. Failure to Adapt: The British at Gallipoli, August 1916" in Eliot A Cohen and John Gooch Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War for quite a balanced study as to why the Suvla Landings did not go as well as expected. Their discussion includes a matrix of Command Level against Critical Tasks which lists 15 factors that contributed to the failure. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 7 October , 2007 Share Posted 7 October , 2007 If you are looking for someone to blame .............. Consider the episode of the 4th Aussie Infantry Brigade at the time of the Suvla Bay landings - a whole brigade "lost" and therefore not making a key attack at the right time. Hi Martin, Yes they did get lost, but in mitigation they tackled some quite horrendous country at night and ended up in heavy fighting on 7th -9th August. If you walk the route they were to take to their objective, I think you would agree it was an extremely tough and ambitious task that they were set. It is very hard going and difficult navigation in daylight let alone in darkness. For the life of me I cannot see how they were to "blame" for the failure of the Suvla Landings. Even if they had gained Hill 971 at "the right time" I doubt very much that would have altered what happened at Suvla. The Turkish reserves the 4th Brigade drew on to themselves in the fighting on 7th -9th August were much the same reserves they would have drawn away from the Suvla landing had they taken Hill 971 at "at the right time". The whole issue is much more complex than one group being held responsible for the failure. The reference in my post above gives a pretty balanced discussion on the factors that contributed to the failure and while we may not agree with all their arguments, the authors do address the complexity of factors that lead to failures in operations. Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 10 October , 2007 Share Posted 10 October , 2007 I have walked the territory and do understand why it was difficult. None the less I believe the failure (perhaps for good reasons) is one aspect of events around the Suvla Bay landings that has not been factored into the equation by others. I suggested it for this reason and bearing in mind that it offers scope for some relatively original analysis. Holding the area around Hill 971 for a longer period may well have changed the balance of Turkish dispositions - who knows. I didn't suggest it as the prime reason, simply as an area that would be interesting to investigate further and something that is a little different from jus saying "Stopford". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Rice Posted 10 October , 2007 Share Posted 10 October , 2007 I have not long ago finished reading ' Gallipoli ' by Les Carlyon. I thought I knew a bit about Gallipoli until I read this book and found I knew nothing about what happen there. I intend to reread the book so more of the info may remain in my old brain. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swizz Posted 10 October , 2007 Share Posted 10 October , 2007 You should definitely read 'Gallilpoli Reconsidered' by Jenny Macleod. She looks at different histories of Gallipoli and assesses why they were written. Looks at the way a myth of Gallipoli developed very differently in Australia and the UK and how the different written histories contributed to that. Lots of the books already mentioned are examined! (I reckon this would look pretty good on a bibliography...) Swizz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoW1988 Posted 15 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 15 October , 2007 Hello everyone, I would like to thank you all for your contributions on this thread. I had my Gallipoli presentation this morning and it went pretty well. My partner was very nervous and took 7 minutes on her section which was meant to be 4 and a half minutes. So I had three minutes to do a five minute section I hate group presentations. My module leader said it was an excellent presentation but because of the time issues we missed a 1st class mark but we have a high 2:1. I'm not best pleased but it is better than nothing! I would like to say thankyou for recommending a lot of great books to me, which I have used in my preparation. By next Monday, I will be able to tell you what the question was and what answer we gave because that's when the seminar report is due. Thanks again! Lynz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halder Posted 15 October , 2007 Share Posted 15 October , 2007 Hello everyone, I would like to thank you all for your contributions on this thread. I had my Gallipoli presentation this morning and it went pretty well. My partner was very nervous and took 7 minutes on her section which was meant to be 4 and a half minutes. So I had three minutes to do a five minute section I hate group presentations. My module leader said it was an excellent presentation but because of the time issues we missed a 1st class mark but we have a high 2:1. I'm not best pleased but it is better than nothing! I would like to say thankyou for recommending a lot of great books to me, which I have used in my preparation. By next Monday, I will be able to tell you what the question was and what answer we gave because that's when the seminar report is due. Thanks again! Lynz So your tutor marked you down not for lack of content but because your presentation was a bit long. Substance should triumph over style, not vice versa. Wahnsinn... Wahnsinn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoW1988 Posted 15 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 15 October , 2007 I think it's pretty mean having to cover the whole campaign in ten minutes, incorporating naval and land campaigns. It was tough and I had to miss out two important bits: economic issues and the landings at Suvla Bay. He says he wont penalise on this occasion. If he did I would have something to say about it. Lynz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastermindmichel Posted 16 October , 2007 Share Posted 16 October , 2007 So your tutor marked you down not for lack of content but because your presentation was a bit long. Substance should triumph over style, not vice versa. Wahnsinn... Wahnsinn... Wahnsinn indeed, Halder. This isn't right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastermindmichel Posted 16 October , 2007 Share Posted 16 October , 2007 I just hope for your sake that the "TOTALLY STUBBORN GIT" doesn't visit this forum before you've had that meeting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 16 October , 2007 Share Posted 16 October , 2007 It looks to me as though the tutor is pressing for concision and precision. As Joe Friday used to say, " Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts". No wandering around explaining something by telling about it in several different ways. The core of the situation in as few words as possible. You should be thinking in mathematical terms, necessary and sufficient terms. This is taught or at least aimed for when officers are learning how to give sitreps. At least nobody is firing guns at you while you make your report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoW1988 Posted 16 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 October , 2007 I was being concise my friend. It was my partner that took 7 minutes and I had to rush. Gutted at the outcome. Lynz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 16 October , 2007 Share Posted 16 October , 2007 I was thinking more for future assignments Lynz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick_ryan Posted 22 October , 2007 Share Posted 22 October , 2007 Maybe to late but..... Gallipoli Diaries by Hamilton Gallipoli (A West Australian Story) by Olsen Gallipoli Encyclopedia by Austin Bloody Gallipoli (on the NZers) by Stowers - surprised no one has mentioned this one The Perils of Amateur Strategy (as applied to the Dardanelles Campaign) by Lt Gen Sir G F Ellison KCB KCMG The later pulls no punches. Ellison was no bit player either. He was Hamilton's Chief of Staff, and the QMG from September onwards. Interestingly, Hamilton was filthy with Kitchener for not releasing Ellison from the beginning. He believes things would have been far different if he was on board. (Bit biased I suppose, I have Ellisons medal group ) Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoW1988 Posted 22 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 22 October , 2007 Thank you very much Rick, a bit too late for the essay but I am interested in doing a lot of detailed study on the topic of the Gallipoli Campaign so I will definitely keep a note of them. The written part of the presentation was submitted this morning, which should hopefully pull up my mark! I can now reveal the question as I don't have to do anymore work on the topic. "How far can any one individual or institution be blamed for the disastrous outcome of the Gallipoli Campaign 1915" We took a balanced approach and outlined all of the "main players" and then came to an informed conclusion based on our facts. Perhaps, an idea for a future thread. Lynz P.S. I would like to thank everyone again for their contributions, I am really really grateful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 22 October , 2007 Share Posted 22 October , 2007 I for one, would be most interested in your presentation and your conclusions once you are free to share them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoW1988 Posted 22 October , 2007 Author Share Posted 22 October , 2007 It's a very basic analysis. I want to expand on it a lot more. There's only so much magic you can work in 10 minutes and 2000 words! I am really interested in the topic, so I would like to maybe write a much longer piece. Perhaps I will do it in the winter after exams are finished. Lynz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now