Gallipoli (Perennial Classics)

This book is certainly a classic, as it is one of the first comprehensive overviews of this epic battle. In that sense it may be unfair to review it here with the hindsight of many decades of more extensive archival work done since its publication.Why is it so important, what makes Gallipoli (Gelibolu) campaign so unique when at around the same time many major powers were involved in just as bloody battles at so many other fronts?Gallipoli literally gave birth to a Turkish national identity. It marks the break from an Ottoman Imperial character which enabled Ataturk to build a new Turkish Republic out of the ashes of WWI. Gallipoli also ignited Australian passions and for the first time made them proud to be Australians and New Zealanders above all.From a military history point of view, it was the first large naval landing attempt in modern times. Not only that, first time in history land, naval and air forces were deployed jointly, however clumsily.It was also a time when empires that were roaming and ruling much of the civilized World for centuries were coming tumbling down. After the dust of WWI settled down, there were no more Ottoman Empire, Habsburgs or Czar's Russia. Great War was the greatest tragedy of all and most exciting and interesting chapter was Gallipoli.Alan Moorehead has done a good job describing the surrounding events and personalities of this campaign. He has covered details small and personal and large with a journalist's eye rather than a historian which makes the reading enjoyable.There are some serious shortcomings though. As noted by other reviewers, Turks are mostly missing from the pages, distant and behind the hills, alien. It is not surprising since there is not a single original Turkish source listed in the references and bibliography. It is true that such original material was very limited from the Turkish side at the time, but it does not look like he has put any effort in it either.All the information about the conduct of the war on the Ottoman side seems to have come from Liman Von Sanders diary. Not only Liman Pasha was not very objective about many aspects of Gallipoli, probably out of concern for his reputation, but he was many times mistaken about key details, writing mostly from memory after the war. This probably explains many material mistakes in the book, some serious and too many to list here.One can still sense the effects of the Turkish anti-propaganda that British mounted duiring WWI, and the young Turkish Republic, too busy rebuilding a new nation and country to counter or neutralize. Cartoonish descriptions of some of the Turkish generals and Enver Pasha reveal a good dose of condescension. He takes much time repeating the blatant and since debunked Armenian propaganda. He glosses over the fact that Armenians had launched a full scale armed revolt behind the lines at almost exactly the same time Allies started bombardment of Gallipoli.It must be noted that Liman Pasha, Hamilton's counterpart, had little field experience until this battle. He was brought in as a consultant to reform and re-organize the Ottoman army after the disasters of Russian and Balkan wars. He was a trainer and educator with little war experience. Still he was German and that mattered most to Enver Pasha. Thus, many incompetant and second rate German officers were appointed over the more seasoned Turksih officers. Liman Pasha did not come to his senses until half way through the battle. Hamilton on the other hand was a first rate general, smart, trusted and with real war experience. This contrast does not get enough emphasis in the book.There is also much made of various material and ammunition shortages on the Allied side. Ottomans on the other hand relied on the handouts from the Kaiser to feed their soldiers. They could not even manufacture the needed artillery shells themselves and they had to be imported. Many of their heavy guns were older than the soldiers manning them, some were antiques, dragged out of a military museum. Allies looked very rich and generous to the Turks. On March 18, Turks fired a total of 2250 shells at the Allied ships. On the Turkish Dardanos battery alone 4000 shells fell that day on the other hand. Turks had a total of only 50 armour piercing shells that day. They had to wait a long time for the Allied ships to come in range since they could not match the range of the Allied guns. Against over 200 machine guns Allies fielded, Turks had only 4 machine guns in the early stages.There is no mention of the fact that during the landings at Suvla, vast majority of the Turkish troops were located far away from the coast, mostly near the West Gallipoli coast base and at Saros. There was only a very thin line countering the initial Anzac landings and drive. One of the first things Liman Pasha did when he took command was to reverse the strong coastal defense established by the local commanders and pull troops in. Liman Pasha was obsessed with a possible landing at Saros and denied M. Kemal any extra troops to counter the landings which he thought were a ruse. He did not release extra troops to Suvla through the worst of the fighting.While Moorhead goes through a long laundry list of reasons for Allied defeat, including bad leadership, poor planning and insufficient support, he glosses over the most important reason for the Allied disaster. Turks were galvanized by the humiliation of the Balkan war two years earlier. Nationalism had erupted. It was not so much that Allies came unprepared or were led so poorly but the "sick man of Europe" had one more really good kick left in him.

What a horrible waste of human life this poorly thought out fiasco was! Moorehead's writing brings this disaster to life and it is almost incomprehensible that people could have been so stupid. This was justifiably almost the end of Winston Churchill and the incompetent cast of characters that were involved in this mess is almost beyond belief. Kitchner and Gnl Ian Hamilton really stand out as complete morons. The terrible geography and climate come to life in the great descriptions employed by Moorehead and the book really zips along at a breakneck pace, This is a must-read for anyone interested in WW1 and it really is described very, very well. "Enjoy" might be the wrong word for the total immersion into catastrophe that the reader experiences but it is certainly a riveting chronicle and very adeptly told.

Why do New Zealand and Australia celebrate the horrible loss of young lives in a bungled, useless and unnecessary campaign? Why do their governments not apologize to their people for entering a war on the other side of the world? The ruling class of England might gain, but not the working class.This is a first-rate war story. I have never read a more gripping account of battle than this -- the assault on the southern tip of the peninsula of Gallipoli.This is an interesting and well-written history of a famous military defeat in which Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, was deeply implicated. A war-monger all his life, he was responsible for so many deaths. He was in government only because of the influence of his very old and wealthy family. For the sake of decency alone, this man should have kept his mouth shut and confined himself to his luxurious estate instead of ever putting lives at risk. Gallipoli was one of his early blunders; there were to be many more in future wars. Yet he gets wonderful press from writers who don't care that poor men are forced or enticed into an army and sent to die for ends that have nothing to do with them.A tragic part of this history, as of so many histories, is the suffering of horses and mules. Wars were never to the advantage of the animal world, but always horses were involved and always their suffering was immense.At Gallipoli, it is hard to take sides -- for the Turks who had just slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Armenian men, women and children, or for the British who had no valid reason to be on that Turkish peninsula.This history is written with an excellent style. The author is careful to make the battles understandable. He never leaves the reader in doubt about what is going on and who is involved.But long before the end, I began to wonder what insanity led the British into such a horrible waste of life.

For many years the Gallipoli Campaign was a somewhat distant mystery to me. Alan Moorehead's book is well written and easy to read and understand. It might not satisfy military enthusiasts, as it does not contain a blow-by-blow account of every incident or follow the fate of each and every unit involved. But for the non-specialist simply wanting to know what Gallipoli was all about I thoroughly recommend it.Moorehead takes care to include a full account of the background, and the commanders and politicians who were - at varying times - behind the campaign, and of their mistakes. He gives ample space to the ANZACs, but cautions that they did not form the majority of Commonwealth troops engaged, contrary to certain myths. And he examines the German/Turkish military and politics, providing a well-rounded view from all sides.

An excellent description of the Gallipoli campaign in which we are not spared the gory details.The author conveys the progress of events in an explicit manner without his story becoming just a sequence of happenings. It is a very personal account in which we are made aware of the thoughts and feelings of those involved, from common soldiers and sailors to the admirals, generals and politicians who oversaw the affair. The Turkish/ German side of the conflict is also very well represented. I have a particular interest in the history of 'Gallipoli' as my father's eldest brother who served with the 13th Infantry Battalion, Australian Expeditionary Force, landed at ANZAC Cove in April 1915, and was Killed in Action on 20th August.I found the Kindle maps satisfactory and helpful.

A very well-researched account, from both sides, of the disastrous military campaign in the Dardanelles where both the Empire and the Turks each lost a quarter of a million men. The British forces would have said it was for SFA - at least the Turks kept their land.The incompetent self-seeking nincompoops running both sides are shown in some detail as they posture their way through the war, in which our only personal family casualty died, probably by being allowed to freeze to death (according to the book) rather than falling in heroic service as we had believed.Has anything really changed in the last hundred years?

Still one of the most readable accounts of the Gallipoli campaign, although more recent books may benefit from more recent research. The hardback edition, although potentially longer-lasting, suffers from a complete absence of contemporary photographs. The paperback version contains photographs and is accordingly more expensive than the hardback. The hardback version has 3 fairly basic maps. For more detailed maps, get Major and Mrs Holt's Battlefield Guide to Gallipoli. Despite these drawbacks Moorehead's account is highly recommended as an overview of the campaign.

This is a clear & convincing account of the campaign. It avoids the emotive oversimplifications which so often bedevil media coverage of WWI while setting out the shortcomings of the chief protagonists & the mistakes which were made. If you want a straightforward account of what happened & why this is a much better account than that of L A Carlyon eg in setting out clearly the objectives & why they were important. One thing that puzzles me about both accounts is the generous tone of their assessment of the Commander in Chief.