A couple of months later, the allies invaded the peninsula with hundred thousands of men, with the aim to conquer the forts by land and thus clear a path for the Navy to sail to Constantinople (now called Istanbul) in order to force their foes out of the war. The invasion met with stiff resistance from the Turkish defenders -- much to the dismay of the invaders! The allied forces were unable to advance even beyond the beaches and things soon bogged down into a trench war. One year later, the enterprise was abandoned, leaving over 200,000 allied and 300,000 turkish dead, mostly young men in the prime of their life.
Now what makes this a remarkable campaign is how it connects a number of strands in history.
For one, it was the first and only large-scale sea invasion against defended positions before D-Day. A lot of the things that were done right on D-Day, were learned from the failed Gallipoli campaign. The allies learned the value of air and naval support and they improved upon the whole design of the armored landing boat, which played a crucial role in Normandy. Furthermore, tactics were aimed at making progress land inwards as soon as possible, something which was not done in Gallipoli.
Just imagine what would have happened if the allies failed in their landing at the beaches of Normandy. It is accepted wisdom that the Soviet Union was on a roll and would have defeated the Germans eventually. The true value of D-Day, therefore, was not to ascertain the defeat of Germany, but to prevent the Soviets from conquering all of Western Europe. Just imagine France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark and Western Germany, all under the oppressive boot of Stalin. What turn would the Cold War have taken? Would the USA still have won it?
Second, the reputation of Churcill was tarnished after Gallipoli. He was officially viewed as the instigator of the whole failed enterprise. Even though he was an advocate of initially pushing harder up the Dardanelles and forcing the straits (which would quite possibly have been successful), his more powerful compatriots thought otherwise and blocked that idea. And even though he was committed to sending more troops to Gallipoli, his compatriots once again blocked this. It is quite likely that if Churchill would have gotten his way, the campaign would have taken a different turn. But the First Lord of the Admiraly was young and without much political clout in that day and age.
Just imagine what would have happened if Churchill succeeded at Gallipoli and would have forced Turkey out of the War. Much less opportunity would have been had by the Turks to start their own new pan-Arab brand of Jihadism of which we feel the effects even today. Also, Churchill could have been a more formidable political force during the Rise of Hitler, possibly countering Chamberlain. Churchill would not have caved in to Hitler's demands -- he was a hawk. Germany was not as ready for war as mythology would have it. An early attack by the allied powers against the German infrastructure, especially during the Polish campaign, could have ended the war very early.
Third, a young man named Kemal was the Hero of Gallipoli. He showed remarkable courage under fire and was chiefly responsible for preventing the allies from making any progress. Kemal was a political enemy of the rather incompentent, but still powerful Enver. Riding the waves of his success, he prevailed and came to be known as Ataturk, the father of modern day secular Turkey.
Just imagine that Kemal did not have this success to feed his ambitions and the modern day Turkey project started by the Young Turks would have been a failure. Turkey has a strong economy and military nowadays. What if it did not reform?
Fourth, an Australian reporter made his name as a critic of the Gallipoli campaign. His famous "Gallipoli Letter", detailing the failure of the campaign, had a huge impact and was one of the main reasons why the campaign was cancelled. The name of this reporter was Keith Murdoch. He sowed the seeds of a media empire. His son, Rupert, took over from him and carried the empire to greatness. One can only hold in awe what the Murdochs achieved.
Just imagine what would have happened if Keith did not get his shot at fame by denouncing the Gallipoli campaign. Would he have been able to engineer a media empire?
So many questions that will never be answered. Nevertheless, ostensibly just a side show, Gallipoli may have had a greater impact on history than meets the eye.
Ah... the what ifs of history!
ReplyDeleteHow important was Gallipoli really in the development of amphibious tactics? If anything, Moulton argues, it discouraged the British from amphibious attacks until 1942 (with one small exception during the Norway campaign in 1940). Robertson, on the Dieppe raid (1942), claims that the lessons of Gallipoli were forgotten and had to be learned all over again (at excessive cost).
Churchill had more problems than just Gallipoli in the Interbellum. He was a complete twat and rather unpopular even in his own party. Also Chamberlain was a masterful and popular politician. Not one easily set aside in any circumstance.
If the western Allies had failed in Normandy, that would have freed up large numbers of German troops to fight on the eastern front. At least till the spring of 1945.
If only things were simple.