Product Description

In January 1915, Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, overrode the advice of his First Sea Lord and persuaded the Cabinet to sanction a naval expedition to force its way to Constantinople. It was to eliminate Turkey from the war and thus sustain Russia's war effort. The campaign, which veered from the brink of victory to final resounding defeat, was one of the grimmest in modern history. This work traces the roots of the catastrophe to the remoteness of war leaders in London, the incompetence of admirals and generals on the spot, and the extraordinary diversity of the Allied troops. By drawing on official papers, diaries and letters, the author aims to give an impression of what it was like for the fighting men who did their best but who were, in the words of one of them, "beaten in the end by our own leaders".

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1525908 in Books
• Published on: 1998-07-09
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

Review
"Excellent." John Terraine. -- Daily Telegraph "Gripping." Robert McLaughlan. -- Glasgow Herald "Lucid, vivid and highly readable." Arthur Hockaday. -- RUSI Journal

Glasgow Herald
"Gripping." Robert McLaughlan.

RUSI Journal
"Lucid, vivid and highly readable." Arthur Hockaday.

Customer Reviews

An authorative account of the campaign if a touch populist.
I was driven to buy this book having discovered that my great-grandfather was killed in the campaign. The authorative nature of the book was therefore extremely useful in providing details of the precise battle, regiment, day and context. That said, I felt that the author tended towards the style of a "novel" in trying to humanise the reaction of the key players i.e. Kitchener, Churchill, Fisher. Inevitably, this must involve a degree of speculation and licence. Against this theory, must be the idea that it is impossible for us to rationalise or even contemplate the horrors of trench warfare.

The Gallipoli Campaign through the eyes of a fellow soldier
I have read this book three times already and in my opinion it is the best book I have ever read on this incredible campaign; so much so I am about to buy my own copy. Michael Hickey is a former army officer and he writes with conviction, clarity and that in depth knowledge and sympathy that a soldier can relate to. I found his explanation of the causes of the war very easy to understand and his account of each battle in the campaign is both realistic and gripping. He is most forthright in his views on the capabilities and professionalism of the main characters in the campaign and he pulls no punches with his opinions of the political leaders of the time. He also pays compliment to the outstanding contribution of the ANZAC force and acknowledges with respect the tenacious defence of their adversaries. I am about to begin a book of my own on this subject, based on the hitherto unpublished diary of an officer who served with the South Wales Borderers at Gallipoli and Michael Hickey's book will serve as a benchmark of the standards one needs to aim for. I cannot praise this book enough.

He came ,he saw, he capitulated
Gallipoli by Michael Hickey

The problem with all military books is it is difficult to give a clear chronology so that as you read the text you know when things happened and it what order. Also there are usually too many characters and they need to differentiated a s made to live as characters like in a novel.

A previous reviewer claimed their was a novelisation of the action but it is the only way to make the story understandable. Most modern biographies and military histories use the novel format to bring the story to light. Otherwise it becomes a long list of places, people and events all jumbled up so that nothing gets left out. Inevitably a story such as Gallipoli has to be a selection of facts and linked together with opinion

So long after the event inevitably all books about the battle have to be from research. It must be difficult to put a new spin on what happened from original sources or eyewitness accounts. The paperback version seems to be called "Gallipoli a study in failure"but it is not on the hardback version I read.

The idea was as soon as the allies turned up the Turks would surrender. That was obviously not going to happen.The whole plan was unfocused and no one had any real idea what should happen if the initial attack failed.

The invasion of Normandy was planned for a year beforehand whereas this invasion seems to have been cobbled together. IN Normandy the allies could not have afforded to have failed so they had plenty of back up and kept going until they succeeded at whatever odds.

In Gallipoli because it was a half cocked event no one had any plans what to do next. It became like the Western front but without the resources of the western front. If the allies had been able and willing to support it whatever the odds it might have been a success.

The whole idea of knocking Turkey out of the war may have been a flawed idea and may not have brought about a quicker end to the war. Because the plan was flawed and not supported by everyone it never got the support it may have deserved.

Once new generals were put in charge because they had no vested interest in the outcome they decided to evacuate. That was of course the best decision as the advance was not happening and the outcome was not certain.

The mark of a good book for me is if I can read it within a day of so. If I have to stop and put it down it means I have lost interest. I found this book one I could carry on reading at every opportunity.

It is difficult because I do not know the geography to understand where all the action was taking place. You have to keep referring to the maps to make it clear in your mind. Similarly with the various battles and units that took part it can be difficult to keep them clear in your mind.

I will be visiting Gallipoli some time int he near future so no doubt it will all come together. After I visited Ypres. the Somme and Verdun I now understand the Western front and I have an idea of the geography and the chronology of events.


Overall and excellent book. I made a couple of notes one being from the Fiasco at Suvla-1

Reconnaissance from a distance is insufficient Field Service regulations Page 263


No one had looked at the ground in detail before any of the landings


An other was page 274 Willmer a British major watched an attack He noted with a professional's cold detachment., all the signs of ill-trained troops: bunching, poor fieldcraft, reckless exposure, and apparent lack of co- ordinated effort.

Finally Churchill referring to General Monro who was sent to assess the situation and decided to evacuate said "He came , he saw, he capitulated"


A good read