Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The reason Gallipoli failed" video.

  1. Didn't you even watch the video? Churchill argued in favour of Gallipoli (the video even explained why) but neither authorised it nor planned it.
    10
  2.  @tugrulgul5903  More likely, the Britrish had commandeered two battleships being built for Turkey in British yards, whilst the Germans handed over a battlecruiser and a light cruiser of theirs to Turkey.
    9
  3.  @David_Lloyd-Jones  Odd how people resort to insults when they lack the intellectual tools to present an argument. Indeed, Churchill was First Lord, well done! As First Lord, he was the political head of the navy, but he did not have the authority to initiate campaigns, only to propose them. The ultimate authority belonged to Herbert Asquith. Perhaps you simply do not know how the British government of the time functioned. I would be happy to recommend a book or two. Moreover, as First Lord, he had no authority over ground troops, although he did command a battalion on the Western Front after leaving the government.
    6
  4.  @stuartwald2395  Surely you know that, in some minds, Churchill was responsible for everything since the Black Death, as well as being a teenage Jack the Ripper? Accurate facts, such as you have posted, have no place in their world.
    3
  5. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    3
  6. Do you really think that Churchill had any role at all in the the manner in which the campaign was both planned and executed? Or are you simply one of the 'Blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death' crowd?
    3
  7.  @jimlofts5433  Churchill sent support to Greece because he had previously promised that 'Any country which opposes Hitler will have Britain's aid.' There really was no alternative to the allied campaign in North Africa and then Sicily/Italy if US troops were to see action in Europe before 1944. FDR supported the 'Germany first' strategy, but knew that US public opinion would not tolerate the failure of their troops to engage for around two years, and would demand more immediate action, probably against Japan. The allies were in no condition to attempt to land in France until, 1944, but British & Commonwealth troops were already in Egypt/Libya. After completing the Tunisian campaign, where else, realistically, could these troops be deployed? As I wrote earlier, Churchill proposed the Gallipoli operation, but neither authorised it, planned it nor executed it. Blame Herbert Asquith if you must.
    3
  8. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    3
  9. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    2
  10. Clearly, you have never bothered to look up the actual Allied casualty figures.
    2
  11. Actually, looking for a means of removing the Ottoman Empire from the Central Powers, thus inflicting a massive reversal on Germany. Potentially, a viable alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. As to Cannon Fodder, it seems you aren't actually aware of the casualties. Australia 28,150 New Zealand 7,991 France 27,000 India 4,779 Newfoundland 142 Britain/Ireland 73, 485. Ottoman Empire 251,309. These are total casualties, both killed and wounded.
    2
  12. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    2
  13.  @gregoryrussell9235  You clearly have no idea of the casualties at Gallipoli. Just to educate you, they were as follows :- Australia 28,150. New Zealand 7,991. Newfoundland 142. France 27,000. India 4,779 Britain & Ireland 73, 485. As I wrote earlier, The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing. However, thank you for providing further evidence.
    2
  14. Are you actually gormless enough to think that Churchill had any part in the planning of the Campaign? Astonishing!
    2
  15. Given the level of ignorance shown in your post, I can take it for granted that you have no idea at all about the casualty levels at Gallipoli sustained by the tea-drinking do nothing British. The lack of knowledge displayed by some of the people who post on here is almost astonishing.
    2
  16.  @angloaust1575  The Imperial forces in Malaya outnumbered the Japanese ones. The failure there was not of resources but of leadership.
    2
  17.  @robertpearson8798  I once sarcastically suggested that, as a teenager, Churchill might have been Jack the Ripper. I swear some of the idiots believed me!
    2
  18. The British used Colonial Troops as cannon fodder? Why not look up the actual casualty figures, instead of posting nonsense?
    2
  19. Firstly, Force Z was sent as a deterrent, not to a war zone, and secondly air cover was available, but not despatched.
    2
  20. There were 28,000 Australian casualties (killed & wounded). 7,900 New Zealanders. 27,000 French, 4,700 Indian. Oh, and 73,500 British & Irish.
    2
  21.  @Rohilla313  A slight correction. The evacuation was actually a success for the Royal & Merchant Navies. They were expected to be able to lift around 40,000 men before Dunkirk fell. 323,000 were actually brought out.
    2
  22. Revisionists have a need to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death. The fact is that Gallipoli was proposed by Churchill as a means of exploiting the Allied control of the sea, and as an alternative to the Western Front. Asquith authorised the Operation, and the military, not Churchill, were responsible for the planning failures.
    2
  23. The pre-dreadnoughts were outdated in terms of naval warfare, but were still among the most important ships present. The comment is valid.
    2
  24. Perhaps you might look up the actual Allied casualty figures.
    2
  25. You don't know much about the Bengal Famine, do you? I suppose that is what happens when education is replaced in favour of indoctrination. :- Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it probably won't suit your agenda.
    2
  26.  @nikaluss5946  The fact that you use so glib a phrase amply illustrates your agenda. Thank you.
    2
  27.  @nikaluss5946  Do you carers know that you spend you time playing on the lap top? You seem to ber either a very immature, or very ignorant, person. Go away and stop trying to argue with adults.
    2
  28.  @nikaluss5946  You mean because I am well educated and able to marshal my facts efficiently? How perceptive of you.
    2
  29. You mean that the British used rivetted construction for armoured vehicles in WW2? Just like everyone else did? It was both quicker and cheaper, especially at a time when welding was still a very new technology. The US did not go over to welding until the later M4s. Earlier types used a mix of casting & riveting. The Matilda II, by the way, also had a cast hull. The hull of a welded ship was more inflexible than that of a rivetted one, which made them less seaworthy, although lighter, as the plates did not need to overlap. A number of welded ships in WW2 broke up in heavy seas, until the technique had been developed sufficiently to overcome the problem. You might as well claim that the British 'covered up' the fact that the Sopwith Camel or the Spitfire did not have a jet engine.
    2
  30. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. He was, of course, scapegoated by Herbert Asquith. Most of the people who post on here, however, are convinced that Churchill was responsible for everything since the Black Dreath.
    2
  31. And an accurate one, as opposed to the one with Gibson in it.
    2
  32. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing. By the way. He lost his job as First Lord as a result, and served for a time with a Scots. Regiment on the Western Front.
    2
  33.  @dnivaranamaratis  Perhaps you need to learn a little more about the politics of Britain in WW1. Churchill was made a scapegoat to divert blame from Herbert Asquith. Once Asquith was removed in late 1916, the new Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, recalled Churchill to government almost immediately. Your reference to Vietnam is utterly irrelevant, and is presumably simply an attempt to avoid the subject of Gallipoli.
    2
  34. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    2
  35. You mean when they invaded Belgium? Wait a minute. THEY DIDN'T. Germany did.
    2
  36. Really? As he simply proposed it, but didn't have any involvement in the planning once Asquith had authorised it, how do you come to that conclusion?
    1
  37. I wish that intellectuals and academics would cease posting educated comments on sites like this. Thank you for helping to grant my wish.
    1
  38. Oh. and here's me thinking that the Ottoman Empire was an ally of the Central Powers. I must have got that wrong, I suppose.
    1
  39. Basically, Churchill had nothing to do with any of the planning of the campaign.
    1
  40. Idiot. Churchill was not in charge at Gallipoli, which is why the video doesn't mention him.
    1
  41.  @Bolstaf  I must have missed that lecture at University. The one about how the allies were forced to withdraw their troops from Anzio.
    1
  42. WW1 was lost by the Germans after the gamble of the spring offensive of 1918 failed. Germany was already on the verge of revolution and starvation as a result of the effects of the Royal Navy's Northern Patrol. Simply read about the effects of the German 'Turnip Winter' for yourself. The arrival of US forces, in Macbeth's words, simply made 'assurance doubly sure' and accelerated the inevitable.
    1
  43.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Wrong. The troops Germany had transferred to the west following the neutralisation of Russia were those which carried out the Spring Offensive, and failed. The Hapsburg Empire and the Ottomans in the Middle East were on the verge of collapse, and Germany had become a military dictatorship under Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Germany was, as any historian will tell you, near to revolution. The British & French agreed to an armistice, whereas Pershing had wanted the allies to march into Berlin.
    1
  44. You evidently don't know the details of the allied casualty figures if you really believe that.
    1
  45. I assume you are ignorant of the actual casualty figures?
    1
  46.  quotetheraven90  Who do you think portrayed Gallipoli as a victory? Do explain.
    1
  47. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    1
  48.  @iamnutty8471  In that case, then surely you must blame Herbert Asquith, not Churchill? Or is it simply that, like Herbert Asquith, you find Churchill a much more pleasing target for blame? In terms of 'Chain of Command' by the way, Churchill was the civilian head of the Royal Navy. The professional head of the Navy was the First Sea Lord, who until mid May 1915 was Sir John Fisher, and after him Sir Henry Jackson. Churchill had no place in the army Chain of Command which was headed at the time by Lieutenant-General Sir James Wolfe Murray, who of course, reported to Asquith. Murray himself was heavily influenced by Herbert Kitchener, and was replaced Sir Archibald Murray in September, 1915.
    1
  49. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    1
  50. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    1
  51. What makes you think that the ships 'didn't fit in the RN?' Both were at Jutland. Your last sentence demonstrates your profound ignorance of the actual casualty figures at Gallipoli.
    1
  52.  @dost328  No, it was not. Then, as now, in Britain, a suggestion by a Minister was simply that. The final decision was that of the Prime Minister, which is why he was, and is, so-called. Whatever you might think, Churchill had no role in the planning of the Operation.. Nicholas Lambert's book ' The War Lords and the Gallipoli Disaster' is clear on the subject. He argues that Asquith ultimately decided on the Gallipoli operation, not in a meeting of the subcommittee on war policy, but in a meeting of the subcommittee on food prices. Facing skyrocketing wheat prices, due to the war and crop failures in the Southern Hemisphere (particularly Australia), Asquith needed a way to reduce food prices to prevent political unrest. And because he was a good free market Liberal, storming Gallipoli is seen as more militarily possible than instituting food rationing.S At the same time, the Russians were demanding an immediate loan of 100 million Pounds, to prop up the Rouble, which had become virtually worthless on international markets after their defeats in East Prussia. Asquith ultimately came to believe that Gallipoli offered the chance for a decisive victory against the Ottomans, solving the wheat problem, by reopening the granaries of Romania and Southern Russia to international markets, and restabilizing Russian government credit, all in one blow. So yes, Churchill was responsible for pushing the operation, but it is Asquith’s government and he made the final decision. However, when both the naval operation and the amphibious landing failed, Asquith made sure that it wasChurchill who took the blame. You could also refer to the demand from Russia for support to ease the pressure on their southern flank, in an urgent communication sent by the Russian Chief of Staff to Herbert Kitchener. Actually, I have done my homework.
    1
  53. You think Churchill had any input at all into the planning of Gallipoli? How fascinating. This fixation some people have about Churchill is quite mysterious, based largely as it is on ignorance and propaganda.
    1
  54. Oh look! An intellectual.
    1
  55. You were wrong. He suggested it. Asquith authorised it, and the military produced the failed planning.
    1
  56.  @johnwright291  Indeed, largely because his superior, Herbert Asquith, used him as a convenient scapegoat at the time. Since then, of course widespread recognition of Churchill as the 'Greatest Englishman' has drawn upon him the attention of the left, who now happily blame him for everything since the Black Death.
    1
  57. Do you think that Churchill had any part in the planning of the Operation? If so, you must be remarkably badly educated.
    1
  58. Churchill had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the campaign. His total involvement was to suggest it to Asquith. Of course, to get precisely the sort of comment that you have excreted, it is only necessary to mention Churchill.
    1
  59. Largely because the video has correctly ignored the myth. Churchill proposed the operation, but didn't authorise it, and certainly didn't have any involvement in the planning, despite the claims of the revisionist anti-Churchill bandwagon.
    1
  60. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    1
  61. You do know he didn't have any input into the military planning, I suppose? Sorry. My mistake. Of course you don't.
    1
  62.  @yingyang1008  He proposed using Sea Power as a means of removing the Ottoman Empire as an ally of the Central Powers, and as an alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. The proposal was presented, forcefully no doubt, to the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith. Asquith approved of it and planning was then undertaken by an Allied team of senior army and navy commanders, both British and French. This team did not include Churchill. Churchill held no government position after 1929, until he was recalled by Chamberlain as First Lord of the Admiralty on the same day that Chamberlain declared war. Who were these people who were so keen to fan the flames of war, and how exactly was Churchill of use to them?
    1
  63.  @yingyang1008  You mean he consistently warned, when out of government, that Hitler & nazism were a serious threat to the stability of Europe, and had expansionist military ambitions? Was he wrong?
    1
  64.  @yingyang1008  Would you care to give examples of the regular scenes of which you speak? Norway was a military failure, certainly. Should the British and French have simply remained inactive and not attempted to intervene? The Norwegian naval campaign, by the way, was a disaster for the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet, which remained largely irrelevant for the rest of the war. Mers el Kebir was a justified action. The British had no idea, at the time, how closely a Petainist would co-operate with Germany. The French armistice/surrender had required that the French fleet return to French Atlantic ports, where it would be placed under German 'supervision.' The British concern was that it might be used in support of a German invasion attempt. Dresden (an Anglo-American joint operation) was undertaken at the request of the Soviet Union. I have never heard a credible argument from people who apparently believe that, in an industrial war, the soldier who loads the shell into the gun is a legitimate target, but the 'civilian' who manufactures the shell, or provides the food without which armies could not fight, is not. In one sentence, There are no civilians in modern warfare.
    1
  65.  @yingyang1008  He, and FDR, allied with the Soviet Union because both believed Stalin was the lesser of two evils. No-one 'gave' Stalin anything. He, or rather his armies, simply took it. Would you suggest that the Western Allies should have attacked the Soviets after May, 1945?
    1
  66.  @yingyang1008  Which countries had Stalin invaded in 1939? Oh, and Stalin invaded Poland almost three weeks after Hitler, not at the same time. The west allied with the Soviet Union on the basis of 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.' I don't recall ever raising the idea of good versus bad. I simply addressed your bizarre fixation about Churchill. You don't believe that there was dem,ocracy in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, then?
    1
  67.  @yingyang1008  I don't recall ever giving my personal opinion about Dresden, only explaining why it occurred, and trying to get you to grasp the nature of modern industrial war. Pious outrage from a a comfy chair eighty years after the event might give you a warm glow of smug self satisfaction, but it does not alter the reality of what war is. As a former WW2 naval officer said to me when interviewed about the war during my time at University, ' We often had to do things which seemed repugnant to us, or the people who did not find doing such things repugnant at all might have won.' Or, as Bomber Harris wrote, 'Every city in Germany is not worth the bones of one British grenadier.' Enjoy sitting on your nice judgement cloud, and leave the study of these matters to those who understand them.
    1
  68.  @yingyang1008  You appear to have moved on from Churchill, and simply begun a generalised anti-British rant. Look at the events of the immediate post war period, and learn how quickly the British dismantled their empire. leaving behind the concept of democracy and law in parts of the world which had previously kinown nothing but tribal rule by chieftains and by aristocratic elites. You might also notice how some of these former colonies quickly degenerated.
    1
  69. What had Churchill to do with this? He was out of government after November, 1915. Even prior to that, he was First Lord, and not involved in such decisions.
    1
  70. Why would there be? He proposed the operation, but didn't give the final authorisation, and certainly had no involvement in the planning shortcomings.
    1
  71.  @blueskies1237  Really? How is it wrong? Firstly, the authority for Gallipoli came from Herbert Asquith. Secondly, the operation was planned by the allied naval and army commanders allocated to it, not by Churchil, or any other politician. Perhaps your education, or, at least, your knowledge, is somewhat lacking?
    1
  72.  @blueskies1237  Of course Churchill was dismissed because of Gallipoli. He was made the scapegoat for the failure by Herbert Asquith. That does not alter the fact that he had no involvement in the planning. When David Lloyd George replaced Asquith in December, 1916, he brought Churchill back into government almost immediately. Perhaps you might buy a book on British politics in WW1?
    1
  73. Don't be a fool. Churchill suggested the operation as a use of sea power to minimise the carnage of the Western Front. He suggested it, but he had no involvement in any of the planning. Herbert Asquith, by the way, authorised it, and was able to make Churchill the scapegoat for the failure of Allied military leadership.
    1
  74. Really? Exactly how much input do you think Churchill had in thev planning of Gallipoli? Actually, NONE. He proposed the operation as a means of using sea power to avoid the impending carnage on the Western Front, but Asquith authorised the operation, and military men planned it.
    1
  75. If you wonder that, you must be a fool.
    1
  76. Perhaps it would be expecting too much to ask you to look up the actual Allied casualty figures?
    1
  77. Thank you! At last a sensible comment, rather than thos of the idiots who blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death.
    1
  78. How might that be?
    1
  79. Churchill had nothing to do with the planning or execution. As First Lord, he believed that he had found a means of using Sea Power to avoid the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Properly planned, Gallipoli might have been successful.
    1
  80. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    1
  81. When did Churchill force men down pits at bayonet point? Do you have a credible source?
    1
  82. Nonsense.
    1
  83.  @mustafaaustinpowers5748  Precisely. In other words, it was not ranked third behind the UK & Germany.
    1
  84. Why was he a war criminal? He proposed a strategy which might have removed the Ottoman Empire from the war. Asquith authorised it, and military men planned the operation. Do you serious think that the carnage of the Western Front was the only credible option?
    1