⚓ Cape Helles
British troops landed on five beaches at the tip of the peninsula. At V Beach, men coming ashore from an old ship, the River Clyde, were cut down by machine guns. The beaches were taken, but at a heavy cost.
The War at Sea and Gallipoli » The Gallipoli Campaign
What you'll learn this session
Study time: 30 minutes
Edexcel spec: Paper 2 Section A, Investigation A1, Key topic 4
- Why Britain and France attacked Turkey at Gallipoli in 1915
- The key features of the campaign, from the naval attack to Suvla Bay
- How the Allied armies were evacuated without the Turks noticing
- The effects of the campaign on both sides
🔒 Unlock Full Course Content
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseReasons for the Gallipoli campaign
Turkey, the centre of the Ottoman Empire, joined the war on Germany's side in late 1914. By early 1915 the Western Front was in deadlock, and British leaders were looking for another way to win. Winston Churchill, the minister in charge of the navy, pressed for an attack on Turkey. There were four main reasons.
- To get round the deadlock. Turkey was seen as the weakest of Germany's allies. Knocking it out of the war looked easier than breaking the German trenches in France.
- To help Russia. The Dardanelles led to Russia's Black Sea ports. With Turkey in the war this route was shut, so Russia could not easily get supplies or sell its grain. In January 1915 Russia also asked for an attack to draw Turkish troops away from its own army.
- To win new allies. Greece, Bulgaria and Romania were still neutral. A victory might bring them in on the Allied side.
- To protect the British Empire. In February 1915 Turkish troops attacked the Suez Canal, Britain's sea route to India.
Key terms:
- Dardanelles: the narrow strip of sea in Turkey that leads from the Mediterranean towards Constantinople (now Istanbul) and the Black Sea
- Gallipoli peninsula: the long finger of land along the northern side of the Dardanelles
- ANZAC: the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
- Evacuation: taking an army away from a place of danger
Key features of the campaign
The naval attack. The first plan was to use ships alone. From 19 February 1915 British and French warships shelled the forts guarding the Dardanelles. On 18 March they tried to force their way through. Three battleships were sunk by mines and three more big ships were badly damaged, so the attack was called off. An army would have to capture the peninsula first. The Turks now knew that an attack on the Dardanelles was coming. Their commander, the German general Liman von Sanders, had over a month to bring in men and dig trenches above the beaches.
The landings, 25 April 1915. General Sir Ian Hamilton had about 75,000 men, poor maps and little information about the enemy.
⛰ Anzac Cove
The ANZACs landed further north, below steep ridges. A Turkish officer, Mustafa Kemal, rushed his men to the high ground and stopped them from moving inland.
Stalemate. Both sides dug in, just as in France. The Turks held the high ground and could fire down on the Allied trenches and beaches. Every attack failed. In the summer heat, swarms of flies spread dysentery, a serious stomach illness. Water was short and had to be brought in by ship.
Suvla Bay, August 1915. Hamilton tried again with fresh troops. On 6 August about 20,000 men under General Sir Frederick Stopford landed at Suvla Bay, north of Anzac Cove. Only about 1,500 Turkish soldiers faced them at first. But Stopford stayed on a ship offshore and gave no order to seize the hills. His men waited near the beaches while the Turks hurried in more troops. The chance was lost, and Stopford was removed on 15 August.
The evacuation
In October 1915 Bulgaria joined Germany's side and helped to defeat Serbia. Germany would soon be able to send heavy guns and shells to Turkey by rail. In the same month Hamilton was replaced by General Sir Charles Monro, who quickly advised the government to pull out. Lord Kitchener, the minister for war, visited in November and agreed. At the end of November a great storm flooded the trenches and then froze them, and thousands of men suffered frostbite.
The evacuation was the best-planned part of the whole campaign. Men, guns and animals were taken off secretly at night. By day everything was made to look normal. On the last nights, rifles were set up to fire by themselves, using dripping water or burning candles to pull the triggers. Suvla and Anzac were cleared by 20 December 1915, and Helles by 9 January 1916. Hardly a man was lost.
Effects of the campaign
❌ A costly failure
The Allies had about 250,000 casualties, many from disease, and more than 40,000 dead. Turkey stayed in the war, the sea route to Russia stayed shut, and Bulgaria joined the enemy.
🏛 Politics and memory
Churchill lost his post at the navy in May 1915. In 1916 Parliament set up the Dardanelles Commission, whose reports criticised the planning. Turkey also had about 250,000 casualties, but its victory raised Turkish pride and made Kemal a hero. Australia and New Zealand still remember 25 April as Anzac Day.
Common mistakes
Do not write that the campaign began with the landings. The failed naval attack came first, and it gave the Turks time to prepare. Do not call the evacuation a failure either: it was the one clear success.
Exam-style question
Source A: From a letter by Keith Murdoch, an Australian journalist, to the Australian prime minister, Andrew Fisher, 23 September 1915. Murdoch had spent four days at Gallipoli.
'It is undoubtedly one of the most terrible chapters in our history. Your fears have been justified ... I am of course only repeating what I have been told on all hands. But you will trust me when I say that the work of the general staff in Gallipoli has been deplorable.'
Source B: From General Sir Ian Hamilton's official despatch to Lord Kitchener, dated 11 December 1915. He is describing the middle of August 1915.
'The Turks then, I reckoned, had 110,000 rifles to our 95,000, and held all the vantages of ground; they had plenty of ammunition ... my British divisions alone were 45,000 under establishment ... how deep was my disappointment when I learnt that the essential drafts, reinforcements and munitions could not be sent to me ...'
(General staff means the officers who planned the fighting. Rifles means soldiers. Under establishment means below full strength. Drafts are fresh men sent to fill gaps.)
Extract C: From a modern history textbook (a practice extract written for this lesson).
'Gallipoli failed because of poor British leadership. The plan was rushed, the generals were slow and out of touch, and at Suvla Bay a clear chance was thrown away. Yet the commanders were also short of men and shells, and they faced a brave, well-led Turkish army on ground that suited defence.'
Study Extract C. Extract C suggests that the Gallipoli campaign failed because of poor British leadership. How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer. [16 marks]
Model answer
Extract C argues that Gallipoli 'failed because of poor British leadership', with generals who were 'slow and out of touch'. There is strong evidence for this. Source A supports it. Murdoch calls the campaign 'one of the most terrible chapters in our history' and says the work of the general staff 'has been deplorable'. He admits he is 'only repeating' what he was told after a short visit, but the facts back him. From my own knowledge, the naval attack of 18 March warned the Turks, who then had over a month to prepare. Hamilton landed on 25 April with poor maps. At Suvla Bay in August, Stopford stayed on a ship while about 20,000 men waited near the beaches, although only about 1,500 Turks faced them at first. This is the 'clear chance' that Extract C says was 'thrown away'.
However, there is evidence that challenges the view. Extract C itself accepts that the commanders were 'short of men and shells' and faced a 'well-led Turkish army on ground that suited defence'. Source B supports this side. Hamilton says the Turks had '110,000 rifles to our 95,000' and 'held all the vantages of ground', while the 'reinforcements and munitions' he asked for 'could not be sent'. Hamilton was defending his own record, but much of this is true. The government in London treated the Western Front as more important. The Turks held the high ground above every beach, and Mustafa Kemal's quick action stopped the ANZACs on the first day. Disease also weakened the Allied army through the summer.
Even so, the sources do not fully excuse the leaders. Source B describes the middle of August, after the Suvla landing had already failed, so these shortages cannot explain why that chance was missed.
Overall, I agree with the interpretation to a large extent. The strength of the Turkish defence and the shortage of men made victory very hard, but poor leadership turned a difficult task into a failure. The delay after the naval attack gave away surprise, and Suvla wasted the one real chance. The skilful evacuation shows what careful planning could do.
What lifts this to the top level: it quotes the extract and both sources, gives evidence on each side, adds precise facts found in none of them, and reaches a judgement that weighs the two views.
Exam tip
Check who wrote each source and why. Here a journalist blames the generals, and a general blames his lack of men. Saying this in a few words, then testing each claim against your own knowledge, shows precise use of the sources. For more help, see the Exam Skills lesson Paper 2 Section A Question (c): Judging an Interpretation.