Once strewn with tens of thousands of dead bodies — many of them rotting for weeks as they lay in between opposing trenches — the land on which the Battle of Gallipoli played out is now a national park. A few years ago, on its 100th anniversary, tourists and family members of those who fought came to observe its many battle sites, memorials, and cemeteries. Lasting from February 1915 through January 1916, the Battle of Gallipoli was a thoroughly bloody and unforgiving event: one which saw over 500,000 total casualties. Some were teenagers, just at the beginning of their lives, while others were much older. Some were British and French, some were New Zealandish, Australian, and Indian, some were Turks and Germans. All of them were fighting for their lives — the Turks for their precious homeland in addition — in what was one of the most costly battles of World War I.
The battle is known, among other things, for its brutal conditions: thirst and hunger, but also typhoid, dysentery, and diphtheria, the harsh and unruly terrain, the ghastly and unceasing warfare, and, for the Allied forces, the unrelenting machine gun fire as they tried to make their way ashore on the early morning of April 25, 1915.
Shockingly, many soldiers had eagerly signed up for the war. This was true no less for New Zealanders and Australians (their forces known collectively as ANZACs) who came from lands which were part of the British Empire but functioned quite independently. The Battle of Gallipoli was at its core a conglomeration of myriad peoples and nationalities engaged in a pivotal nine-month event during the course of World War I.
Two documentaries, different in aim and scope, both give a helpful look at this critical battle. Gallipoli: The First D-Day, produced by UKTV in 2001 and part of a larger series, examines the battle almost solely from a British perspective. As its name suggests, there is a tie-in between the disaster at Gallipoli and the invasion of Normandy, two events in which Winston Churchill played a role. The other documentary, Gallipoli, directed by Tolga Ornek in 2005, is more comprehensive and takes into account all sides — and, it must be said, achieves the latter in an even-handed way. For a battle which was intensely fought on all sides, and which still holds exceptionally potent feelings for many of the countries involved, the documentary achieves a high level of pathos and empathy. And thankfully so, for the Battle of Gallipoli deserves nothing less.
The Gallipoli Campaign (also called the Dardanelles Campaign) stemmed from Allied frustrations concerning the Western Front. Trench warfare, which had come to define the fighting in that area, was going nowhere. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was frustrated with such futility and eagerly sought a different strategy. Various ideas were discussed, and the one that eventually came to fruition involved not the Western Front but the Eastern theater of war.
Churchill’s plan was to gain control of Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, which he believed would effectively remove the Turks from the war (who had joined the Central Powers in November 1914). By gaining control of the Straits and the Sea of Marmara, Britain and France would become more easily connected with their ally, Russia, via the Black Sea. It would completely change the configuration of the war — including, it was thought, by adding further countries to the side of the allies.
That was the plan, but it didn’t work. As both documentaries highlight, the plan ran into trouble almost as soon as it was executed. In late February, British and French ships began a long-range bombardment, with limited success. The Turks adapted quickly to what was happening and hindered the allies’ mission. On March 18, when they allies again tried to maneuver into the Straits, the Turks were ready. Mines had been placed in the water — many of which were not picked up by minesweepers — which resulted in three ships being sunk. It was a dismal failure for the Allies. But Churchill, who was adamant about the strategy, wanted to try again. He declared, “what did it matter if more ships were lost; they were old and useless.”
Churchill, however, as the first documentary states, “was overruled by the Secretary of State for War, Lord Kitchener, who decided the army should now take over the assault.” The plan this time was for ground troops to take out the forts, which would then finally allow the ships to move through the Straights. But, like the naval attack, this plan also ran into problems, and with even greater consequences.
On the very early morning of Sunday, April 25, 1915, many of the landing attempts were atrociously bloody. On Cape Helles, the southern tip of the peninsula, troops under the leadership of British General Ian Hamilton landed at five locations — S, X, Y, V and W. The first three, bloody as they were, had some degree of success; but the latter two were a virtual disaster. As men fought to get ashore they faced not only machine gun fire but the barbed wire that had been laid in the water by the Turks. The military historian Paul Reed, a commentator in The First D-Day documentary, describes part of the experience of his father, who had fought in the battle: “the thick barbs…tore open their stomachs and the water ran red with the blood of the men…” (Later on in the campaign, with this sight and experience in mind, many soldiers were hesitant to drink the boiled water from the sea, even when thirst set in.)
That same day, midway up the island, where ANZACs landed at Gabe Tepe — a site eventually to be known as Anzac Cove — the outcome was better. But the gruesomeness of that first day of land assault was undeniable: 5,000 allied casualties. And it would not get any easier. The Turks and Germans controlled the high grounds, which put allied troops in an exceptionally precarious position. Movement forward from the beaches was bloody, costly, and slow-going work — a situation that would remain permanent for virtually the entire campaign. In somewhat of an irony, then, as troops dug in, the fighting became similar to the trench warfare taking place on the Western Front.
Both documentaries cover these initial landings and the following months in similar ways and with similar information. Ornek’s documentary, however, brings a greater element of intimacy to the Battle of Gallipoli by following in some detail characters from all sides of the fighting. It’s for this reason that Ornek’s documentary is the more recommended.
Among the many men we meet is the Australian Oliver Cumberland, whose brother was also there in Gallipoli and who died fighting. Writing back home to his sister, Oliver informs her of their brother’s death. It’s a solemn moment and a reminder of the lives affected far away from the fighting. On the Turkish side, we meet Mustafa Kemal, who, through his excellent leadership in the defense would not only help stave off the allied invasion, but one day become a revolutionary figure as he transformed the defunct Ottoman Empire into the new nation of Turkey.
There are many other characters that we meet and follow. Ornek strikes a nice balance of details and military strategy, on the one hand, with an empathetic presentation of the emotional and humanistic side of warfare on the other. Viewers can appreciate this not only in and of itself, but also because some of the soldiers in Gallipoli viewed the battle in just that way: a bloody fight full of struggle with the enemy, but a battle in which one’s opponents should be accorded a level of respect. The documentary quotes a Turkish lieutenant who, after seeing the dead bodies of British soldiers, wrote: “Hundreds of British boys were laying on our land, never to open their eyes again. These boys, with clean shaven and endearing faces were curled up in their blood-stained uniforms. Their sight aroused in us both feelings of revenge and compassion.”
Early in August, after months of limited success and continued casualties, the Allied forces employed an offensive strike from Suvla Bay. The strategy was to carry out a northward advance towards Sari Bair ridge while ANZACs, from their location, did the same. Unlike so many of the Allies’ previous plans, this one had potential for success. But it was essentially blundered and the opportunity sorely lost — and with serious repercussions. As the military historian Gary Sheffield notes, “In effect, all they had done was to repeat the problems of Helles and Anzac but on a bigger scale.”
Eventually, though not after many more weeks of costly fighting — and the ire of Winston Churchill, who wanted to see the campaign continued — the Allies gradually evacuated the peninsula. With skillful maneuvers and careful planning, it was carried out successfully in December and January. The operation to evacuate, which could have cost thousands of lives in the process, was done effectively and efficiently. Gary Sheffield remarks about the success of the operation that it was “[i]ronically…the most successful part of the entire Gallipoli Campaign.”
It was a campaign that had cost the Allies some 250,000 casualties, and their opposing forces a similar number. All told, well over 100,000 men had died. The Turks and their allies had repelled a large invasion and defended their homeland in the process. The British and their allies, however, had virtually nothing to show in the way of military achievement. It was a monumental disaster.
There has been so much written about the Gallipoli Campaign: its immediate consequences for both sides, the errors of British politicians and commanders, the role it played in the larger saga of World War I, and a great deal more. Both these documentaries give viewers an excellent introduction to this pivotal battle, and in doing so will likely inspire many viewers to take up further study.
Spectatio 