Battle of Gallipoli and its effects to World War I Research Paper

Battle of Gallipoli and its effects to World War I - Research Paper Example A breakdown of  the  Gallipoli  Peninsula that was carried out, identified five land systems, based on aspects  of  geology, geomorphology, hydrogeology and vegetation were identified in studying this battle and these have prompted many questions concerning the reasons why the allies were defeated. The landings  that were made in April 1915 were created at Cape Helles and Anzac Cove, and the objective of these landings was to seizure the upper ground held by the Ottoman Empire. The land system investigation that were conducted by historical scholars have come to show that these landing areas were deprived by landscape, with steep, intensely carved slopes, thin beaches and insufficient water deliveries. A afterwards landing at Suvla Bay in August 1915 consumed additional terrain benefits, with wide landing beaches and the water supply was readily available, but the strategic advantages  of  a lightly held terrain were not exploited (Doyle and Bennett, 1999). In general , the  Gallipoli  Campaign was a failure mainly because  of  insufficient preparation and leadership by the allied forces that were involved in it. In addition, the poor communications, the efficiency  of  the Turkish armies in the siting  of  defensive positions according to terrain and the lack  of  detailed information with regard to terrain and geology available to the allied troops involved in the war ensured their abysmal failure in this battle. Despite the fact that it was a tactical failure, the landing made by the allies on Gallipoli can be considered to be one of the most significant amphibious operations in the twentieth century. Enormous in extent that lasted for over ten months, this operation was ambitious in concept and was characterized by fierce fighting from the shoreline into the peninsula's steep, broken ridgelines. The  Gallipoli  invasion provided plenty of  experience on amphibious operations and it not only influenced how this type o f warfare was conducted during the First World War, but it also worked towards the shaping of  the amphibious warfare doctrine and practices in the world war that followed (Lee, 2002). The most powerful naval forces during the First World War, namely the United States, Imperial Japan, and Great Britain, all came to use the lessons  learned from this battle  to produce the primary concepts for their future amphibious maneuvers. This operation came to exhibit the magnitude of the strategic prospective  of  a naval-ground assaulting force. The idea for this operation was conceived by the British admiralty and it became one of the cornerstones for the Dardanelles campaign. It was an effort by the allies to capture Istanbul, in order to force Turkey out  of  the Triple Alliance, so that a route could be opened to send reinforcements to czarist Russia (Millett, 2000). After this battle, the failures that resulted from it came to be considered to be a black mark on the record s  of  both the future British prime minister, Winston Churchill, and the British armed organization. This resulted in accusations of  imperial mismanagement, incompetent leadership, and political maneuvering that have come to cloud the historiography on this subject since the end  of  the First World War. Because of the huge controversy surrounding this battle, a number  of  myths have come to be developed concerning it, and there were assertions that it