Churchill and the Dardenelles disaster:   I don't claim to be an authority, but I've read that the disaster need never have occurred if Churchill had had his way and the Straits had been forced. Once Constantinople had been taken--and there was already panic in the city--Gallipoli could not have been fortified by the Turks.

Kitchener told Ian Hamilton "If the Fleet gets through, Constantinople will fall of itself and you will have won, not a battle, but the war."

The reason it didn't happen was that after losing a ship to mines and 3 others crippled on 18 March 1915, First Sea Lord Fisher and Admiral Jackson insisted on clearing the Gallipoli peninsula of enemy artillery before proceeding.


Also, regarding Gallipoli, Churchill had wanted to send out the 29th Division and the Australians and New Zealanders in February. This was vetoed by Kitchener. The landing by Hamilton didn't happen til April--after the Turks had that time to prepare.





A Turkish colonel had supervised laying a string of 20 mines parallel to the Asian bank of the Dardanelles. British minesweepers had missed them--but even so the Allied warships still had an 8,000 yard wide channel to maneuver in--though they of course did not know this. DeRobeck's ships were hit since they sailed too close to shore.

Even after this, Fisher first said he would continue the naval campaign through the Narrows--but then changed his mind. He feared more mines and did not know the Turkish forts were virtually out of shells.

So, after a crucial delay, the disastrous Gallipoli campaign started--but it may well have been totally unnecessary--the ships could have continued on to Constantinople, whose 2 arsenals could be destroyed from the water.




Anybody have anything to deny or confirm this?