Essay On Gallipoli

Another source which supports the interpretation that British generals were incompetent is source B1. John Laffin worked as a tour guide in Australia. His parents both served witht he Australians in Gallipoli and France as nursing cops. Even though he didn’t have a history degree, he was a military historian who earned his living taking people on battlefield tours. He researched the war from the soldier’s viewpoint and wrote a successful history book titled “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One” – a very emotive polemic title - which released to the public in 2003. The book aims to expose the guilt of ‘uncaring and stupid’ generals. The passage from the book says that Haig and other stupid generals must be blamed for ‘wilful blunders and wicked butchery’ and that there can never be forgiveness for their ‘sheer incompetence’. This source lacks reliability as it has been written in confidence with other sources he has researched online. Laffin only presents one side of the argument and doesn’t discuss the situation in Verdun. The passage of the book was written in 2003 – 80 years later from World War 1. However, his job as a tour guide in battlefields gives him an advantage over other historians. This source is supported by other historians (B8 an B1) and soldiers (B2). This interpretation is contradicted by sources like (B14).

also rough seas a lot of the time and it was difficult to wait for the

The book Black Hearts by Jim Frederick is an in-depth narrative about the 1st platoon, Bravo Company 1-502nd Infantry 101st Airborne Division deployed to Iraq in 2005. The leadership failures documented in this book range all the way from the general officer level down to the lowest private. LT general Ricardo Sanchez failed to understand the climate his command group was entering as they were deployed into Iraq. From then on the entire leadership failures continued to compound upon each other with improper time to plan. It is customary to have a six month lead time to have a proper battle hand off when preparing to take over an AO from another unit. To compound this problem, the entire time the 502nd was in pre-deployment training, they

The book Black Hearts opened my eyes to how leadership from a single Officer can have a grappling effect on such a wide range of soldiers from the lowest of ranks. One of the best takeaways from Black Hearts is to never do anything: illegal, unethical, or immoral. Although this is a easy statement to repeat, Black Hearts demonstrates the difficulties that lie behind these words. It has also painted a picture of how leadership can topple extremely quickly from a top down view. The Army is portrayed in a bad light throughout the book relentlessly. This is due to the concentration of poor leadership of the 1-502nd Regiment (Referred to as “First Strike”), a battalion of the 101st Airborne Division.

     World War I was the result of leaders' aggression towards other countries which was supported by the rising nationalism of the European nations. Economic and imperial competition and fear of war prompted military alliances and an arms race, which further escalated the tension contributing to the outbreak of war. One cause of the World War was militarism, which is a policy in which military preparedness is of primary significance to a situation. Another cause of the World War was nationalism. Nationalism is the pride and devotion form one towards his/her country. It played a great part in the causes of World War 1 because citizens wanted to stand up for their country, and fight for them. The third

The Battle of Gallipoli, also referred to as The Gallipoli Campaign of 1915-16 or the Dardanelles Campaign, was a decisive battle in World War One during which Allied Powers attempted to take control over the sea route between Europe and Russia. Overall, the battle is largely considered a failure. There were many forces that acted against the Allies during the campaign, main causes of the loss were the repelling of the initial naval attack, the failure of the invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula by the British, French, and ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), and the high level of resistance from the Turks, and an extreme lack in planning

Balancing the role of the Professional Leader has been an ongoing issue for the Army since the latter decades of the 19th century when the U.S. Army was professionalized. The Army has struggled with the matter of balancing a force as massive as the Army. When out of balance the Army does not have the capability to send Soldiers where they are needed. During the Second War in Iraq it was obvious that the Army was not upholding this balance, junior leaders in the Army were fighting against a counterinsurgency campaign that they were ill prepared to handle due to a lack of necessary experience and equipment.

The conditions in Gallipoli were very hard varing from becoming liking to get a disease,The constant noise,bad food,daily death or fallen brothers and lack of rest.

Robert E. Lee once said of leadership, “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself” (Jones, 1875). This is an instance where I believe that even though this idea or thought was mentioned many years ago, it still has relevance today. I do not have an exact date of that quote, but with General Lee fighting in the Civil War, I would imagine it came somewhere in the mid-1800’s (The book it is found in was published after his death). Our current military leaders need to listen to advice like this quote, get out and know the people they put in charge so they are better able to make decisions on who should and should not actually be leading.

Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (ADP, 1).

The battle of Mons was one of the first interactions between the British and German forces in World War I. This battle ended with a clear, although heavily battered victory for the German First Army. Although the British fought valiantly and with fewer casualties than those of their German antagonist; the outcome of this battle could have been altered. Through the use of proper intelligence preparation of the battle field, and human intelligence, the outcome could have been a British victory. Over the remainder of this paper, I will explain how the battle was fought and lost, how the improper planning of the Allied forces directly caused the loss in this battle and how proper implementation of scouts as human intelligence could have given enough warning to change the outcome even with the poor planning.

In today’s digital age, development of new technology and weapons are at an alarming rate, hence arises the need to stay ahead of advancements in order to properly defend the nation, as well as coalition forces and allies. In this period of warfare, the number one threat comes in the form of air breathing and ballistic missiles. During World War II, this threat was present, but was not thought to be prevalent.

From a fiercely brave General, who strictly enforces customs, bravery, formalities, and success; to a General with a lighthearted-mood, down to earth attitude, a steadfast courage, and a integrity and decency to lead the nations of the world into battle; while both these legendary Generals fought on the same side, both General S. Patton and General D. Eisenhower were distinctly different Generals. This paper seeks to outline the differences and similarities between the two Generals by taking a close look at their lives, and the impacts they had on WWII.

The Battle of Britain in 1940 In the summer of 1940, the German Luftwaffe attempted to win air superiority over southern Britain and the English Channel by destroying the Royal Air Force and the British aircraft industry. This attempt came to be known as the Battle of Britain, and victory over the RAF was seen by the Germans as absolutely essential if they were eventually to mount an invasion of the British Isles. The Germans had overrun Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France in May 1940, using the Blitzkrieg ('Lightning War') technique that relied, among other things, on close coordination between ground troops and the air force.

The leadership on the battlefield has been a bit suspect entering the Gallipoli campaign. Several tragic losses gave the commanders little confidence. But it was also the military decisions that were put in place and the infighting within the higher command that gave the Ottomans some issues. An incident happened after the Gallipoli campaign. The second army who served in the campaign was split and a few of the men traveled to the Caucasus front to aid against the Russians . The third army commander in the region Vehib Pasha was not very fond of this the new second army commander. Vehib did not want to serve under the second army commander Ahmed Izzet Pasha and Ahmed refused to do the same . The tension between the two did not help the war effort on the eastern Anatolian front. Ahmed and his men struggled with their offensive while Vehib sat idle as they did not help . The lack of unity between the two proved to be costly and the Russians took advantage. The resistance of the Ottomans became easier to defend at this point. The feud between the two armies came at a huge cost for the Ottomans. Many from the second army where the most experienced and from the Gallipoli campaign. Many as 30,000 of their best troops died which showed a crippling loss to the Ottomans . This fight between Ahmed and Izzed and Vehib showed a poor example of leadership. Though one also give blame