I couldn't agree more Larry. De Robeck 'turned tail' when he lost those 3 destroyers. Roger Keyes was unfortunately junior enough to be overridden by others, but was the man who would've pushed on to win through. His testimony afterwards was very clear about the squandered opportunity. However De Robeck recovered his courage later on - only to be overridden from higher up.
The whole campaign was cursed by doubtful, hesitating commanders on the spot, a treacherous First Sea Lord (Fisher), a vacillating Minister for War (Kitchener), obstructive military top-brass (Munro especially) and desperately weak political leaders (Asquith). A great opportunity was missed, in my opinion, to shorten the war and save thousands of lives. Roger Keyes' words , "my God, it would have been so easy!" when he visited it again after the war probably summed it up best. An utterly tragic missed opportunity. Lincoln On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 6:08 AM, Homeporter <homepor...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just reread The World Crisis Vol II that really gives a detailed "who > shot John" account of the campaign. I imagine Churchill would have agreed > with me when I assert if instead of John de Robeck being in command that > David Farragut or Roger Keyes were in charge, there may have been a > different outcome. De Robeck might be referred to a sobriquet later applied > to President Eisenhower's chief of staff, Sherman Adams, the "abominable > no-man." > > Cheers, Larry > la...@yourfinesthour.com > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:48:01 PM UTC-6, Grimsdyke wrote: > > In general, bone fide Churchill scholars have been fairly consistent in > the way they handle his record, and what comes down to us is the image of a > fiercely pugnacious, infinitely creative man of genius, with an > incandescently brilliant mind who made both mistakes and their decided > opposite, but whose motives throughout were gallant, noble, magnanimous > ……and a host of other adjectives, none of which have any truck with > mean-spiritedness, littleness, or spite or malevolence, or any of those > characteristics that belong to lesser men. However, I have been puzzled > beyond words by the treatment of certain parts of his record at the hands > of some who had always seemed to be among the most discerning of ‘Churchill > Scholars’. > > > > A few years ago the BBC put out a 4-episode programme on Churchill which > was written and presented by Martin Gilbert: it is available on YouTube at > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQg_ehSu6A > > > > From 21:39 to 24:39 on the first episode, he deals with Winston > Churchill's involvement with the Dardanelles campaign. These 3 minutes > seemed to me, as I’m sure they would seem to anybody with a sound reading > of the intricacies of that episode in World War I, a travesty consisting of > half-truths and deliberate omissions of crucial facts to achieve a result > that places the blame unfairly and almost slanderously on Churchill. > > > > We all know, of course, that serious researchers from Alan Moorhead to > Basil Liddell Hart and numerous other biographers have found that Churchill > had little to do with the failures of the campaign, and in fact had been > made the scapegoat of a debacle that owed everything to the blunders and > mismanagement of others (Kitchener and Fisher particularly, and of course > Asquith at a political level) and little, if at all, to any actual mistakes > on Churchill's part. In fact the origin of the idea wasn't actually his: it > was Hankey's first, and then enthusiastically taken up by a host of others > – including Fisher, Gray, Asquith, and even Kitchener, and later Lloyd > George with some initial misgivings. Subsequently, Churchill was exonerated > by the Dardanelles Commission, although that Commission was, “struck by the > atmosphere of vagueness and want of precision which seems to have > characterised the proceedings of the War Council”. > > > > Thus, Alan Moorehead: “*in 1925, when Roger Keyes was in command of the > Mediterranean fleet, he’s steamed through the Dardanelles and, according to > Aspinall, who was with him, he could hardly speak for emotion. ‘My God’, he > said at last, ‘it would have been even easier than I thought; we simply > couldn’t have failed…… And because we didn’t try, another million lives > were thrown away and the war went on for another 3 years.*’ > > > > Thus, Clement Attlee: “*in the whole of the First World War, there was > only one great strategic idea, and that was Winston’s*”. Attlee had been > a soldier at Gallipoli. > > > > Thus, Alastair Cook (from Keynote Speech, Churchill Society International > Conference, New Hampshire, 27 August 1988): “*Kitchener had seemed an > Eisenhower-Montgomery-Nimitz, all rolled into one. He wasn’t, but we > thought he was. We didn’t know then that his power was declining > drastically, or that he was more than anyone morally responsible for the > failure of the Dardanelles: he would not support the original expedition – > would not produce the manpower or the materiel. But as you may have > noticed, the deaths of a famous leader, especially by assassination, > confers a halo. Kitchener was drowned and he got the halo. Churchill got > the blame*.” > > > > However, all this (and countless other testimonials to the mistakes and > blunders made by other men, but not Churchill, and the difficulties ‘on the > ground’ caused by the fatal delays during that campaign) is seemingly > completely ignored by the writer and presenter, Martin Gilbert. The icing > on the cake is Gilbert’s inclusion of statements by AJ Silvester (principal > private secretary to Lloyd George....... as if he would be impartial!) > and Jimmy Page (British Army, Dardanelles 1915) and we hear them speak > words that have virtually no other purpose than to drive home the message > that it was Churchill’s vaulting ambition that made him not only careless > of lives, but completely bullheaded and arrogant, and that he bore > unmistakably the responsibility for the whole failure. > > > > As I say above, this is scarcely believable from such a man as Sir Martin > (Winston may well intone from the grave, “et tu Brute?”) — which makes me > ask myself if this is in fact the result of some ‘creative editing’ by the > BBC – who, with their traditional hostility to Churchill (which seems to > have begun with John Reith), may well have omitted several minutes of > counterbalancing argument and statement that might have been included in > the original footing by Sir Martin. I’d be grateful if anybody on this > forum can throw some light on this. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/churchillchat/OWrZQ-2eW70/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Lincoln Jansz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
