Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Rental cars,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Travel deals
Travel Guides:
New York City,
San Francisco,
Las Vegas,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Venice,
Beijing,
Dubai,
Rio de Janeiro,
Bangkok,
Costa Rica
Travel Ideas:
Adventure,
Asia Travel,
Beaches,
Cruises,
Europe Travel,
Foodie Travel,
Healthy Travel,
Holiday Travel,
International Destinations,
National Parks,
Skiing,
Travel Blogs,
Travel Tips,
Travel Photography,
US Destinations,
Weekend Getaways
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-25-2010 @ 10:38AM
WMMorgan said...
"Churchill decided it was of crucial strategic importance". The decision was a correct one, as this article seems to dismiss out of hand. The Allies were stymied by bad field leadership and preparation, extraordinarily hostile terrain and unusually good Turkish commanders.
Gallipolli may have been the most important battle of the 20th century: Success would have knocked the Turks out of the war and let the Allies reinforce Russia on the eastern front through the Black Sea. Russia stays in the fight. They share in the victory. Lenin and the Bolsheviks never come to power. Hitler remains an obscurity, robbed of his canard of Jewish perfidy. WWII, Stalin, the Cold War and all those other horrors then slip into the alternate-universe dustbin.
Reply
6-25-2010 @ 10:41AM
Sean McLachlan said...
Not sure why you think I dismiss Churchill's decision, considering that I discuss Gallipoli's strategic importance in the sentence before the one you quote.