The Last Months of the Gallipoli

Campaign Fighting in the Anzac–Suvla perimeter continued throughout the rest of August, and the New Zealand and Australian Division suffered significant casualties in a series of attacks on features of doubtful tactical importance, especially at Hill 60. In mid September the weary New Zealanders were withdrawn to Lemnos for rest and reorganisation. By the time they returned to Anzac in November, the future of the campaign had been determined.

Evacuation

In London Hamilton's demands for more men in the aftermath of the failure of the August offensive had brought into question the utility of persisting at Gallipoli, especially in light of needs both on the Western Front and at Salonika. General Sir Charles Monro, who replaced Hamilton on 15 October, soon proposed evacuation. Kitchener visited Gallipoli in November, and endorsed Monro's recommendation. After a storm ravaged the peninsula in late November and caused many deaths among the exposed troops on both sides, the authorities in London reluctantly agreed to evacuate Suvla and Anzac.

In a well-planned operation which contrasted sharply with those mounted earlier in the campaign, the withdrawal was carried out successfully on 19 and 20 December. It was soon decided to evacuate Helles as well. This was completed on the night of 8/9 January, again almost without casualties.

Conclusion: A Costly Failure

The Gallipoli campaign was a costly failure. While it is possible to point to moments when tactical developments offered the promise of success, the outcome was determined by strategic factors. Essentially there were not enough men available at the crucial moments.

Hamilton launched the campaign with five divisions against a roughly comparable Turkish force which enjoyed the advantage of operating on interior lines. The rough parity was sustained as the campaign progressed with the thirteen Allied divisions eventually facing fourteen Turkish divisions. The half-hearted approach in London, until July 1915, ensured that the Allied build-up was always too little too late. Inadequate leadership played a part in the Allied failure, and many men were sacrificed in futile attacks on strong positions, especially at Helles.

Little Impact on the War

The campaign had no significant effect on the outcome of the war. This could only be resolved where the main enemies confronted each other-on the Western Front-and the prospect of a Balkan coalition forming to lead a mighty offensive from the south-east was illusory, if only because of the pitiful state of the Balkan armies. Moreover, there was no certainty that the Turks would necessarily have capitulated had their capital come under threat from Allied naval forces. In pursuit of this chimera, 120,000 British and 27,000 French troops became casualties.

ANZAC Casualties

Of the 7500 New Zealand casualties, there were 2721 dead-one in four of those who landed. Australia's 26,000 casualties included 8000 fatalities. Nevertheless, the fighting at Gallipoli was always less murderous than on the Western Front, where most of the Australians and New Zealanders would shortly head.

The Legacy of Gallipoli

The campaign holds a special place in both Turkey and Australia and New Zealand. For the Turks, whose casualties probably numbered as many as 250,000, including 87,000 dead, it was the beginning of a process of national revival. The Turkish hero of Gallipoli, Kemal, would eventually, as Kemal Atatürk, become the founding President of the Turkish Republic.

In the South Pacific the campaign helped bolster a sense of national identity, albeit within a British framework, in both countries. At the time of the landing, New Zealanders at home had thrilled to learn that their men were taking part in the top league-a sense of exhilaration that was soon tempered by the arrival of long casualty lists. There was pride that 1NZEF had performed well in difficult conditions. The institution of Anzac Day, the day of the landing, ensured that the campaign would retain a special significance in both antipodean societies.

The joint defence of the Anzac perimeter provided a strong sentimental underpinning to the relationship between Australia and New Zealand in the remainder of the century. 'Anzac' became the lasting label for trans-Tasman cooperation.