<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Well Rounded Review
Review: Alan Moorehead's Gallipoli was the book that lead to the famous Australian movie. The book deals really well with all aspects of the campaign, from the British/ANZAC/French point of view to the Turkish/German viewpoint. It is an entertaining read and despite this really brings home some of the unique horror and heroism of this battle both on the peninsula and at sea. There were some omissions but that is not surprising considering the scope of the book. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in not only the battle but in the Great War as well.
Rating: 
Summary: Gallipoli - the battle from the front line
Review: Alan Moorehead's Gallipoli was the book that lead to the famous Australian movie. The book deals really well with all aspects of the campaign, from the British/ANZAC/French point of view to the Turkish/German viewpoint. It is an entertaining read and despite this really brings home some of the unique horror and heroism of this battle both on the peninsula and at sea. There were some omissions but that is not surprising considering the scope of the book. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in not only the battle but in the Great War as well.
Rating:
Summary: The Classic on Gallipoli
Review: Anything Moorehead wrote was golden, but this is arguably one of his best books. This has been reissued numerous times and it remains a classic. It is particularly good in its description of of the initial naval campaign and the general strategic overview. Although Gallipoli has rightly served as the emblematic battle where it is popularly thought that ANZACS were unduly sacrificed by the British in attempts at vainglory, Moorehead would be the first to acknowledge that there is no evidence that Australians were selected for slaughter over any other troops. The British (and most World War I strategist from all nations) were equal opportunity killers. In reality there were many more British troops committed, and killed, than ANZAC troops, and French losses were also considerable. Moreover the strategic aims were laudable. They were very nearly achieved. The bungling was not in the design, but in the fact that it was allowed to continue long after the jig was up, the British contained on the Penninsula, without a faint hope of forcing the straits with naval power. Moorehead, although an Australian, never bashes the British at all in this book. His exposition of Sir Ian Hamilton is also very incisive and offers a real glimpse into the mind of this man (a commander who felt for his troops, more than most in WWI) The fact that he was sacked, never to wield command in the field, is also testament to the fact that mistakes were made. Churchill's role is less clear. His initial idea was brilliant. He also did not want to commit land troops, thinking it too costly. He believed that the Royal Navy and her allies could force the straits and be shelling Constantinople within days.... And they very nearly did it. Unfortunately as Moorehead recounts, the political pressure of losing large, expensive battleships to mines was a price the British Cabinet would not allow Churchill to indulge and the pressure for a land based campaign therefore rose. It is really a pity because Churchill wanted one more chance to force the straits from the sea. There is every indication that he would have been successful and the costly land war averted. Plus ca change for Churchill.
Rating:
Summary: History made vivid and exciting
Review: I first read this text at age 19 in 1960 and was most impressed with its narrative skill and ability to bring to life the historical characters involved. I have since reread it and remain satisfied with Mr Moorehead's ability to make the events vivid and touching. I was especially impressed with his re-enactment of the actual landing, the incredible amount of equipment the youngsters had to carry, the reason the ships remained so distant from shore (afraid of touching bottom)the sense of distance those in charge had from the events they were supposed to be controlling, and the tragic sadness of it all. I was also impressed with the amazing courage he described the Turks as having so that the reader is not given the impression that the allies were just "better chaps" than the "Turkish infidel". Now at the close of the fifties in racist Australia at the time of communist and Asian indeed foreign paranoia this was refreshing and somewhat liberal to a young mind. One of the best and most enjoyable reads on World War One.
Rating:
Summary: London's military planners should have been shot!
Review: It was hearing John McDermott's heartbreaking rendition of Eric Bogle's "And the Band Played waltzing Matilda, the ballad of an Aussie soldier who fights and is maimed at Gallipoli, that inspired me to buy this book about the World War I campaign, one of the British Empire's greatest fiascoes. It is certainly clear that the military planners in London should have been court-martialed and shot. This work by Moorehead is eminently readable, and with sufficient maps to follow the action - oftimes something lacking in what are otherwise commendable battlefield histories. I would tend to agree with other reviewers that the story is told too much from the Empire's point of view. However, though the Turks won the battle, they lost the wider war with their German allies. So, since a war's victors usually tell the tale, what's so surprising? If one requires the Turkish or German perspective, feel free to visit a bookshop in Istanbul, or maybe Amazon.de.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Book from British point of view...
Review: This is actually the best book you can find on the epic battles fought on Gallipoli. Simply beacuse the Turkish sources fail to make accurate research on the subject as well as failing to display any images or memoirs... Not only you take a full grasp of the events in strategic and historical aspects but also has easy-to-read novelistic narrative. Nonetheless, it is written from the British point of view. You can see the British prejudices regarding Tukrs and the rest. The book fails to give you information on Turkish sufferings as well as Turkish army and its position on World War I. In contrast, the author seems to undermine it. There is no mention of the following facts 1. Turks have their most sorrowful folk songs on Gallipoli. Even today, everybody in Turkey knows "Canakkale Turkusu". 2. Turks gave British Army two more defeats in Mezopotamia and were only defeated with vastly superior forces added to Arab treason(= which is another sad part of Turkish history) 3. The British defeat at Gallipoli is the single reason we Turks still live in Istanbul. 4. The author is unknowingly insulting to Turks which is unacceptable. Many Turks refer to Churchill much worse that "Gypsy face". He may have won the war for Britain but this does not make him a hero for humanity except Britain and allies.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read
Review: Truly this book is a must read for all historians and histroy readers alike. The book captures a good balance between the purely military related technical details and the everyday life in trenches. It also succesfully portrays the interraction between the oposing sides that went far from merely dislike as enemies. A very good book on an immensely interesting topic. AM takes you to a tour on the battlefield and introduces you to main roleplayers. A purely non-fiction book written as if a fiction story. Very interesting indeed.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read
Review: Truly this book is a must read for all historians and histroy readers alike. The book captures a good balance between the purely military related technical details and the everyday life in trenches. It also succesfully portrays the interraction between the oposing sides that went far from merely dislike as enemies. A very good book on an immensely interesting topic. AM takes you to a tour on the battlefield and introduces you to main roleplayers. A purely non-fiction book written as if a fiction story. Very interesting indeed.
<< 1 >>
| 
