What detracts from a DEAD politician's greatness?

[JMadonna]

(01-24-2018 03:57 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  The above 3 posts seem to me to be linked in the way that Churchill's greatness has suffered in the UK (and also in Australia and NZ) over Gallipoli. To remind you, this was an attempt in 1915 to shorten WW1 by invading Turkey.
It was a disaster mainly due to poor planning (though that covers a host of issues). It was fundamentally Churchill's idea and the outcome was 160,000 casualties for the Allies , and about the same for the Turks, before the Allies withdrew.
The point for me is that Churchill made a strategic decision that was soundly based (I believe) but in the build up and over the months it was altered and poorly actioned by senior command. He resigned and the Gallipoli 'disaster' has forever since been placed as his responsibility.

Success has many fathers, failure has but one.

Gallipoli was a political decision that was approved because of the failure of the European campaign. Despite British Intelligence warnings of a pending disaster it was sent.

The basic plan was for the Navy to land at Istanbul and the Turks would be overawed and surrender. The British used this tactic many times during the Victorian era and it worked against an unprepared or backwards enemy.

But when the Turks didn't surrender the officers were forced to improvise and the disaster unfolded. Churchill became the designated scapegoat.