HistoryExtra
type: channel
link: https://www.historyextra.com
description: Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
date: 2025-03-14T09:18:04.000Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
items: Winston Churchill: is he still the greatest Briton in history?
items: Gallipoli: 5 reasons why the First World War campaign was a failure
items: First World War: beyond the western front
items: The Gallipoli campaign: a defining moment in Australian history
items: The myths of the battle of Gallipoli
items: Gallipoli and famine

Winston Churchill: is he still the greatest Briton in history?
type: item
date: 2025-03-14T09:17:44.000Z
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Second World War
subject: British prime ministers
description: Over two decades ago, a BBC poll named the wartime British prime minister as the Greatest Briton. Now, on the 150th anniversary of Winston Churchill’s birth, David Reynolds ponders whether he deserves to remain as top dog in the pantheon of British history
encoded: In a much-publicised poll in 2002, the BBC asked viewers to rank figures from British history, as part of the television series 100 Greatest Britons. The poll was in no way scientific, but simply reflected votes – more than 1.6 million of them – from people who chose to contact the BBC, following presentations championing famous individuals ranging back in time from the 20th century to William Shakespeare and Elizabeth I. As is well known, Winston Churchill came out a clear first, garnering close to 457,000 votes. Two decades later, as we mark 150 years since he was born, it’s interesting to revisit that moment, and to reflect on how perceptions of Churchill have changed over time – and also on what is meant by historical ‘greatness’. Because Churchill’s craving to make himself ‘great’ lies at the heart of his extraordinary story. In the run-up to the BBC poll, politician Mo Mowlam – Churchill’s advocate – insisted that “he was the greatest Briton because he showed the determination and courage to protect Britain from invasion, and without his inspiring leadership the outcome of World War II may have been very different”. Let’s unpack that claim a bit. Did Churchill really make such a difference in 1940 – and, if so, how? The answer to the first part is surely: yes – most of all through his energy and drive. Although the tempo in Whitehall would have intensified anyway with the end of the ‘Phoney War’ and the German invasion of France, Churchill’s appointment as prime minister had a galvanising effect, dramatically symbolised by his famous red labels stuck on urgent documents: ACTION THIS DAY. Equally important, Churchill took a firm grip on military strategy. Mindful of the confusion and infighting of 1914–18, he appointed himself minister of defence. There was no ministry – that did not come until the 1960s. Churchill simply wanted the authority to deal with the chiefs of staff directly rather than via their politician ministers. He yearned to be a war leader, unl…

GettyImages-102731230-CMYK-9b2d3bd-e1737475112991.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Gallipoli: 5 reasons why the First World War campaign was a failure
type: item
date: 2021-04-09T10:11:56.000Z
subject: First World War
subject: Period
description: But for the achievement of the Australian and New Zealander Army Corps (Anzac) in carving out a small bridgehead at Anzac Cove, the WW1 campaign to seize the Gallipoli peninsula was a disaster, says Peter Hart. Writing for BBC History Magazine, the author of a 2011 book on the disastrous First World War campaign offers his explanations for the Allies' failure in 1915
encoded: What happened at Gallipoli? The Gallipoli campaign was a terrible tragedy. The attempt by the Allies to seize the Gallipoli peninsula from the Ottoman empire and gain control over the strategically-important Dardanelles failed in a welter of hubris, blood and suffering. Located just across the Dardanelles straits from the fabled city of Troy, its classical undertones have helped create a rich mythology of ‘the terrible ifs’; of what might have been achieved with ‘a bit more luck’. The beach landings at Helles – the first made against modern weapons systems – saw incredible heroism and turned the sea at V Beach red with blood. Gallipoli is today synonymous with the achievement of the Australian and New Zealander Army Corps (ANZAC) in carving out a small bridgehead at Anzac Cove. That maze of tangled gullies and ridges is still sacred for Australians. But for all that the campaign was an utter failure. The question is why? Here are five possible reasons... The Gallipoli campaign was poorly conceived The First World War stalled when the huge armies of Germany and France fought themselves to a standstill on the Western Front in 1914. When the Ottoman Turks attacked Russians in the Caucasus mountains in December 1914, Russia went to her allies requesting help. The British were fully committed elsewhere but a group of politicians led by Winston Churchill, then at the Admiralty, sought to help Russia with an attack on the Gallipoli peninsula that aimed to gain control of the Dardanelles straits that separated Asia and Europe. This, it was boasted, would remove one of the allies ‘propping up’ Germany, influence wavering Balkan states and open the sea route to Russian Black Sea ports for the export of munitions to feed Russian guns on the Eastern Front. Read more | 10 WW1 generals you should know about Much of this was nonsense. There was no backdoor to Germany; no easy route to victory, no allies that propped her up. Germany operated on interior lines of communications and …

GettyImages-3369071-fd2ba27.jpg
width: 3528
height: 2617

First World War: beyond the western front
type: item
date: 2019-11-08T16:40:00.000Z
subject: 20th Century
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: The British Empire
description: Modern views of the First World War largely focus on the battles in western Europe. In this feature written for BBC World Histories ahead of the centenary of the conflict's end, David Olusoga shines a light on forgotten clashes in distant lands, and on the extensive contributions of Africans and Asians
encoded: In the early hours of 5 August 1914, the CS [cable ship] Alert arrived at the Varne Bank in the English Channel. Dropping grappling hooks, her British crew dredged up the five underwater telegraph cables umbilically linking Germany with France, Spain, the Azores and, ultimately, the United States. Having hauled up the cables, the men severed them with hatchets, one by one. During the operation the Alert was approached by a flotilla of French destroyers, one of which signalled: “What are you doing?” When the Alert’s captain replied: “Cutting German cables”, the cheers of the French sailors could be heard ringing across the water. This was the first British offensive against Germany and her allies, undertaken just hours after Britain had declared war at 11pm on 4 August. Neither the army nor the navy were involved. Instead, the task was tackled by a rather less glamorous branch of the ‘services’: the Alert was owned and operated by the British General Post Office. That this almost mundane action was the first of the war might seem surprising. But it’s only one of many aspects of the conflict that have faded into the margins of general consciousness – not least the truly global scope of the war. Seven days after the Alert’s endeavour, on 12 August, the first land engagement of the First World War took place, and the first shot was fired by a member of the British forces – but not in Europe. On the same day that forts surrounding the Belgian city of Liège were bombarded by the German 420mm super-heavy howitzer nicknamed ‘Big Bertha’, Regimental Sergeant Major Alhaji Grunshi – a Muslim African who served in the British West African Frontier Force – levelled his rifle and fired at the enemy. Far from the battlefields of Europe, Grunshi was part of the force then invading the German colony of Togoland (roughly speaking, modern Togo). It was not until ten days later, on 22 August 1914, that Edward Thomas of the 4th Irish Dragoon Guards became the first British-born soldier …

GettyImages-3170981 cmyk-a2fa96b.jpg
width: 1967
height: 1447

The Gallipoli campaign: a defining moment in Australian history
type: item
date: 2019-04-25T04:15:36.000Z
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: On 25 April 1915, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) landed at Gallipoli in Turkey during the First World War. Here, Australian writer Peter FitzSimons talks to Rob Attar about the experiences of his compatriots in the ensuing battle and explains why it has become such a defining moment in the country's history, commemorated each year on Anzac Day...
encoded: Q: Why does the battle of Gallipoli seem to have so much more importance for Australians than for people in Britain? A: In 1901 all the colonies of Australia came together to become a country but there was a view at the time that you weren’t a serious nation until you had shed blood – both your own and that of your enemies. Our great revered poet, Banjo Paterson, wrote a poem when the news came through of the Gallipoli landings: “…We’re not State children any more/We’re all Australians now…!/The mettle that a race can show/Is proved with shot and steel,/And now we know what nations know/And feel what nations feel…” There in that poem you have got the exultation that took place in Australia; our diggers (slang for Antipodean soldiers) had fought for the British empire and they had done well. There is a pretty strong argument – which I have come to believe in – that while Australians went to that war as loyal sons of Great Britain, they came back as Australians. The myths of the battle of Gallipoli Who was involved in the First World War? Who was on each side? First World War: beyond the western front Q: Why do you think that so many Australians volunteered to fight in the war in Europe? A: The romantic reason was to fight for Britain – and that was certainly true of many of them. Andrew Fisher, who became Australian prime minister (for a third time) soon after the war began, proclaimed to great acclaim: We will fight for Great Britain to the “last man and the last shilling”. There were lots of patriots who left accounts saying that the mother country had called on her lion cubs to come to her aid and that’s what they were doing. Others joined for adventure and still others joined – and this was not an insignificant reason – for “six shillings a day, mate”. It wasn’t bad pay. The British soldier was getting paid just one shilling a day. In my book I tell the story of the Australians who went absolutely crazy in the red light district of Cairo. Our soldiers were very w…

H18521-2- kindle-5c3e69f-e1556206459461.jpg
width: 510
height: 274

The myths of the battle of Gallipoli
type: item
date: 2018-04-25T07:30:24.000Z
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: A century after the disastrous campaign in the Dardanelles, Gary Sheffield challenges some commonly held assumptions about this failed attempt to change the course of the First World War...
encoded: In a decidedly unglamorous war, Gallipoli provides a splash of colour. It was a dramatic strategic stroke, originating in the imagination of Winston Churchill, which sent soldiers and sailors far from the drab trenches of Flanders to a romantic country – familiar, from the pages of Homer, to the classically educated officers who served there. Conceived at a time when Britain’s leaders grappled with the unpalatable reality of deadlock on the western front, the Dardanelles campaign utilised Britain’s major asset, seapower. A British-French fleet would force its way through the Dardanelles, the narrow straits that separate the Gallipoli peninsula in Europe from Asia, and reach Constantinople, capital of Germany’s ally Ottoman Turkey. With Turkey out of the war, this would aid Russia and allow a large army provided by Balkan states such as Romania and Greece to be unleashed in the Balkans. This would tilt the odds decisively in the favour of the Allies. The reality was to be very different. Throwing away strategic surprise by bombarding Turkish coastal defences in February 1915, the fleet suffered heavy losses from mines and shore batteries when on 18 March it attempted to force the straits. The campaign moved into a new phase on 25 April when the British 29th Division landed on the tip of the Gallipoli peninsula, at Cape Helles; the untried Australian and New Zealand Corps (ANZAC) landed at what became known as Anzac Cove; and a French force landed, as a diversion, on the Asiatic shore. While the French re-embarked, according to plan, the men of 29th Division were pinned down at the water’s edge on the two main landing beaches. By the end of the day, the 29th had established a precarious toehold, but at the cost of terrible casualties. At Anzac Cove, the Australasians pushed inland only to be counterattacked by the Turks and pushed back almost to the beach – again, losses were heavy. Just like on the western front, trench warfare ensued. Conditions were even more primi…

GettyImages-56284333-0d61011.jpg
width: 4881
height: 3555

Gallipoli and famine
type: item
date: 2015-04-16T12:55:25.000Z
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: Peter FitzSimons discusses the disastrous World War One campaign from an Australian perspective, while Cormac Ó Gráda talks about the history of hunger.
encoded: On the centenary of the Battle of Gallipoli, Australian writer Peter FitzSimons describes the disastrous Allied campaign of 1915. Meanwhile, historian Cormac Ó Gráda, author of Eating People Is Wrong, explains how famines occasionally resulted in cannibalism.

podcast-logo-2013-250x175 75-9ddab6a.jpeg
width: 250
height: 175