I have just read The Last Lion: Visions of Glory, by William Manchester. In Part Four Cataract, the Galippoli Campaign (more specifically the forcing of the Dardanelles) was presented as brainchild of Churchill. From my reading, the plan was to force the Straits with older ships (so as not to take away from the British naval forces around England), and was first introduced as a low risk gamble with Winston first claiming it could be done with no supporting ground troops. At the time, millions of men were dying on the western front, which had developed into a stalemate. The Galippoli Campaign would also develop into a stalemate, but how much of this was due to Churchill's actions?

Manchester laid out reasons for the "Forcing the straits" plan's failure, ranging from a Judas Sea Lord in John Fisher, land troops withheld without reason by Kitchener, shoddy leadership in first Sackville Carden, followed by John de Robeck (who feared removal and halted engagements instead of pushing through the strait), and the Russians insisting that they would take Constantinople (Istanbul) instead of the Greeks.

The success of the Galipolli Campaign may have saved millions of lives, ended The Great War years earlier, and changed the course of history. The failure was largely blamed on Churchill, leading to his loss of the position the First Lord of the Admiralty and subsequent political exile. Was this exile deserved? Was Churchill the main component of Galipolli's failure? In short, did he deserve the blame and reputation that followed him the remainder of his political career, and has endured since his death on the 24 January, 1965?