This is referring the WWI battle GALLIPOLI if that wasn't clear.
Watching the movie Darkest Hour, and Winston Churchill is blamed for the Gallipoli disaster, to which he responds "Our troops were chewing barb wire in Flanders and I saw it. Opening a seperate front, outflanking the Turks was a serious military idea that could have damn well worked if the Admirals of the First Sea Lord didn't dither away our element of surprise!" Is that an accurate assessment? Debatable?
Also if someone could clarify Churchill involvement and culpability in Gallipoli because he mentions that no one trusts him since that campaign. Has he been redeemed at all while looking at it from what we know today?
Gallipoli has been written about quite a bit here. You might want to start with this answer from Margaret Harris in an AMA, and glance at this part of our FAQ.
Follow-up question I didn't see in the old answer:
Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon paints Churchill as viewing the older Navy ships expendable due to advances like Dreadnought (HMS and class) ships but the Admirals and Captains viewing the older ships as still valuable and not worth losing. Leading to Churchill wanting to "spend" the older ships for a fast strike and Admirals/Captains being more slow and cautious with the older ships.
Is that characterization accurate at all?