Nelson's history of the war. Vol. XI., The struggle for the Dvina, and the great invasion of Serbia

38 HISTORY OF THE WAR.

in the position of the end of March, but faced with the results of failure and a far more intricate military problem. The time has not yet come for a final judgment on the adventure, but our knowledge is sufficient to see the main reasons for our lack of success. The original idea of landing on the peninsula was, as we have argued elsewhere, open to serious criticism. It proposed to gain ends clearly desirable by means which at the best must be costly and slow. But, admitting that the plan was feasible, the troops allotted to it were manifestly insufficient. It is almost certain that Krithia would have been won if sufficient men had been forthcoming by the end of April. But as time went on the Turkish defence developed. Soon Krithia did not involve Achi Baba, nor Achi Baba the Pasha Dagh. What had been the key-points of the citadel soon became no more than outworks. It may be questioned whether even a complete success at Suvla and Anzac in August would have really given us what we desired. The failure there was not to be blamed upon the general strategy; it was a disaster which must occur now and then to a nation which has to improvise armies, and has no great area of choice among its commanders. But the root of error was in the original plan, and the blame for it must be laid upon the Government which, without due consideration, embarked upon so hazardous an enterprise, and allotted for it such an inadequate fighting strength. Nor can Sir Ian Hamilton be relieved of responsibility for consenting to carry out a plan, of the imperfection of which any trained soldier must have been convinced. It is the business of a general to resign rather than be a party to the waste of gallant men. On this point