Focus Question 1 :

What was the purpose of the

Gallipoli Campaign?

Item One : Copy of a letter from Churchill to Lord Kitchener Secretary

for War, dated 18 February 1915 (Primary)

February 18, 1915

“My dear Kitchener

If our operations at the Dardanelles prosper, immense advantages may be offered wh[ich]
cannot be gathered without military aid. The opportunity may come in 3 weeks time; And I think
at least 50,000 men sh[oul]d be within reach at 3 days notice, either to seize the Gallipoli
Peninsula when it has been evacuated, or to occupy C'nople [Constantinople] if a revolution takes
place. We sh[oul]d never forgive ourselves if the naval operations succeeded and the fruits were
lost through the army being absent. I hope earnestly that you will send the 29th Divn [Diviision]
complete either to Alexandria or Lemnos as convenient. Before it arrives, we shall know how the
naval operations are going to turn out. The attitude of the Greeks may also have become defined
in a satisfactory manner.

The troops can always live in the transports for 10 days to a fortnight, all the material can be left
onboard, only the horses and men being exercised on shore to keep them fit. It seems to me that
the 50,000 men cd be provided as follows:

1) 29th division 18,000

2) Australians or other troops from Egypt 22,000

3) 9battns [Battalions] of RN [Royal Navy]Divn [Division] & details 10,000

50,000

You wd [would] then have a force within 2 days steam of Salonica or C'nople, wh [which] having
regard to the political circs [circumstances] of Turkey and the Balkans, might produce vy [very]
great results.”
The first item of evidence which answers my first focus question is a copy of a letter written by
Winston Churchill (First Lord of the Admiralty)l to Lord Kitchener (head of the army and
Secretary for War), where he persuades Kitcher about sending troops to the Gallipoli Campaign.
This source is contemporary, as it was written during the time of the Gallipoli Campaign planning
and by the spearhead of the operation itself, Winston Churchill. We first find useful information
when Churchill states “If our operations at the Dardanelles prosper, immense advantages may be
offered wh[ich] cannot be gathered without military aid.” What the source is detailing to here is
how, if the operation was successful, it would have effectively allowed the Allies to link up with
the Russians in the Black Sea, where they could have joined forces to remove Turkey from the
war by assuming control of the Dardanelles strait, making it a very significant factor.The source
then goes on to say “to occupy C'nople [Constantinople] if a revolution takes place. We sh[oul]d
never forgive ourselves if the naval operations succeeded and the fruits were lost through the
army being absent.” What this excerpt claims is the Allied fleet toward the heart of the Ottoman
Empire might provoke a coup d’état in Constantinople, leading Turkey to abandon the Central
Powers and become a neutral nation in the war again, which would have been a revolutionary
feat to accomplish. Finally, the source went on to mention “You wd [would] then have a force
within 2 days steam of Salonica or C'nople, wh [which] having regard to the political circs
[circumstances] of Turkey and the Balkans, might produce vy [very] great results.” The source
shows how according to Churchill, that a victory against Turkey would persuade the neutral state
of Bulgaria to join the war on the Allied side as the Allies were also competing with the Central
Powers for support in the Balkans. This is a significant factor for the Campaign as it could have
led to the potential aspect of soldiers from Bulgaria to joining the Allies in the war.

A historian could consider this source extremely useful and reliable for information, as it is a
primary source which contains extracts from Winston Churchill’s letter to Lord Kitchener during
the time of planning for the Gallipoli Campaign. Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the
Admiralty at the time and was the person that proposed the Gallipoli Campaign in the first place
in hopes of giving the British an advantage in the First World War. The man who received the
letter was Lord Kitchener, who was responsible allowing the Campaign to pass on as a legitimate
military operation while providing the resources to ensure its success. This source comes from
the www.churchillarchiveforschools.com website which is very reputable and reliable; known as
a site providing resources written by leading history teachers to help build students’ skills and
confidence in using primary sources. The actual contents of the source are taken from the
original letter of Churchill to Lord Kitchener during the process of preparing the Gallipoli
Campaign dated back in February the 18th, 1915. The source can be found in numerous
archives/libraries in Britain and was re-published in 2013, making it a very valuable primary
source of information. It also helps back up the other sources I will use to answer this first focus
question, as this primary source details the planning of the Gallipoli Campaign by the very man
who proposed it in the first place. Numerous websites site these factors being the main forces
for the launch of Gallipoli Campaign.

http://www.churchillarchiveforschools.com/themes/the-themes/key-events-and-developments-
in-world-history/what-went-wrong-at-gallipoli-in-1915/the-sources/source-3/04/container-
area/02/container-area/0/container-area/0/imageBinary/CHAR_13_47_69_Pages_1-
2_of_2_150527101120_Page_1.jpg

world-history/what-went-wrong-at-gallipoli-in-1915/the-sources/source-3

http://www.churchillarchiveforschools.com/about

Item Two : Dardanelles Campaign: Background, HISTORY (Secondary)

“As the only waterway between the Black Sea in the east and the Mediterranean Sea in the west,
the Dardanelles was a much-contested area from the beginning of World War I. The stakes for
both sides were high: British control over the strait would mean a direct line to the Russian navy
in the Black Sea, enabling the supply of munitions to Russian forces in the east and facilitating
cooperation between the two sides. The Allies were also competing with the Central Powers for
support in the Balkans, and the British hoped that a victory against Turkey would persuade one
or all of the neutral states of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the war on the Allied side.
Finally, as British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey put it, the approach of such a powerful Allied
fleet toward the heart of the Ottoman Empire might provoke a coup d’état in Constantinople,
leading Turkey to abandon the Central Powers and return to its earlier neutrality.”

The second item of evidence which answers my first focus question is written by the History
Channel website, which is a famous network known for covering historical topics across the
world. It even has a TV Channel, dedicated to providing historical documentaries of the every
part of the world. The source identifies multiple reasons for the launch of the Gallipoli
Campaign, and shares the same factors as my first item (Winston Churchill’s letter to Lord
Kitchener), although it is from a third-person perspective. The first factor is shown when it is
stated “ British control over the strait would mean a direct line to the Russian navy in the Black
Sea, enabling the supply of munitions to Russian forces in the east and facilitating cooperation
between the two sides.” which explains how taking control of the Dardanelles Strait, a strategic
waterway leading to the Sea of Marmara and, via the Bosphorus, the Black Sea, would provide
the Allies with a supply line to Russia, and open up new areas in which to attack the Central
Powers. This is a significant factor as it could have opened up numerous advantageous
possibilities for the British side, with the most important factors being the trade of weaponry
with the Russian forces as well as direction communication for strategic warfare. The source
goes on to state “The Allies were also competing with the Central Powers for support in the
Balkans, and the British hoped that a victory against Turkey would persuade one or all of the
neutral states of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the war on the Allied side.’’ The quote
explains how a victory against Turkey may be able to induce states not involved in the war like
Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, to join the Allied side which would have been incredibly
advantageous due to the increase in resources from these Balkan states by increasing the
number of soldiers on the Allied side. Ultimately, gives information claiming that “the approach
of such a powerful Allied fleet toward the heart of the Ottoman Empire might provoke a coup
d’état in Constantinople, leading Turkey to abandon the Central Powers and return to its earlier
neutrality.” This refers to how the plan was to break through the straits, capture the Ottoman
capital, Constantinople (now Istanbul), and knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Access to
the straits and the Sea of Marmara would also provide the Allies with a supply line to Russia, and
open up new areas in which to attack the Central Powers.

A historian could consider this a reasonable source of information with a decent amount of
reliability. This is a secondary source of information as none of the source contained any
quotations or recollection from anyone who was there in the 19th century to give their account
of what happened. The source was written by writers at history.com, a well known site for
providing historical information across the world. There are no specific source citations on the
page containing this information. However, through analysis I have deduced that there is likely to
be very little bias in this source, as the information provided in this source is backed up by
numerous other sites highlighting the factors for the purpose of the Gallipoli Campaign. It also
heavily overlaps with my first item, sharing numerous factors for Winston Churchill’s reasoning
behind the launch of the campaign, which does add a lot to its credibility as a source Churchill
was the man who spearheaded the operation. The source was originally published on November
9, 2009 and was last updated on August 21, 2018. This adds reliability as it ensures that the
source has been edited for potentially new found reasons behind the launch of the Campaign
and that the editors at history.com are doing their best to provide useful information behind the
Gallipoli Campaign. The network has criticized by many scientists, historians, and skeptics for
broadcasting pseudo documentaries and unsubstantiated and sensational investigative
programming; however none of this was related the Gallipoli Campaign and this particular
source’s information overlaps with many other well known sites including my own first item. So I
can say with confidence that there is some reliability, if not a decent amount, in this source.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/dardanelles-campaign

https://www.history.com/

Item Three : Genesis of the Dardanelles Decision, Raymond Adams,

NDUP (Secondary)

"British political and military leaders next focused attention on Turkey and the possibility of
military operations to seize the Dardanelles,6 attack Constantinople, and open a line of
communication to Russia. Secretary of the War Cabinet Maurice Hankey, Chancellor of the
Exchequer David Lloyd George, and Churchill advocated military operations against Turkey on
the Gallipoli Peninsula.7 They agreed that the Ottoman Empire was weak and that “Germany
[could] perhaps be struck most effectively, and with the most lasting results on the peace of the
world through her allies, and particularly through Turkey.”8 Thus, within weeks of the outbreak
of war, British attention turned east.

At the end of August 1914, Churchill formally requested that Secretary of State for War Field
Marshal Herbert Kitchener organize a group of naval and military officers to plan for the seizure
of the Gallipoli Peninsula, “with a view to admitting a British Fleet to the Sea of Marmara” and
eventually knocking Turkey out of the war.9 Representatives of the War Office and the Admiralty
met and concluded that an attack on the Gallipoli Peninsula was not a militarily feasible
operation.10 Director of Military Operations Major General Charles Callwell11 presciently
observed that a campaign in Gallipoli was “likely to prove an extremely difficult operation of
war.”12 He proffered that an operation in the Dardanelles would require a force of not less than
60,000, with strong siege artillery, echeloned into Turkey in two large waves.13Kitchener also
disagreed with opening a second front, but for different reasons. He was reluctant to divert
troops from the continent, which he viewed as the primary focus of effort for the British.

A dichotomy of opinion thus emerged: the politicians advocated for a second front on the
Gallipoli Peninsula, while senior military officers argued against intervention in Turkey.14 The
debate continued into winter. The dynamic changed on January 1, 1915, when Russia formally
requested a “naval or military demonstration against the Turks to ease the pressure caused by
the Turkish offensive driving through the Caucasus Mountains.”15 British decisionmakers
debated the Russian request and the larger issue of the future strategic direction of the war
effort during a series of War Council meetings in early January.16 The council decided that the
British would continue to fight side by side with France on the Western Front, and the Admiralty
would, commencing in February 1915, prepare operations to invade and take the Gallipoli
Peninsula, with Constantinople as its objective.17"
The final item of evidence which answers my first question is written by Raymond Adams on the
National Defence University Press (NDUP) website which is an institution of higher education
funded by the United States Department of Defense, intended to facilitate high-level training,
education, and the development of national security strategy. The first use of information in this
source is from the quote “seize the Dardanelles,6 attack Constantinople, and open a line of
communication to Russia.” This refers to the factor used in my previous two items, where seizing
the Dardanelles Strait would mean a direct line to the Russian navy in the Black Sea, enabling
the supply of munitions to Russian forces in the east and facilitating cooperation between the
two sides. This quote is further backed up by “with a view to admitting a British Fleet to the Sea
of Marmara” and eventually knocking Turkey out of the war.” which refers to how a powerful
Allied fleet toward the heart of the Ottoman Empire might provoke a coup d’état in
Constantinople, leading Turkey to abandon the Central Powers and return to its earlier neutrality.
The source also states “They agreed that the Ottoman Empire was weak and that “Germany
[could] perhaps be struck most effectively, and with the most lasting results on the peace of the
world through her allies, and particularly through Turkey.” This explains how the aim was for an
Allied naval force to break through into the Sea of Marmara and threaten Constantinople, the
capital of Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire. This would have effectively weakened Germany’s
overall forces in the war significantly by eliminating a powerful ally to Germany. The source then
claims that “The dynamic changed on January 1, 1915, when Russia formally requested a “naval
or military demonstration against the Turks to ease the pressure caused by the Turkish offensive
driving through the Caucasus Mountains.” The source is detailing to how the Russians needed
assistance on the Caucasus Mountains from the repeated onslaught on the Turks, and how a
military demonstration of attacking the the Turkish side would earn Russia’s trust of the Allied
side. This would have led to stronger bonds and levels of trust between the two sides, ensuring
that the two forces could rely on each other without any backstabbing in their efforts in the war.
The source then finally states “The council decided that the British would continue to fight side
by side with France on the Western Front, and the Admiralty would, commencing in February
1915, prepare operations to invade and take the Gallipoli Peninsula, with Constantinople as its
objective.” This details that the British decided to support France to increase the chances of
success of turning the tide in the war, by attacking the Gallipoli Peninsula with Constantinople
being the main target. This makes a lot of sense, as gaining control of Constantinople would have
effectively removed Turkey from the war (making it neutral), which would have been a massive
advantage to the Allies by the removal of a big threat.

A historian could consider this source a very useful and reliable source of information. This is a
secondary source of information as none of the source contained any quotations or recollection
from anyone who was there in the 19th century to give their account of what happened. This
can be considered very reliable and useful as it was written by the National Defense University
Press, which is a premier academic institution for higher based military/historical education.
Universities have an obligation to provide unbiased information to their students and let them
create their own judgement, and it is expected that this resource is no exception to this
expectation. Raymond Adams attended the resident Marine Corps Command and Staff College in
Quantico, VA in academic year 2009-10, graduating with honors and earning a master’s degree in
military studies with distinction. He then attended the School of Advanced Warfighting in
Quantico, VA in academic year 2011-12 and earned a master’s degree in operational studies. This
increases the reliability of the source as it’s writer is an accomplished historian in his own right
and part of a historian’s moral code is to have little to no bias in their works, so it can be assured
he followed that same moral code as the qualified historian he is. The first piece of information
that is worth analysing is the quote “The dynamic changed on January 1, 1915, when Russia
formally requested a “naval or military demonstration against the Turks to ease the pressure
caused by the Turkish offensive driving through the Caucasus Mountains.” I had not seen this
factor in either of my previous two items and was interested to see an additional factor that very
little websites seem to have covered. I found some difficulty finding sources to back up this
evidence but a site backing up Adams’ claim, stating “On 2 January 1915 Grand Duke Nicholas of
Russia appealed to Britain for assistance against the Ottomans, who were conducting an
offensive in the Caucasus. Planning began for a naval demonstration in the Dardanelles, to divert
troops from the Caucasian theatre of operations.” This confirms that one of the other factors for
launching the Campaign was to improve relations with Russia via a naval demonstration that
would assist the Russians against the Turks in the Caucasus. The second quote that also caught
my attention was “The council decided that the British would continue to fight side by side with
France on the Western Front, and the Admiralty would, commencing in February 1915, prepare
operations to invade and take the Gallipoli Peninsula, with Constantinople as its objective.” This
details to a weakness in the Western Front, which is also not stated in my previous two items. I
researched the topic and found information stating “By the end of 1914 it looked like the
Western Front was deadlocked, while on the Eastern Front the German army had soundly
defeated Russia at Tannenberg. Politicians started looking for other ways to win the war. The
Dardanelles Straits, along with the Bosphorus, are pinch points in the sea route which Russia
needed to use if it was to link up with its French and British allies.” This vouches for the
statement of the Western Front requiring help and that Britain fought side by side with France
during the Campaign. Ultimately, this has proved to be a very useful and reliable source for a
historian interested in studying the factors behind the purpose for the launch of the Gallipoli
Campaign.

https://www.marforres.marines.mil/Marine-Forces-Reserve-Leaders/Biography-
View/Article/521928/battalion-commander-1st-battalion-25th-marine-regiment/

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/JFQ/Joint-Force-Quarterly-79/Article/621138/the-gallipoli-campaign-
learning-from-a-mismatch-of-strategic-ends-and-means/

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/
https://awayfromthewesternfront.org/campaigns/balkans-gallipoli/gallipoli/

https://allenhancockfamilyhistory.wordpress.com/trowbridge-frank-1893-1968/

Focus Question 2 :

What did the soldiers experience

at Gallipoli?

Item One : Page 7 -Soldiers' experience, Ian McGibbon, NZHistory (Secondary)

“The area occupied by the New Zealanders and Australians at Anzac was tiny – less than six
square kilometres. At its furthest point, the distance between the front line and the beach was
just over 900 metres. Conditions were harsh. The area possessed no natural water source, so
there were constant shortages. Water, food, ammunition, and other supplies arrived at Anzac on
ships and were landed on the beach with great difficulty.”

“Poor food contributed to a general deterioration in the men’s health. Troops lived on a staple
diet of tinned bully beef, army biscuits and jam; fresh fruit and vegetables were non-existent.
Sanitation was also a problem. With up to 25,000 men packed into such a cramped space,
latrines filled up fast and there was limited space for new ones. Body lice became endemic, and
diseases like diarrhoea, dysentery and enteric fever (typhoid) flourished in the unsanitary
conditions.The stench of the dead made living conditions even worse. Unburied corpses littered
no man’s land, while others lay in shallow graves close to the dugouts of the living. In the searing
heat of summer, the rotting corpses, food and body waste were the perfect breeding ground for
flies and the diseases they spread. Swarms of flies tormented the men, turning simple tasks such
as preparing and eating food into horrible ordeals”
“For those wounded on Gallipoli, the wait for treatment and evacuation was often long and
agonising. Compared with the organisation and efficiency of the Western Front, medical services
at Gallipoli were a shambles. The evacuation framework for casualties — moving wounded from
field ambulances to casualty clearing stations, and then military hospitals — fell apart, as poor
planning and the sheer scale of casualties overwhelmed the available medical resources.”

The first item of evidence which answers my second focus question is written by Ian McGibbon
on the site NZ History. The source provides information on the living conditions ANZAC soldiers
experienced during their tenure at Gallipoli. The first source of information reads “Conditions
were harsh. The area possessed no natural water source, so there were constant shortages.
Water, food, ammunition, and other supplies arrived at Anzac on ships and were landed on the
beach with great difficulty.” This details to how under-resourced the ANZAC soldiers really were
and how rugged the terrain was in general. The lack of food and water must have resulted in
some form of starvation for a lot of soldiers along with dehydration, which is can be fatal to one’s
health. It also states how supplies and ammunition were difficult to acquire, which indicates that
the ANZAC soldiers must have been under-equipped and lacked the right amount of firepower
for success. The source goes on to state “Troops lived on a staple diet of tinned bully beef, army
biscuits and jam; fresh fruit and vegetables were non-existent. Sanitation was also a problem.
With up to 25,000 men packed into such a cramped space, latrines filled up fast and there was
limited space for new ones. Body lice became endemic, and diseases like diarrhoea, dysentery
and enteric fever (typhoid) flourished in the unsanitary conditions.” This is rather self
explanatory, but it shows that the soldiers were provided with a rather lackluster source of
nutritional food and the claustrophobic spaces led to poor sanitation along with a cluster of
transferrable bugs/illnesses. The source also quotes “Unburied corpses littered no man’s land,
while others lay in shallow graves close to the dugouts of the living. In the searing heat of
summer, the rotting corpses, food and body waste were the perfect breeding ground for flies
and the diseases they spread” This is also pretty self explanatory, detailing how the littered
corpses, body waste and food acted as a breeding rounds for flies, which likely gave rise to
maggots and other transmittable diseases that could have potentially been detrimental to the
soldiers. Finally, the source explains how medical resources were also lackluster claiming “the
wait for treatment and evacuation was often long and agonising…...medical services at Gallipoli
were a shambles……. poor planning and the sheer scale of casualties overwhelmed the available
medical resources.” What this quote demonstrates is how wounded individuals would often wait
for hours and possibly days without medical treatment, which could have resulted in a lot of
people dying of their injuries/diseases due to not receiving quick care. There were also so many
deaths, far from what was predicted, that the medical resources quickly became all used up. This
resulted in a lot of the soldiers having to treat their own wounds and possibly die without
treatment due to the unexpected depletion of medical resources.

A historian could consider this source as quite a useful and reliable source of information, due to
the fact that it has come from a government owned site called NZ History, which means this is a
well researched piece of information. A government owned site is expected to give reliable and
ethical information without bias, especially on a topic such as history which defines the
nationality of a country; so I expect NZ History to meet those standards with the information
they provide. The source was written by Ian McGibbon a New Zealand historian, specialising in
military and political history of the 20th century. He has published several books on New Zealand
participation in the First and Second World Wars. So, it is safe to say his perspective will contain
little to no bias, as that is the moral code of every qualified historian. It also goes without saying
that is a secondary piece of information because of the fact that the writer was not there during
the time of these events. The quote “Conditions were harsh. The area possessed no natural
water source, so there were constant shortages. Water, food, ammunition, and other supplies
arrived at Anzac on ships and were landed on the beach with great difficulty.” hints at a lack of
weaponry and nutrition as a possible reason for the failure of the Gallipoli Campaign. The
indication that the living conditions of the soldiers was a factor in the failure of the campaign is
backed up by another quote hinting at a reason for the failure was the lack of medical resources,
which stated the wait for treatment and evacuation was often long and agonising…...medical
services at Gallipoli were a shambles……. poor planning and the sheer scale of casualties
overwhelmed the available medical resources. This statement indicates that the lack of medical
help for the soldiers resulted in injuries going untreated and numerous preventable deaths
occurring, which steadily decreased the active number of ANZAC soldiers at Gallipoli which
obviously made the tenure even more torturous. The claims “Troops lived on a staple diet of
tinned bully beef, army biscuits and jam; fresh fruit and vegetables were non-existent. Sanitation
was also a problem. With up to 25,000 men packed into such a cramped space, latrines filled up
fast and there was limited space for new ones. Body lice became endemic, and diseases like
diarrhoea, dysentery and enteric fever (typhoid) flourished in the unsanitary conditions and
“Unburied corpses littered no man’s land, while others lay in shallow graves close to the dugouts
of the living. In the searing heat of summer, the rotting corpses, food and body waste were the
perfect breeding ground for flies and the diseases they spread” also allow us to infer that the
diseases caused by poor sanitation and rotting corpses resulted in numer deaths that further
decreased the overall size of the army at Gallipoli. Overall, I believe this source would be very
useful to a historian as it gives a detailed insight of the gruelling experience the ANZAC soldiers
had to go through without showing any indications of bias.

https://independent.academia.edu/IanMcGibbon/CurriculumVitae

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/the-gallipoli-campaign/conditions

Item 2 : George Bollinger's Diary (Primary)

“Sunday 25th April The day is beautifully fine. We are steaming full speed, close to the southern
shores of Gallipoli. What a day of days! We left Lemnos at 6.00 am and continuously from 8.00
am we have moved amongst a roar of thunder. At present we are within a very few miles of our
warships and transports, which are stationary here. What a sight! Their big guns never cease,
and as we see the flash and burst of the shells on land, we think thousands of Turks must be
going under. Has ever a bombardment like this taken place before? Our men are very calm, and
some are even lying about reading and taking no notice of the bombardment. Boom, boom,
boom. It never ceases. What batteries could reply to these 15 inch mouths of destruction.

Monday 26th April 3.15 am. 'Packs on' was roared out. Torpedo destroyers are alongside to take
us ashore. 9.40 am. On shore in the thick of it. The first casualty in our company was in my
section. Just before dawn we were on the destroyers waiting for surf boats to take us ashore.
Stray bullets were landing around us and suddenly Private Tohill who was standing just in front
of me dropped with a bullet through his shoulder. Immediately after, Private Swayne was shot in
the forehead. It was a relief to get ashore. The Australians were frightfully cut about effecting a
landing yesterday. They say there are at least 6000 casualties. They did heroic work and the
whole world will know of it. We are in a gully immediately behind the firing line and will be called
in to relieve at any moment. Two New Zealand battalions were in last night and got cut about.
The Turks have overwhelming numbers and it is a perfect wonder how the Australians captured
these heights. In landing as many as 49 were killed in one boat and a whole regiment was
practically wiped out. The din and roar and whistle of the missiles is awful. As we sit here the
ambulance are passing with wounded on the stretchers. 5.00 pm. We climbed heights to take our
place in reserve, to firing line. We are right in the fire zone and saw some awful sights.

Tuesday 27th April At daylight this morning a terrific artillery duel raged. The Turks put hundreds
of shells onto our landing place. At 10.00 am we were marched north along the beach, and as we
got under heights we met crowds of wounded coming down. Oh how callous one gets. Word
rushed down from above for Hawkes Bay and Wellington-West Coast Companies to reinforce at
the double, as our fellows were getting massacred. We threw off packs and forgot everything in
that climb up the cliffs. We fixed bayonets on reaching top and got into it. The country is terribly
hilly and covered with scrub from four to five feet high. On we rushed against a rain of bullets
and our men began to drop over, before they fired a shot. We started to get mixed and were
everywhere amongst the Australians. Our men were dropping in hundreds.

Wednesday 28th April We were relieved about 8 o'clock. Mostly our nerves were gone.We retired
back and tried to rest: our casualties were very heavy. We manned the trenches again at 6
o'clock. No sleep and nothing to eat, just a craving for drink, and the wounded always empty our
bottles. The Turkish trenches are now on a ridge about 200 yards away. Our warships are
shelling them, but unfortunately have also accounted for a number of our casualties.”

The second item of evidence that answers my second focus question is an excerpt from the diary
of George Bollinger, an ANZAC soldier who fought in the Gallipoli Campaign. It provides a first-
person insight of what life was like for an ANZAC soldier at Gallipoli. The source begins with the
remark What a sight! Their big guns never cease, and as we see the flash and burst of the shells
on land, we think thousands of Turks must be going under. Has ever a bombardment like this
taken place before? Our men are very calm, and some are even lying about reading and taking
no notice of the bombardment. Boom, boom, boom. It never ceases” This means that Bollinger,
and most likely plenty of other ANZAC soldiers saw and heard nothing but gunfire during the first
few days of the battles at Gallipoli. The flashes and sounds must have led to a lot of temporary
blindness and possibly deafening, which meant that a lot of soldiers were relying on instinct to
fight the Turkish forces, as two major senses were already being disabled as soon as the battles
begun. However it also shows how spirited the soldiers were, pretending not to notice the
bombardment so they can fight with the right mindset despite having major letdowns as soon as
they reached the peninsula. The source then reads “Stray bullets were landing around us and
suddenly Private Tohill who was standing just in front of me dropped with a bullet through his
shoulder. Immediately after, Private Swayne was shot in the forehead.” This extract gives a
shocking detail about the daily lives of the ANZAC soldiers at Gallipoli with the fact that their
comrades dropped dead right before their eyes. Bullets kept coming from almost every direction,
and surviving soldiers had to witness their friends and superiors die helplessly right in front
them. I believe this is a very important detail as it gives helps us understand the
mental/psychological scarring of the survivors from Gallipoli, which is why there are so many
veteran support facilities to this very day. Finally the extract mentions the lack of resources and
casualties, disclosing “Mostly our nerves were gone.We retired back and tried to rest: our
casualties were very heavy. We manned the trenches again at 6 o'clock. No sleep and nothing to
eat, just a craving for drink, and the wounded always empty our bottles” This section of the
piece explains how the the soldiers lost their nerves due to gunfire and number of casualties,
effectively becoming desensitised by the ongoing battles. It also shows how their was a lack of
food and water, due the number of wounded soldiers using up most of the resources. This
relates with my first item of evidence that the unpredicted amount of casualties and injuries,
resulting in a quick depletion of resources.

A historian could consider this a very reliable and useful source of information as it is a primary
source which contains extracts from the diary of an ANZAC soldier who fought at Gallipoli
himself, making him not only present during the event, but also an example of a person who
experienced the event himself.The source is present on the site NZ History, which is a
government owned site, so I expect it to have the most ethical and reliable information
available. It also gives a very detailed first hand account of what life was like for an ANZAC
veteran at Gallipoli, making this source very valuable. The quote “Mostly our nerves were
gone.We retired back and tried to rest: our casualties were very heavy. We manned the trenches
again at 6 o'clock. No sleep and nothing to eat, just a craving for drink, and the wounded always
empty our bottles” was interesting to me as it was strongly related to the quotes in my first item
stating “the wait for treatment and evacuation was often long and agonising…...medical services
at Gallipoli were a shambles……. poor planning and the sheer scale of casualties overwhelmed
the available medical resources.” and “Conditions were harsh. The area possessed no natural
water source, so there were constant shortages. Water, food, ammunition, and other supplies
arrived at Anzac on ships and were landed on the beach with great difficulty.” as both sources
indicate that there was a large number of casualties and lack of medical/general resources due
to the number of injured soldiers along with poor planning for resources. Overall, I would say
that this source is an incredibly reliable piece of evidence that will be useful for a historian for
learning about the experiences of the veterans at Gallipoli. It is a primary source displayed on a
government owned site, so I am positive nothing has been tampered with, making the evidence
genuine and useful.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/gwbollinger

https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3b39/bollinger-george-wallace

Item 3 : What was life like in the trenches at Gallipoli?, The Anzac
Portal (Secondary)

“Life in the front line was one of constant strain. Opposing trenches were sometimes only a few
metres apart, close enough to throw hand grenades from one to the other. At any moment, day
or night, the Ottoman soldiers needed only to rush across a few metres of ground to enter the
Australian trenches. It was dangerous to look over the top as hidden snipers were on the lookout
for the foolhardy. At night half the men in the front trench stayed awake, while others slept in
holes cut into the trench wall. Under these circumstances the front line was a place of great
tension, even when there was no fighting. Some men found the permanent threat of danger too
much for their nerves and troops were rotated through the front line every few days to alleviate
the strain. While safer, men taking a break in the rear had little rest. The trench system had to be
enlarged, tunnels dug, tracks made from the beach to bring forward ammunition, food and
water, and dugouts terraced along the hillsides to accommodate headquarters, medical aid posts
and supplies. After labouring all day the men 'resting' from the front line often slept on the
ground behind it, in case they were needed to repel an enemy attack.”

The third item of evidence that answers my second focus question is written by The Anzac Portal
website, which is managed by the Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs
(DVA). The source gives an understanding of what like in the trenches were like for ANZAC
soldiers. The first instance where this is shown is the quote “Life in the front line was one of
constant strain. Opposing trenches were sometimes only a few metres apart, close enough to
throw hand grenades from one to the other.” which explains that soldiers in the front lines
barely had any time to regroup or tend to themselves as they were constantly on guard of the
opposition being so close by. The fact that some opposing trenches were only a few metres apart
(close enough to throw hand grenades at each other) indicates that there was hardly anytime to
sleep as there must have been consistent gunfire and casualties 24/7 due to the proximity of the
Turkish forces. The source then discusses the added labour work soldiers had to carry out in the
trenches from the statement “The trench system had to be enlarged, tunnels dug, tracks made
from the beach to bring forward ammunition, food and water, and dugouts terraced along the
hillsides to accommodate headquarters, medical aid posts and supplies” The quote explains how
had to carry out manual labour duties whenever there was a temporary cease of gunfire. The
whole trenches had to be enlarged with the tracks made clear to bring military/food resources
back and forth along with tunnels being dug out for headquarters/meetings or medical
resources. This is important as it makes it clear that the soldiers never had time to rest, if gunfire
ceased momentarily , the soldiers had to carry out tedious physically demanding jobs in order to
transport resources and increase the cramped area in the trenches. It also indicates that the
number of soldiers/civilians available was too low, as the soldiers who should only have been
fighting also had to be responsible for manual duty.

A historian could consider this source quite useful and reliable, as it was done by education
specialists and historians at the Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA),
which a government site. A government owned site is expected to give reliable and ethical
information without bias, especially on a topic such as history which defines the nationality of a
country; so I expect the DVA to meet those standards with the information they provide. It is
also very clear that this is a secondary source of information, as none of these writers were
present during the time of these events. I found the quote “Life in the front line was one of
constant strain. Opposing trenches were sometimes only a few metres apart, close enough to
throw hand grenades from one to the other.” to be very intriguing, as it shows an alarming
insight to how close in proximity these soldiers were at time to the Turkish forces. I did some
further research on the topic and found information on the website NZ History, which confirms
this claim. It stated that “Opposing trenches were extremely close – barely four metres apart in
some places. At this range, enemy hand grenades, or ‘bombs’, caused a steady stream of
casualties. Danger also lurked behind the front line. No place within the tiny perimeter was safe
from enemy fire, and Ottoman shells and snipers took a toll of troops in support areas.”, which
overlaps with the information in the source I have used, further increasing it’s reliability. I also
was interested in the statement “The trench system had to be enlarged, tunnels dug, tracks
made from the beach to bring forward ammunition, food and water, and dugouts terraced along
the hillsides to accommodate headquarters, medical aid posts and supplies” I researched this
and found a reputable website with a source quoting “Those not on the front line spent their
time carrying water, escorting teams of donkeys carrying supplies from the beach, and fortifying
their positions” which backs up the claim about soldiers partaking labour work. I never
considered that soldiers also took part in manual labour, so it was quite a surprise to me when I
realised that the ANZAC soldiers had to partake in such duties due to the general lack of
resources. To conclude, I would say this is a very reliable and useful source as it provides
information about some unexpected details that took place in Gallipoli such as soldiers
performing labour duties and enemy proximities being as close as only three metres apart. It has
been written by reputable historians on a government owned site, so it is expected to be a well
researched and bias-free source of information.

https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/history/conflicts/gallipoli-and-anzacs/gallipoli-and-
anzacs/frequently-asked-questions/gallipoli

https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/education/intro

https://www.australia.gov.au/directories/australia/veterans-affairs

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/the-gallipoli-campaign/conditions

https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/anzac-voices/life-gallipoli

Focus Question 3 :

How significant was the Gallipoli

Campaign to NZ?

Item 1 : Anzac Day notice, New Zealand Gazette, 1916, W. F. MASSEY

(Primary)

“Prime Minister’s Office,

Wellington, 5th April, 1916.

I Hereby notify, for public information, that the Government have decided to observe a half-
holiday, commencing at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, the 25th April, in commemoration of “Anzac Day,”
and I shall be glad if the Mayors of all cities and boroughs, the Chairmen of County Councils and
Town Boards, as well as other local bodies, as far as their districts are concerned, will similarly
observe the day in remembrance of the notable deeds performed by the Australians and our
brave New Zealand soldiers on that memorable and historical occasion.

2. It is specially fitting that on this occasion special services of public worship be held by all
religious denominations, and I therefore appeal to all ministers of religion and all congregations
to hold such services on behalf of the people of the Dominion at such hours during the forenoon
or afternoon as are found convenient.

3. The New Zealand Ensign will be displayed on all public buildings in the Dominion from sunrise
to sunset.

4. It is requested that the managers and representatives of shipping companies should direct
that all ships in the various harbours display their flags during that day.

5. The Government is of opinion that the day should not be marked by the holding of sports or
similar forms of entertainment. It is considered, however, that the occasion is particularly one
upon which opportunity should be taken for all recruiting bodies and others to arrange patriotic
meetings for the evening, not only to commemorate the anniversary, but also with a view to
assisting the recruiting campaign, the question of how this may best be done being left entirely
to the discretion of those immediately concerned.

W. F. MASSEY.

Prime Minister”

The first source of information that answers my final focus question is from the New Zealand
Gazette, written by the prime minister at the time, William Ferguson Massey. This source
identifies the significance of Gallipoli to New Zealanders at the time, due to the fact that the
source is contemporary and was written very closely to the date after the Gallipoli Campaign
ended.We first find useful information when Massey states “I Hereby notify, for public
information, that the Government have decided to observe a half-holiday, commencing at 1 p.m.
on Tuesday, the 25th April, in commemoration of “Anzac Day,”........in remembrance of the
notable deeds performed by the Australians and our brave New Zealand soldiers on that
memorable and historical occasion” This quote shows how significant the Gallipoli Campaign
was to New Zealanders, as less than three months after the campaign had ended, the leaders of
our nation decided to commemorate the veterans and fallen soldiers, acknowledging the the
courage the soldiers possessed to carry out notable deeds for a historical nation to our country,
as it was the first time New Zealand had taken part in an international war. The source continues
to state “It is specially fitting that on this occasion special services of public worship be held by
all religious denominations” which further shows it’s significance as all recognized autonomous
branches of the Christian Church were having special services to honour the ANZAC soldiers. The
sources then details how “The New Zealand Ensign will be displayed on all public buildings in the
Dominion from sunrise to sunset…...It is requested that the managers and representatives of
shipping companies should direct that all ships in the various harbours display their flags during
that day.” which is a testament to how the ANZAC soldiers were now a part of the nations pride,
as our flags were being displayed to honour them. Finally, the quote “The Government is of
opinion that the day should not be marked by the holding of sports or similar forms of
entertainment.” which demonstrates the respect paid to the ANZAC soldiers, as no forms of
entertainment were to be held on that day; a true example of the significance the campaign
held.

This item could be considered incredibly useful and reliable to a historian to identify how
significant the Gallipoli Campaign was to New Zealanders. It is a primary source as it was written
by the prime minister of New Zealand, W.F.Massey, less than three months after the campaign
ended. It is also from the government owned site called NZ History, which means this is a well
researched piece of information. A government owned site is expected to give reliable and
ethical information without bias or tampering, especially on a topic of history which defines the
nationality of a country; so I expect NZ History to meet those standards with the information
they provide. I found the quote “I Hereby notify, for public information, that the Government
have decided to observe a half-holiday, commencing at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, the 25th April, in
commemoration of “Anzac Day,” very insightful as now the 25th of April is a full public holiday to
commemorate the ANZAC soldiers and this has continued for over one hundred years, which is a
true testament to how significant the Gallipoli Campaign is to New Zealand. This is an incredibly
useful source for information regarding the significance of the Gallipoli Campaign just after it had
ended, I believe a historian would find this very reliable for researching the instant significance
and impact the campaign brought to New Zealand.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/anzac-day-gazette-notice-1916

https://gazette.govt.nz/

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/william-massey

Item 2 : Gallipoli Cemented Our National Identity, Ministry for Culture

and Heritage, Glyn Harper, (Secondary)
“Professor Harper says Gallipoli was the first big battle for Australia and New Zealand. “It was a
time when we learned about ourselves and our values. We discovered our own self-worth and
Australia as a fighting partner. It gave a huge push to cementing our national identity,” he says.

“It led to a major shift in our attitude to Australia and Britain. While we initially thought the
Australian soldier was ill-disciplined, Gallipoli brought us together however we quickly learned
we weren’t British nor were we inferior to them.”

He says other nations respected our strength, courage and capabilities, we became tried and
trusted and, in times of conflict we were not found wanting. At Gallipoli and, on the Western
Front, Dominion forces were the spearhead divisions in the thick of the fighting.

My second source of information for my final focus question is an extract from the Ministry for
Culture and Heritage, written by Glyn Harper. The first piece of useful information comes from
the statement “It was a time when we learned about ourselves and our values. We discovered
our own self-worth and Australia as a fighting partner. It gave a huge push to cementing our
national identity,” which explains how the campaign helped New Zealand realise it’s own
identity strengthened our relationship with our neighbouring nation, Australia. The source
further states “It led to a major shift in our attitude to Australia and Britain. While we initially
thought the Australian soldier was ill-disciplined, Gallipoli brought us together however we
quickly learned we weren’t British nor were we inferior to them.” This details how the campaign
changed our relationships with other nations such as Britain or Australia and also helped us
realise our own independence. Before Gallipoli, we treated Australians as delinquents but after
we were brought together during the campaign, we realised that Australia was a respectable
nation we must share a close bond with. It also helped us realise that we were not British, but we
had our own identity as New Zealanders and were to be considered equals with our allies. The
source then quotes “other nations respected our strength, courage and capabilities, we became
tried and trusted and, in times of conflict we were not found wanting.” which refers to how the
Gallipoli Campaign made other nations acknowledge and respect the ANZAC soldiers’
honourable traits and therefore view New Zealand as a respectable nation to rely on during
future wars.

A historian could consider this source of information fairly useful and reliable, however the
source itself is not overly descriptive. This is a secondary source, as the person writing this was
not present during the time of the event himself. It was from Ministry for Culture and Heritage, a
public-service department of the New Zealand government charged with advising the
government on policies and issues involving numerous culture and heritage. A government
owned site is expected to give reliable and ethical information without bias or tampering,
especially on a topic such as history which defines the nationality of a country; so I would expect
useful and trustworthy information from this site. It was written by Glyn Harper a Professor of
War Studies at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. He was also the New
Zealand army’s official historian for the deployment to East Timor and am the author of more
than twenty historical books many of which, achieved bestseller status. I was interested in the
quote other nations respected our strength, courage and capabilities, we became tried and
trusted and, in times of conflict we were not found wanting.” and did some further research on
the topic. I came across another reputable source that stated “After the Gallipoli campaign, New
Zealand leaders were invited to conferences around the world with their British and other foreign
counterparts from 1916 onwards (Perkins & Cohen, 1995), which also strengthened their ties.”
which further confirms how the campaign acquired us newfound respect from foreign nations
which in turn helped build our national identity. The quote “It led to a major shift in our attitude
to Australia and Britain. While we initially thought the Australian soldier was ill-disciplined,
Gallipoli brought us together however we quickly learned we weren’t British nor were we inferior
to them.” was also worth checking out in my opinion so I found another source affirming that
“Another impact is New Zealand’s bond with Australia was significantly strengthened during the
campaign, which continues to this day. Australia and New Zealand were both historically
colonised by Britain, but they have forged different identities. However, during the whole of the
Gallipoli campaign, New Zealand and Australian troops fought side by side. This forged a bond
between the soldiers that could never be broken. This continues to this day, both countries would
not hold back to help each other in times of crisis.” This shows how the campaign significantly
improved our relationship with Australia in a positive light and that we now view each other as
friendly nations with a deep bond that goes back historically. Overall, I would say this source is
useful for a historian researching how the Gallipoli Campaign improved relationships with New
Zealand and foreign nations, while helping New Zealand find it’s own identity as a country.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/anzac-day-gazette-notice-1916

https://gazette.govt.nz/

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/william-massey

https://medium.com/@kiaorahao/the-significance-of-new-zealands-gallipoli-8c5237d065aa

Item 3 : Significance to New Zealand, Val Tangpuz, Damien Fenton

(Secondary)

“Though the death toll was devastating as many of the lives of New Zealand soldiers fell into the
hands of enemy Turkish troops or sicknesses and diseases caused by unsanitary living conditions,
the sacrifice which was made from the ANZACs proved to be quite significant to New Zealanders
and is why every 25th of April New Zealand and its neighboring country Australia
commemorates the fallen comrades of the Gallipoli campaign.

“The campaign will always be significant to New Zealanders as it impacted both the men
overseas with the physical and mental wounds they suffered and the horrid things they had to
endure, but the campaign also impacted New Zealand itself reducing the population of 1 million
with deaths of loved ones and cherished friends leaving the country in mourning and broken
hearted for their loss, and impacted New Zealand in a racial matter creating equality with the
Whites and Maoris giving them the opportunity to fight side by side with the whites, along with
feminism shown with the women of the workforce”

“The Gallipoli campaign will always be seens as one of New Zealand’s finest and significant
moments as it helped a nation finally see themselves as a nation and not just British people living
in New Zealand, but as a strong nation that overcame one of its biggest obstacle and gained a
national identity (Kiwis) in return for their hard work”

The last piece of evidence which answers my final focus question is from the Val Tangpuz History
project, written by Damien Fenton. The significance of the Gallipoli Campaign to New Zealand is
first seen in the quote “the sacrifice which was made from the ANZACs proved to be quite
significant to New Zealanders and is why every 25th of April New Zealand and its neighboring
country Australia commemorates the fallen comrades of the Gallipoli campaign.” This quote is
self explanatory and states that every year on the 25th of April, a national holiday is held in both
Australia and New Zealand to commemorate the veterans and fallen soldiers of the Gallipoli
Campaign, specifically for the ANZAC soldiers. The source continues by discussing how the
campaign improved racial matters, stating “impacted New Zealand in a racial matter creating
equality with the Whites and Maoris giving them the opportunity to fight side by side with the
whites,’’ This explains how the campaign improved Maori relations with whites as many Māori
joined the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915 and were proud to be part of the British Empire. The
honourable traits displayed by the Maori soldiers earned the respect of Pakeha soldiers which
helped the boost of racial equality in New Zealand. The final statement of the source further
describes the significance of the Gallipoli Campaign and states “it helped a nation finally see
themselves as a nation and not just British people living in New Zealand, but as a strong nation
that overcame one of its biggest obstacle and gained a national identity (Kiwis) in return for their
hard work” This discusses some of the information used in my second item with how the
campaign helped us learn about ourselves and our values. We discovered our own self-worth
and quickly learned we weren’t British nor were we inferior to them. It effectively helped us find
our own national identity.

This source of information could be considered reasonably useful and reliable to a historian
looking to identify how significant the Gallipoli Campaign is to New Zealanders. This is a
secondary source as the writer was not a witness to or present during the events of Gallipoli. It is
from the Val Tangpuz Project which claims ‘to cover The Battle of Gallipoli and New Zealand’s
involvement in the First World War’. This would spark some uncertainty in the reliability of the
source as the website is rather unknown and doesn’t have much national recognition, however it
was written by Damien Fenton. Damien Fenton is an Honorary Research Fellow at the College of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University in Wellington, New Zealand. Fenton worked
for both the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs and
was later employed by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage where he wrote ‘New Zealand and
the First World War, 1914–1919’ and ‘The Anzacs: An Inside View of New Zealanders at Gallipoli.
He is currently writing another historical book based on New Zealand’s war against the Ottoman
turks. So, I find it very safe to say that Fenton is a respected and accomplished historian whose
perspective will contain useful information with little to no bias, as that is the moral code of
every qualified historian. I was interested in the quote “impacted New Zealand in a racial matter
creating equality with the Whites and Maoris giving them the opportunity to fight side by side
with the whites,’’ as all the previous sources I used did not specify this factor of significance from
the campaign, so I did a bit of research on the topic and found another statement from a
reputable source stating “ Many Māori were interested to serve when the first world war broke
out, but before Gallipoli, imperial policy excluded Māori people from the battlefields of
Europeans (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2016). However, a lack of soldiers meant that the
New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) involved both Pakeha and Māori. Thus, many Māori
joined the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915 and were proud to be part of the British Empire…...the
improvement of race relations between Pakeha and Māori among the New Zealand soldiers,
which helped lay the foundation of racial equality.” which backs up Fenton’s claim that the
Gallipoli Campaign improved Paheka-Maori relations which increases the reliability of his
information. It is also important to note that the quote “it helped a nation finally see themselves
as a nation and not just British people living in New Zealand, but as a strong nation that
overcame one of its biggest obstacle and gained a national identity (Kiwis) in return for their
hard work” directly relates to the quote on my second item stating “It led to a major shift in our
attitude to Australia and Britain. While we initially thought the Australian soldier was ill-
disciplined, Gallipoli brought us together however we quickly learned we weren’t British nor
were we inferior to them.” as they both overlap in information, claiming that New Zealanders
recognised that they were not British but their own independent nation, which helped form
their national identity. This increases the reliability of this source even further as another source
I have previously used can vouch for the credibility of its information.

https://mch.govt.nz/news-events/news/gallipoli-cemented-our-national-identity

https://valtangpuzhistorylevel3.weebly.com/significance-on-new-zealanders.html

https://www.penguin.co.nz/authors/damien-fenton

https://medium.com/@kiaorahao/the-significance-of-new-zealands-gallipoli-8c5237d065aa
Evaluating the Process:
Successes and Difficulties of this enquiry

Judging from my enquiry after completion, I believe I have conducted a good overall research of
my topic. I am sure that I have provided fundamentally sound cases as to why a historian should
consider using the sources I have provided. It took me a long time to choose a topic, as New
Zealand history is not as well documented as the history in older nations such as Britain or the
USA. I ultimately chose this topic, The Gallipoli Campaign, simply due to the fact that I believed it
had the most resources containing information out of all the other significant events in New
Zealand history. I also believe that my lack of knowledge prior my research on the Campaign has
benefited this enquiry, as it led to more well-rounded and unbiased opinion on my part. As I
learnt more about the topic, I genuinely became more interested which helped me discover
more unique resources and this ultimately boosted the level of my enquiry. I do not often like
typing long research based documents like this but I believe this gave me a valuable experience,
as I doubt I have ever written this much for any assessment in the NCEA curriculum. I am also
made sure I gave a good level of analysis, comprehensiveness and detail that is required for the
excellence level standard of this part assessment.

Of course there were some difficulties, my main one would have been acquiring reliable primary
sources. This enquiry has nine sources in total, with six of them being secondary sources and
three of them being primary sources. It was very difficult for me personally to find a useful
primary source of evidence, which led to hours being spent on just finding a single primary
source. However, I know I have balanced it well, as I have one primary source for each focus
question, therefore the quality of my enquiry is still kept at a high level. I also found it hard to
find a new source of information for each focus question, as most sources repeat each other in
terms of information, only differing in the type of vocabulary used to describe the information. I
would say I managed my time in a manner more erratic than I would have preferred due to
motivational inconsistencies. However I still completed my assessment on time so the end result
would be the same either way.

Issues to consider in future research:

Looking back I would most likely have considered studying the topic myself a bit before going all
on researching about a topic I have no prior knowledge of. Next time, I would collect all the
information I believe valuable and consider the most useful of the lot before doing my enquiry as
finding useful sources takes up a lot of time.

I would also study the people involved in the topic I am researching before I make my enquiry, as
that could have led to numerous useful sources that I could have found a lot sooner if I had
decided to do so. This led to me going on a deduction case to identify which figures and factors
were the most influential behind my topic; which took a lot more time than I believe it should
have. Of course I do not think I could have nailed everything down before the enquiry, but
definitely enough to not go back and consider which source is more important than the other in
the middle of the write up.

I would also make sure to find good websites that contain primary sources for historical events,
as this was my main weakness throughout the enquiry. I still managed to space out my primary
sources evenly, but I could have saved a lot more time if I put effort into finding archive sites
than contained useful primary information.

Strengths and Weaknesses in the research process

I think one of my strengths was having an unbiased approach while making this enquiry and
maintaining a solid level of comprehensiveness and analysis so that the historian would be able
to judge the overall quality of each of my sources. My interest in the topic did increase as I learnt
more about it, so I was able to choose my sources more carefully and made sure to not use a
source that contains too much of the same information in a previous source I used. I used an
overlap of information between my sources to evaluate it further as it increased the reliability of
each source I chose.

In terms of weaknesses, like I have alluded to before, my primary weakness throughout this
enquiry was finding useful primary sources to answer each focus question. I often spent hours
deciding between which source to choose and even considered changing my focus questions at
times due to not finding any decent primary sources relating to my focus question. However, I
ultimately was able to find enough primary sources which I deemed useful after digging through
archive websites, having one primary source for each focus question. I also believe my
motivation was too spontaneous, in the end of this enquiry I did indeed feel quite a bit burnt out
due to leaving a lot of the work left to the last day of before the due date. I still managed to
complete this enquiry in time however, while keeping my level of analysis and
comprehensiveness consistent, so it did not affect my research as much as it could have.

Initiative in conducting the enquiry

I believe that my method of conducting the enquiry was acceptable. I chose my sources so that
they all each contained different portions of information while obviously sharing some of the
same information. I did this to keep my information vast and to broaden my overall knowledge
of the topic, I was not concerned about finding rarer information that a limited amount of
sources contained, as that added more factors to answering my focus question while broadening
the research of my enquiry. This also allowed me to have multiple perspectives on the topic
which allowed me to come to my own personal conclusion on my focus questions, based on all
the different perspectives/information given to me. Even if some historians might not agree with
everything I have written, I have listed logical reasons as to why my sources are reliable and
useful to a historian, so I am sure that I have a good analysis/argument even if they do not agree
with my writing. Above all I am proud that my writing was unbiased throughout the enquiry, as I
approached a more neutral but very factual and informative perspective on the topic.

Alternative research lines

I am content with my line of research for this enquiry and I believe that I took a good approach
in analysing the Gallipoli Campaign using a factual, informative and interesting format. If I had to
do this again I would learn more about the significant figures/factors behind the campaign and
plan better to find the appropriate resources to answer my focus questions. I would also have
decided to acquire more library books before I made my enquiry as most of my information was
found online, when I am sure I could have found clusters of valuable information in a book about
the Gallipoli Campaign for example.

Enjoyment of the enquiry

Overall, I feel happy about completing my enquiry given the amount of effort I applied into this. I
did feel a little burnt out towards the end of it, due my motivation for making this enquiry
effectively being very erratic. One thing I found interesting is how we did not really learn much
extensive knowledge about the Gallipoli Campaign in school itself. I believe this is one of the
most, if not the most, significant event to New Zealand in history, so theoretically it should be
taught as mandatory education to intermediate or high schools. This assessment could have
been done better if I planned out my sources beforehand and spaced out my time evenly for this
enquiry instead of relying on random energy outbursts. In the end, I am glad I’ve finished this
enquiry and know it will help me with other research related assignments in the future.