Chapter 323: The Public Opinion Struggle
The Battle of Borayeer ended with the complete defeat of the Ottoman forces at Cape "A". The French army successfully captured Cape "A", gaining a rare foothold for landing and survival.
With the French landing at Cape "A", the supply lines of the Gallipoli Peninsula were completely cut off. Once France's 75mm cannons were unloaded, the Ottoman forces would no longer be able to transport supplies, even using manpower to avoid the roads.
For the Ottoman forces, defending the Gallipoli Peninsula had become a nearly impossible task.
As a result, under the command of Sanders, the Ottoman army withdrew entirely from the Gallipoli Peninsula and retreated east of Borayeer, where they established a new defensive line to continue their confrontation with the Allied forces.
What Charles saw were groups of Ottoman soldiers who had been caught by the Allies and were unable to retreat in time. They were ragged, covered in filth, but their eyes, when they looked at the French, were full of hatred.
At Cape "A", over seven thousand militia and regular soldiers were captured, while more than ten thousand were captured at other locations, totaling more than twenty-one thousand prisoners.
However, Charles knew that the victory at Gallipoli did not mean the end of the Dardanelles Campaign.
The other side of the strait was still in Ottoman hands, and the Ottomans could still use mines and submarines to prevent the Allied fleets from entering the Sea of Marmara. Moreover, the number of mines and submarines would only increase, possibly extending into the Sea of Marmara.
In addition, there were still scattered Ottoman forces hiding in the mountains and jungles of Gallipoli, continuing to fight the Allies.
Thus, the battle had only taken its first step, and there were still many difficulties ahead.
Sometimes Charles found it incomprehensible—how could the British Minister of the Navy think that just a few ships could solve such a difficult and complicated battlefield?
What was even more tragic was that, in terms of strategy and tactics, the British Minister of the Navy had made serious mistakes. Yet, he used his influence to clear his name, claiming that the failure of the campaign was “his great success in the strategic direction, but the failure in tactical implementation ultimately led to the defeat.”
...
The French media, however, generally maintained an optimistic view of the battle. They widely reported Charles' victory at Gallipoli:
“As everyone had expected, Charles did not disappoint. With his personal efforts, he successfully turned the tide of the battle, completely placing Gallipoli under Allied control!”
“This is the true landing operation. Charles has pioneered human landing operations, and this battle will undoubtedly be recorded as a classic in history!”
“From now on, it is just a matter of time before the fleet enters the Sea of Marmara. At least one side of the Dardanelles is now secure!”
...
The French public once again erupted with excitement upon hearing the news of the victory. Compared to Charles' previous victories, this time Charles had outperformed the British on the battlefield, making the French public incredibly proud:
“Look, the British sent an entire fleet and organized tens of thousands of troops to land, yet they found themselves in a predicament at Gallipoli. Charles, on the other hand, only brought 3,000 men and achieved a decisive victory in just a few days.”
“I heard that Charles warned the British from the very beginning, but they ignored him, and that’s why this failure occurred.”
“I also heard that they made contact with Charles through General Winter, but the proud British didn’t take his advice seriously.”
...
This information was leaked from the city defense command, but it could not be considered a breach of secrecy, as it was already outdated intelligence.
American newspapers also covered the course of the battle extensively, with some even simulating and recreating the military actions.
Although the United States had not yet entered the war, it had always supported the Allies, and it was only a matter of time before they did.
As such, they were eager to gain combat experience and modernize their equipment before joining, so that their already lagging military and tactics could quickly catch up with international standards.
Only the British newspapers reported the victory with indifference, emphasizing the fire support of the British fleet and the role played by the Australian 5th Light Cavalry Regiment.
If it had ended just there, it might not have been a major issue.
However, public opinion continued to ferment and gradually developed into a struggle for the leadership and command of the war between Britain and France.
Even the British themselves were discussing a question: “If Charles had been in command from the beginning, would the battle have lasted this long, with so many people dying, and so many battleships lost?”
The answer was clearly no. A shocking assessment was made by military and political leaders: if Charles' tactics had been used from the start, the battle could have ended in a week, with casualties possibly under one thousand.
“Because at that time, the Ottomans were unprepared, and they only had artillery, not infantry, on the Gallipoli Peninsula.”
“Charles could have easily landed on the peninsula and seized the enemy by the throat.”
“Then, the Ottomans’ ammunition would not have been able to reach the peninsula, and our ships would not have been shelled. The Ottomans would not have been able to lay mines smoothly!”
“It’s laughable that the British military used Borayeer, such an important place, as a decoy position!”
...
People outside of the military and political spheres discussed it in simpler and more straightforward terms:
“If Charles had been in command, could we have saved many more lives?”
“For the politicians, maybe it’s just a matter of casualty numbers, but for us, it’s about lives!”
“We should demand that the British hand over the command to Charles. It’s better for everyone!”
...
And that’s exactly what they did. First, France initiated several marches, and then Australia and New Zealand quickly followed.
France did so for honor, as most of the troops it sent to Gallipoli were colonial forces. The casualties were not personally felt by most of the population.
Australia and New Zealand, however, were trying to avoid unnecessary casualties, and most of those participating in the marches were military families.
Soon, even the British began to hold similar marches and protests:
“If we can achieve victory at a lower cost, why not?”
“Does it really matter who leads this war? Isn’t victory the most important thing?”
“Politicians don’t think that way; they care more about their own interests!”
...
At this point, public opinion had overwhelmingly shifted in favor of giving Charles command, and it grew louder and louder. Some Australian and New Zealand troops even made dangerous statements:
“If Charles isn’t in command, we will refuse to fight.”
“We are fighting for the interests of the Allies, not for the politicians' interests.”
“We are giving our lives, and we want that to be meaningful!”
...
Suddenly, shocking news broke: “The Germans have confirmed that Charles is fighting at Gallipoli. They intend to eliminate him at any cost. They believe that Charles is more important than Gallipoli, or even the Ottoman Empire itself!”
Everyone fell silent.
They all thought about one question: Now, should we withdraw Charles?