Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Also brought on my my current reading of the Great War campaigns, I am also intrigued by the Mesopotamian Campaign, which apparently was fought by the British Indian Army with few British troops (13th Division), and was truly Lions led by Donkeys.  Townsend appears to be a commander on the lines of Percival of Singapore fame, and General Nixon seems equally bad.  Just from a cursory reading ( I would love to get some good books on this campaign written by good historians), the campaign did not need to be fought at all.  The Ottomans were not capable of taking Basra away from the British, nor were they able to attack into Persia to sever the oil supply.  

So why was this campaign even fought?  My contention was it was fought based on the egos of the commanders Townsend and Nixon (who apparently despised each other) for the "glory" of taking Baghdad.  This despite Baghdad at this time being a squalid little town of no real importance.  Two Donkeys with their elite "Old School Tie" mentality having read too much Greek history decided to be the person who took Baghdad.  

So as a result a fine Indian Army division (6th) was sacrificed to the ego of the Donkeys, and after being captured, Townsend was feted and kept in splendid captivity while his men were starved, lead on a death march, beaten, and abused.  But as long as Townsend was with "the right sort of chaps" he was fine.  He even offered to help the Turks after the war.  

So why was this campaign even fought and why did the British Army allow such Donkeys to command such Lions?  Also why was Townsend not shot after the war or at least Court Martialled?

Posted (edited)

The campaign was entirely pointless after the occupation of Basra and the securing of the oilfields, but arrogance and Orientalism played a part in the minds of the commanders as they saw themselves as the occupiers of Baghdag, and it was the only place the Raj could make a campaign by itself.

Re the treatment of Townshend and the POWs, to be fair there was nothing Townshed could do for his men and the Ottomans weren't well off themselves, plus this was the time of the Armenian genocide.

As the wiki notes: "Townshend returned to England in 1919. Much to Townshend's fury, only his wife and daughter together with his beloved dog Spot showed up to greet him as he arrived back in London, as he was expecting to receive a hero's welcome. Townshend asked for a major promotion on the account of his war work and he was refused; likewise the Army made it clear that no assignments were open to him anywhere in the Empire.[76] He resigned from the British Army in 1920 after it became clear that his career was finished"

what a guy...

This book looks good: 

  • Barker, Col. A. J. (2009). The First Iraq War, 1914–1918: Britain's Mesopotamian Campaign. Enigma Books. ISBN 978-1-929631-86-5.

Welcome back Murph

Edited by RETAC21
Posted

That Townshend guy looks like he could have been among the real people that inspired George MacDonald-Fraser's Flashman.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Again, looking at it, it really seems that the troops sent here, could have been far far better used in Palestine-Syria.  A waste of good soldiers for an campaign that did not need to be fought.  

Posted

Of course, first campaign's failure was doubled by the 'necessity' of revenge campaign, which was very expensive undertaking. Although successful, it did nothing to advance defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

In retrospect, Britain should have just delivered those battleships to Ottomans, and buy the Turks off. It would have been MUCH cheaper. I don't know if it was possible to appease the Ottoman Empire enough so that pro-German war party couldn't get its way, but it really looks it was not even tried. It almost looks like UK and Russia were happy to get a war against the Ottomans.

 

Posted

I think the Russians wanted to take Constantinople, and the British did not want the Russians to control it.  But they were allies which made things worse.  Also they wanted those ships to prevent them from being used against them in the Med.  and also they wanted more ships against the High Seas Fleet.   Whoever allowed the British troops to advance into Iraq needed to be shot, what a waste of critically needed troops.  

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Funny thing no one ever mentions about the Turkish battleships, resumption in time of war was in the contract. The Turkish government had agreed, in advance, to the RN taking over the ships in the event of a war - it was part of the boiler plate in buying a warship form someone else's yard, and I dare say probably still is.  

The process of getting more or less any ship built in a shipyard involves a lot of finance to to pay all the wages and bills before the customer settles up. Progress payments are generally off setting against the interest accruing. Anyway, by their nature warships are generally sovereign risks, which sort of complicates the deal for commercial banks. So to save embarrassment those loans tended to be underwritten by the host government.  This is where a certain amount of diplomatic quid-pro-quo could go on, and preferential deals be made etc. But for Brazil and Chile to order those ships, the Bank of England had to underwrite their deals, and part of the BoE's end was a clause giving the British government the option in a crisis to take up a ship they actually already owned at that point.

When the Turks took up those contracts they didn't blink an eye over the resumption clause. It was SOP and had been the case for ships they'd had built for themselves. So for all the tears shed over it most of the money raised by Turkish women selling their jewellery for the ships never left Turkey and was paid out was repaid by HMG in compensation when they took up the ships.  

Edited by Argus
Posted

Other than I wrote an essay about it in year 8 that saw me in foul ordure with my history teacher for the rest of the year? 

What is there to be said about Kut.... Townshend didn't seem too bad, apart from this monumental rush of stupid to the brain. How much that was all ego Vs a 'known good' solution (that wasn't) its hard to say, the ego case seems to get most of the votes but... well Chitral was Chitral and whatever he thought no one was playing those games on the far distant edge of a world war. 

Yet as a campaign, I don't think Mesopotamia was as much a wate as it might seem. The Indian Army did need 'something to do' and well:
1/ Western Front - they tried that in 14/15 no good, the Indian sick rates weren't sustainable, too cold and damp. Current research (AFAIK) suggests this was actually the real reason, not an excuse for some other motive.

2/ Palestine - Logistics, the theatre just couldn't absorb more troops. 

3/ Ditto Africa

4/ Salonika - sick rates and its a dead end.   

5/ Options 1/, 2/ and 4/ all require the provision of the 'heavy' kit for full dress warfare; heavy arty, gas, tanks. With all the expenditure and logistics that needs, and I don't really think anyone could spare enough of that for another half a million men.  Given how Salonika was treated, even if they DID have enough it wouldn't get past the Western Front anyway Haig would grab it to make the rubble bounce (mud splash) higher. Mesopotamia just ticks so many boxes. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...