MIDDLE EAST FRONT - SIEGE OF KUT-AL-AMARA, MESOPOTAMIAN CAMPAIGN, PERSIAN CAMPAIGN.

THE MIDDLE EAST FRONT

THE MESOPOTAMIAN CAMPAIGN

THE SIEGE OF KUT-AL-AMARA: NOVEMBER 1915 – APRIL 1916

THE PERSIAN CAMPAIGN: 1914 - 1918

Acknowledgements

Map of Lower Mesopotamia: militaryhistorynow.com Retreat to Kut (1): awayfromthewesternfont.org. Retreat to Kut (2): www.ozebook.com Map of Kut: stevesmith1944.wordpress.com The Siege: ww1live.wordpress.com Airlift:: Imperial War Museum Surrender: dailysabah.com Townshend: pen-and-sword.co.uk Map of Persia: awayfromthewesternfront.org Turkish troops: turkeyswar.com

As we have seen, the British invasion of Mesopotamia in November 1914 was originally regarded as a limited operation to protect oil supplies from Persia and the oil refinery at Abadan. However, so successful was the advance made by the Indian force, that it virtually became a direct push for the prize capture of the city of Baghdad, some 330 miles upstream from the Persian Gulf. Given the limited resources of the British expedition, the problems over reliable supply lines, and the growing strength of the Ottoman army, this proved a logistical mistake. Good progress was initially made, and the fortress town of Kut was captured towards the end of September 1915, but on nearing Baghdad (only a matter of twenty miles in fact), disaster struck. At the Battle of Ctesiphon (see map) – a fierce encounter which raged for four days (22nd to 25th November) – advance turned into defeat. Short of ammunition and with casualties mounting to 40% of his force, the commander, Major-General Sir Charles Townshend, was forced to pull back his troops and make for the comparative safety of Kut. It was a costly and arduous retreat, and, soon after their arrival there (3rd December), the Ottoman army (eventually augmented to four divisions) wasted no time in surrounding the town. For the British troops at that time, and their support units, it was probably seen as a good defensive position until relief arrived. They had no idea then that, in fact, relief was not going to arrive, and that they would be forced to surrender – and suffer even further – almost six months later.

During the 147-day Siege of Kut, the longest siege suffered by the British army (the famous Siege of Ladysmith in the First Boer War was 143 days in length), over 1,000 men died by enemy action and 721 from disease and malnutrition. The fortified city was under almost continuous bombardment, and, situated at a severe bend in the river, was prone to flooding. The Turks did make a number of attempts to take the city by storm, but they proved costly in men and material and were not continued for long. At the beginning of the siege, it was estimated that food on site could last for a month but, in fact, it had to be severely rationed and made to last for five months. For a short time meat was provided by slaughtering some of the horses and mules, but many of the Indian troops were not able to eat meat for religious reasons. Some foodxwas provided by British and Australian aircraft – such as flour, sugar and chocolate – and this supply could well be seen as the world’s first “airlift”. Unfortunately, these airdrops only began towards the end of March so their contribution was limited, and a number of flights were attacked by German aircraft. Nevertheless, over a period of 15 days the Royal Flying Corps carried out 140 flights, dropping 16,000 lbs of food and medical supplies – though some of it fell into the River Tigris or Ottoman hands.

BetweenxJanuary and April 1916, British and Indian troops, advanced up the River Tigris in an attempt to relieve the garrison, but the Ottomans had had time to establish good lines of defence, and they failed to break through. In all, eight battles were fought, at Sheik Sa’ad, Wadi and Hanna in January, Dujaila Redoubt in March, and Hanna, Fallahiyeh, Bait Aisa and Sannalyat in April. In these engagements more men were lost than the number under siege at Kut! On the 29th April, with his men on the verge of starvation, Townshend was forced to surrender, the largest-ever surrender (at this time) in the history of the British Army. The Ottomans took some 12,000 survivors as prisoners and, regardless of their poor physical condition, marched them over 900 miles to prisoner of war camps in Anatolia. Given the brutal treatment the men received, it is estimated that 4,250 died en route or in the camps themselves.

Incidentally, inxcontrast to the vicious captivity suffered by his men, Major-General Sir Charles Townshend (1861-1924) was held on the island of Prinkipo (today named Büyükada), in the Sea of Marmara, close to Constantinople. Here he was provided with a house and a yacht, and treated as an honoured guest until his release in October 1918. During his captivity he came to know the Turkish Minister of War, Enver Pasha. He praised him in public for his “generous hospitality” – though it is claimed that he had witnessed the plight of his men on their “death march” – and openly attacked the British for their maltreatment of Ottoman prisoners of war being held in Egypt! In 1917 he was invested as Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB)! On his return to England he was not offered a new appointment, but his leadership was not questioned. He left the army in 1920, and was a Conservative member of Parliament from 1920-1922. ...…

...... In like manner, all his officers, save one – the commander of the Gurkha company – accepted the offer to be interned separately and, as a result, be more humanely treated.

Thisxlack of loyalty and commitment by the officer corps, together with the feasibility of the campaign itself – clearly asking too much from too little – was not without its critics. Not least amongst these, was Rudyard Kipling, a popular journalist, poet and story teller. Known as the man who fought the war with his pen, he was particularly enraged by the treatment metered out to the fighting soldier, and the indifference shown by both the military planners and commanders, none of whom were censored and most of whom gained promotion and the titles and awards that went with it. His poem, Mesopotamia, pulled no punches. All six stanzas are given below:

Needless to say, for the Ottoman and German Empires, the convincing defeat of the British expedition provided some excellent and well-needed propaganda. On one occasion, the captured troops, mostly Indian, were put on display at a victory parade. But in fact, a battle had been lost, not a campaign. As we shall see, the British revised their strategy and improved the means to carry it out. Renewing their offensive in December, they aimed to retake Kut, capture Baghdad, and then advance on Mosul.

THE PERSIAN CAMPAIGN 1916 -1918

After their humiliating defeat at Kut, the British needed to reassert and, hopefully restore, British prestige in the Middle East. This was particularly so in the neighbouring state of Persia where, apart from the importance of keeping open and guarding their vital trade routes (Persia was seen as a bridge between Europe and the Indian subcontinent), there was a very serious need to protect their Anglo-Persian oil supplies. So when Persian nationalists, aided by German agents, began a campaign against the British – particularly amongst the southern tribes – the British government needed to take action. InxJune 1916 it set up the 8,000 strong South Persia Rifles, commanded by British officers and made up of locally-raised troops and 600 sepoys from the Indian army. Commanded by Brigadier-General Sir Percy Sykes, its assigned task was to guard and improve roads serving the Persian Gulf but, in fact, it spent most of the next two years subduing hostile tribesmen; uprisings organised by Turkish and German agents; and raids by local bandits. The first action was at Bocaqci in September 1916, where it defeated a rebellion organised by a group of escaped German prisoners.

mny

As one might expect, the force itself was not totally reliable, made up in part of Persians and Arabs whose loyalty could be questioned. Inxthe summer of 1918, for example, a large number of the Rifles mutinied at Shiraz, the headquarters, and refused to fight anyone from their own village or locality. The most serious incident occurred at Abadah, where loyal troops and Indian reinforcements had to be called in to put down a widespread uprising. Fortunately for the British, the hostility towards them did subside quite substantially as news of their military victories in the Middle East came to be known. The Rifles were finally disbanded in July 1921 after the Persians gained their independence.

The Persian Campaign, at root, was clearly an attempt by the Turks and the Germans to stir up trouble against Allied rule throughout the Middle East. In fact, Persia – officially – was a neutral state throughout the war! It became embroiled in the war simply because of its strategic position close to the existing war zones and, of course, its extreme value as an oil-producing nation (first exports starting from Abadan in 1912). Even as early as the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907, both countries had partitioned Persia in the event of a war, Russia administrating the northern region, and the British the southern region! (see map above). And when war did break out, the Turks and the Germans were quick to infiltrate the country to stir up opposition against the Allies, particularly Britain. Attempts were constantly made to create an Islamic holy war (a Jihad) to further their cause. Indeed, for some time the Turks waged open warfare against the Russians. They were not always successful, but with the Russian capitulation in 1917, they seized control of a large area of northern Persia. They saw this as a step towards the creation of a Turkish empire which was to stretch from the Balkans to China. As we shall see, it was not to be, but in the meantime Persia suffered yet another foreign invasion. As one British diplomat put it after the war, “Persia, during the war, had been exposed to violations and sufferings not endured by any other neutral country”.

Incidentally, in 1917-1919 Persia suffered a disastrous and widespread famine, together with the associated diseases, such cholera and typhus, and the prevailing flu pandemic. In part at least, this was blamed on the British on the grounds that they had taken over control of transport and the supply of food to support its huge army fighting in Mesopotamia.

Meanwhile in Mesopotamia itself, the British learnt from a humiliating lesson. The command structure was tightened; the supply of war material was markedly improved and, under its new leader, General Frederick Stanley Maud, the campaign’s immediate aims – the retaking of Kut and the capture of Baghdad – were to be achieved as circumstances permitted. It was vital that British prestige be restored.