History of the World War, Volume 3 (of 7) : $b An authentic narrative of the world's greatest warMarch, Francis A., Jr.
History
History of the World War, Volume 3 (of 7) : $b An authentic narrative of the world's greatest war
March, Francis A., Jr.
World War, 1914-1918
It seems plain that the military authorities in India under-estimated
their opponent. The report especially criticized General Sir
John Eccles Nixon, the former commander of the British forces in
Mesopotamia, who had urged the expedition, in spite of the objection of
General Townshend. Others sharing the blame were the Viceroy of India,
Baron Hardinge, General Sir Beauchamp Duff, Commander-in-Chief of the
British forces in India, and, in England, Major-General Sir Edmund
Barrow, Military Secretary of the India office, J. Austin Chamberlain,
Secretary for India, and the War Committee of the Cabinet. According
to the report, beside the losses incurred by the surrender more than
twenty-three thousand men were lost in the relieving expedition.
The general armament and equipment were declared to be not only
insufficient, but not up to the standard.
In consequence of this report Mr. Chamberlain resigned as secretary
for India. In the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour, Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, supported Lord Hardinge, who, at the time of the report,
was Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs. He declared the criticism of
Baron Hardinge to be grossly unjust. After some discussion the House
of Commons supported Mr. Balfour’s refusal to accept Baron Hardinge’s
resignation, by a vote of 176 to 81. It seems to be agreed that the
civil administration of India were not responsible for the blunders
of the expedition. Ten years before, Lord Kitchener, after a bitter
controversy with Lord Curzon, had made the military side of the Indian
Government free of all civilian criticism and control. The blunders
here were military blunders.
The English, of course, were not satisfied to leave the situation in
such a condition, and at once began their plans for a new attempt to
capture Bagdad. The summer campaign, however, was uneventful, though on
May 18th a band of Cossacks from the Russian armies in Persia joined
the British camp. A few days afterwards the British army went up the
Tigris and captured the Dujailah redoubt, where they had been so badly
defeated on the 8th of March. They then approached close to Kut, but
the weather was unsuitable, and there was now no object in capturing
the city.
In August Sir Percy Lake was succeeded by Lieutenant-General Sir
Frederick Stanley Maude, who carefully and thoroughly proceeded to
prepare for an expedition which should capture Bagdad. A dispatch
from General Maude dated July 10, 1917, gives a full account of this
expedition. It was thoroughly successful. This time with a sufficient
army and a thorough equipment the British found no difficulties, and
on February 26th they captured Kut-el-Amara, not after a hard-fought
battle, but as the result of a successful series of small engagements.
The Turks kept up a steady resistance, but the British blood was up.
They were remembering General Townshend’s surrender, and the Turks were
driven before them in great confusion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account