The Surprising Battles of Baghdad

[Goldhedge]

I got this from G-Khan's recent post on "Flanders" by pokin' around on the site. Some interesting pics from The War to End All Wars time frame. http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/default.html you'll have to poke around to find this in the lower left sidebar. There are photos etc.

Wars in Mesopotamia were always about oil, oil and oil
The Surprising Battles of Baghdad

Baghdad: Turkish Troops Prepare For Battle Against An Advancing British Army

(Click here to see this extraordinary photo in high resolution - 200 KB)

By Rob Ruggenberg

The Battles of Baghdad ?

There were no battles. For the British troops taking the city in 1917 was, surprisingly, a piece of cake.

Twentyfour years later, in 1941, they took the city again, this time by sheer bluff.

Conquering Baghdad city is not a big deal, as become obvious again in 2003. The real problems always came afterwards.

The lesson that politicians and generals time after time forget is: After breaking a regime in the Middle-Eeast you have to face the population and they, the people, are much more dangerous than the regime itself.

This is the forgotten story of what happened to Baghdad.

In the Great War 1914-1918 the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire had sided with the Germans and Austrians. The Turks held Mesopotamia, “Land Between the Rivers” Tigris and Euphrates, since 1534 and they had a firm grip on many of the Persian and Arabian oilfields. Britain wanted that oil for its large navy.

But in the first years of the war the Ottomans defeated the British everywhere. In 1916, beaten down by flies and mosquitoes and hampered by swamps, 13,000 diseased and demoralized British and Indian soldiers surrendered to Turkish troops.

At Kut-al-Amara (Al-Kut), halfway to Baghdad, the Turks annihilated the 6th Indian Division. Then they gutted three more British divisions that tried to drive up the Tigris River.

These humiliations made the Mesopotamian war a matter of honour for some of the British generals. Johnny Turk had to go, no matter what.

The newly appointed British commander in chief Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Stanley Maude (PICTURE RIGHT) changed the Mesopotamian scene within a year from one of despair to one of victory.

The British had been, since November 1914, in the possesion of Basra, in the south of Iraq, and held its oilwells. They had also occupied the terminal of the oil pipeline and the refineries on the island of Abadan in the river of Shatt El Arab, in the south-western corner of Persia (Iran).

Chief William Robertson of the Imperial General Staff wanted to keep it that way. He had ordered a defensive strategy: safeguarding these oilfields was first and only priority. Robertson did not even think about conquering Baghdad and the other large oilfields in the north, near Kirkuk and Baku. But after long talks Maude persuaded him to march.

Baghdad

The Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force kept the preparations for the new campaign as secret as possible. In December 1916 the 'imperceptible' offensive began in Basra, and it went swift and succesful. Maude crossed the river Tigris, defeated the Turks who had entrenched themselves along the shores, recaptured Kut-el-Amara and went on to Beersheba, Jaffa, Jerusalem and Baghdad.

The capture of Baghdad was somewhat of an anticlimax. Maude expected fierce resistance and he had worried that the defending commander, Kâzim Karabekir Pasha (PICTURE RIGHT), would flood the plains in front of the city.

Instead Karabekir was indecisive and moved initially to meet the 50,000 British troops head on. The Turkish commander then suddenly changed his mind and opted to defend the railway station. This allowed the British troops to advance close to Baghdad without suffering heavy losses.

Karabekir's mistakes led to the defence of Baghdad becoming almost impossible and the Turks ordered a general retreat. More than 12,000 Turkish troops fled. By the time the British entered the city, on the 11th of March, there were only 9,000 Turkish soldiers remaining. They surrendered rather than put up a fight.

"We come as liberators..."

This is the Proclamation to the People of the Wilayat of Baghdad, that General Maude issued when he took the city:

"People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

British forces enter Baghdad

The photograph above was taken the next day, on 12th March. It shows the 1st Division of the 4th Hampshire Regiment entering the city past a crowd of local onlookers. The division was, in fact, based at a garrison just outside Baghdad and was ordered to march into the city specifically for the purpose of this staged photograph.

The picture illustrated an article on the proposed League of Nations in the National Geographic Magazine of January 1919. That was just a few weeks after the Great War had come to an end.

The picture carried this prophetic byline:

"We fought this war and are reorganizing these new goverments for the purpose of maintaining a democratic peace; but if continual quarrel and war are to succeed these changes on the map, the purpose of the war and the treaty will fail."

No Independence

The defeat of the Turks meant the end of the Ottoman Empire. The winners of World War I divided the "near east" among them, with the new League of Nations giving Britain a mandate to run Iraq (as well as Trans-Jordan, Palestine and Egypt). This disappointed Arab nationalists who had hoped for independence in Iraq and elsewhere.

In 1920, after a troublesome rebellion led by Iraqi nationalists (which left hundreds of British soldiers dead), Britain installed their figurehead Prince Faisal (PICTURE RIGHT) as king of Iraq. During the Great War Feisal and his friend Colonel T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) had been leaders of an Arab bedouin army that had harassed the Turks.

King Faisal promised to safeguard British oil-interests and he indeed granted large oil-concessions to British firms. For that Britain paid him £ 800,000 per month.

Despite Faisal's Islamic and pan-Arab credentials, however, he was not an Iraqi and nationalists viewed the monarchy itself (Iraq had never had a king) as an illegitimate British-created institution.

Running Iraq proved expensive and troublesome for the British, despite the oil concessions. In 1929 a newly elected British Labour government promised independence and in 1932 it was granted, with Faisal as king. One year later Faisal suddenly died.

1941: Oilfields Again

In 1941, during World War II, Iraqi army commanders staged a coup d'etat under the nominal leadership of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani (PICTURE RIGHT), who was suspected by the allies of pro-German sympathies.

In the eyes of London the coup threatened the vital oil supply from the northern Iraq oilfields upon which the British warfare in the Mediterranean depended.

British and Indian forces landed in Basra and headed for Baghdad. At the same time the British-run Arab Legion marched from Transjordan and attacked Rashid Ali's troops in the West.

The Iraqi army, fighting from behind defense lines organized along canals and fields flooded from water unleashed from tributaries of the Tigris and Euphrates, put up a respectable resistance. They also got support by Italian aircraft. But on 30th May the allied forces scattered Iraqi units on the outskirts of Baghdad.

To avoid the prospects of a house-to-house street battle, the British general Clark opted for bluff—an interpreter phoned Rashid Ali's headquarters with exaggerated reports of British strength. The Iraqi leader panicked and, with the Grand Mufti in tow, scuttled to Persia. The British signed a lenient armistice that allowed the Iraqi army to retain its arms and return to its peacetime garrisons. From then on Iraq cooperated with the allies.

During the war there were several pogroms on the large Jewish population in Baghdad, inspired by the German ambassador. After the war, in the early 1950s, the majority of the Jewish population, who were present there since the city’s founding, left on organized flights to Israel.

Republic

The city was the scene of another coup in 1958 let by General Abdul Karim Qassim, a nationalist officer. He overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. In 1963 Qassim was overthrown by officers of the Baath Party.

The Baath Party took control of virtually all aspects of Iraqi society. The architect of that program was Saddam Hussein, who officially became president in 1979.

PICTURE RIGHT: Saddam Hussein with his wife Sajida Khair-Allah in 1979.

On 22nd September 1980 Iraqi armed forces invaded western Iran along the countries' joint border. Iraq tried to seize control of the rich oil-producing Iranian border province of Khzest. Iraq's war effort was openly financed by Saudi Arabia and tacitly supported by the United States. Its international reputation was damaged by reports that it had made use of lethal chemical weapons against Iranian troops. The war carried on until 1988 when both countries accepted an United Nations-mediated cease-fire.

On 16th March 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a chemical weapon attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja. It was part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse areas of minority Kurdish populations. Casualties of the attack numbered around 5,000. Doctors estimate a further 1,600 have died from long-term affects of the attack, and 15,000 still suffer from complications caused by the mustard, nerve and cyanide gases, such as cancers, infertility, respiratory diseases, blindness and birth defects.

Gulf Wars

On 2nd August 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. Saddam Hussein declared that Kuwait had become the 19th province of Iraq. In January and February 1991 a 28-member coalition, including several Middle Eastern states and led by the United States, compelled Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Since then the international community has urged Iraq to get rid of its chemical weaponry.

In March 2003 the United States and Britain invaded Iraq to destroy these so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction and to remove Saddam Hussein from office. The city of Baghdad fell on 9th of April. Saddam Hussein disappeared without a trace, and weapons of mass destruction were not found. The Americans resumed oil export on 23rd of April.

The population of Baghdad has increased dramatically over the last century. In 1917 there were 140,000 inhabitants, while today's figures (2003) have an estimate of between 4 and 5 million.

The majority are Muslims, and Arabs. There is also a substantial Christian population, and still a tiny Jewish population.
------------------------
The fact that there was practically NO resistance to the troops entering the country/city leads me to believe that this "tactic" was used once again. It's a trap pure and simple.

[Pandagold Banned]

What, no mention of Lawrence?

Although he loved the Arabs, he saw their weakness and spent a lot of time pointing it out to them - obviously to of no avail. They spend too much time and effort fighting among themselves. He showed them, by his own leadership how, when united, they could defeat an enemy - even the Turks.

The Turks were good fighters, and both sides - The British, and the Turks, held admiration for each other.

You will find the Jewish population will grow again in Iraq. This is partly what it is all about - not just oil. It happened in Argentina, and in Germany. They will get all their land and property back. They will ALWAYS own High Street.

I also predict there will be a pipeline eventually from Iraq to Israel.

(Just a bit of useless trivia from Panda)

[IrishGold]

The British, and the Turks, held admiration for each other.

I'm afraid that was not the case all the time!
During the Crimean war at Balaclava, (The Charge of the Light Brigade) the Turks were to hold redoubts 1 through 4 as a delaying tactic, and from all the English accounts of the battle on the uplands, the Turks did not distinguish themselves, and in fact were looked on by those there as being cowards.

In addition, the charge of the Light Brigade was by any measure a tactical failure, (six hundred+ mounted cavalry charging into fixed gun emplacements with less than 20 returning still mounted) Yet Tennyson's poem immortalized it.

However, there was another charge that day by the Heavy Brigade that should have been the one to be honored. It was a brilliantly successful charge of mounted cavalry against mounted cavalry. The English, while being outnumbered 3 to 1, were victorious in routing the Russians.

I believe the reason for this seemingly backward honor was the British love of a large "butchers bill."

[IrishGold]

The Charge Of The Light Brigade

by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Memorializing Events in the Battle of Balaclava, October 25, 1854

Written April 10, 1864

Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!' he said:

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'

Was there a man dismay'd ?

Not tho' the soldier knew

Some one had blunder'd:

Their's not to make reply,

Their's not to reason why,

Their's but to do and die:

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

Volley'd and thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of Hell

Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,

Flash'd as they turn'd in air

Sabring the gunners there,

Charging an army, while

All the world wonder'd:

Plunged in the battery-smoke

Right thro' the line they broke;

Cossack and Russian

Reel'd from the sabre-stroke

Shatter'd and sunder'd.

Then they rode back, but not

Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them

Volley'd and thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell,

While horse and hero fell,

They that had fought so well

Came thro' the jaws of Death,

Back from the mouth of Hell,

All that was left of them,

Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?

O the wild charge they made!

All the world wonder'd.

Honour the charge they made!

Honour the Light Brigade,

Noble six hundred!

[Pandagold Banned]

I'm afraid that was not the case all the time!
During the Crimean war at Balaclava, (The Charge of the Light Brigade) the Turks were to hold redoubts 1 through 4 as a delaying tactic, and from all the English accounts of the battle on the uplands, the Turks did not distinguish themselves, and in fact were looked on by those there as being cowards.

In addition, the charge of the Light Brigade was by any measure a tactical failure, (six hundred+ mounted cavalry charging into fixed gun emplacements with less than 20 returning still mounted) Yet Tennyson's poem immortalized it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Take the first paragraph. On a far more researched account of this incident, it has beeen found that the opposite was true. The Turks holding that redoubt took some severe punishment, and did not 'flee' in the manner put out. They stood their ground until nearly all killed This was explained in a British TV series in which battlefield incidents are examined like crimes.

It has also been shown how Custer's 'last stand' was nothing like the myth portrayed. I won't go into the details for fear of offending American Custer's 'last stand' believers. It is not important, as what really happened would be fully understandable - at least, to me and anyone else who loves life and would try to preserve it for as long as possible. I would certainly prefer to die trying to.

Even the details of the charge of the Light Brigade, are not as portrayed by Hollywood, or the accounts at the time.

Amazingly, quite a number rode back out of the carnage.

It was another case of the Brits love a good fight against a comparable enemy - even one of greater strength, and an opportunity for glory. This was shown as recent as the Falkland's war when Lt Col, 'H' Jones (the man at the top) charged, himself, a well entrenched enemy machine gun position because his men were pinned down.

It was an utterly crazy thing to do as both sides said,( even the 'Argie' who shot him). Well, his wife got a medal presented by the queen.

We do not like Iraqi type wars (like the recent) where they had no chance against what was against them.

Every British school boy (and above) knows the poem by Tennyson. A French general watching the event said - 'C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la Guerre'

I apologise for my French (if in error). But his words sum it up.

[IrishGold]

Well, what can I say? I don't have the BBC to correct me. I can only go by what I have read in books and on the net. And I certainly can't argue with this logic:

Even the details of the charge of the Light Brigade, are not as portrayed by Hollywood, or the accounts at the time.

Hollywood yes, but how do you disprove the "accounts at the time"? Methinks you're grasping.
I'm not going to spend time looking for it, but in one of the "accounts" written by one of those that was there "at the time", the writer stated, (paraphrased here) " When I got back I could scarcely find 14 still mounted and one of these was on a Russian horse!" I did not say "survived" I said "returned still mounted" if I remember correctly almost 200 survived but most of those made their way back on foot or were carried back as wounded. There was only one officer who came back on his original horse.

Also, I believe it was Major-General Sir Colin ....?Campbell? who wrote that while the Turks suffered considerable loss in their retreat, they should have and could have held.

But now, on to other matters.

[Pandagold Banned]

I am not sure whether it was the BBC or another Britsh TV channel that aired the seies entitled - Battlefield Detectives. I can recommend it to anyone.

With modern technology, and a greater access to archives including MANY letters from the cobatantants - both sides, it has been possible to paint a more accurate picture of what happened in many of these conflicts.

What it has shown is how we absorbed throgh hand me downs, epic stories that have become legends, a load of often patriotic over emotioanl crap (to put it mildly).

We see how often, the enemy displayed as much bravery, and chivalry, as we did. We also see that sometimes we knocked ourselves when the truth showed just the opposite.

It was often echoed that some German said that the British soldiers were lions led by donkeys, and we believed this. It was inferred that our high rankers kept too far behind the lines. Yet, when the number of 'high rankers' on all sides killed in action were compared, it was found that the British were at, or almost at, the top of the list.

The RAF was almost wiped out in the Battle of Britain, and would have been had the Germans not turned their attention to attacking the civilian population in the cities. And this was only done because Churchill ordered the RAF to bomb Berlin and killed their civilians first.

Often it takes many years for the truth to come out.

We should curb our desire to swallow what we are told merely because it suits our patriotic appetite. War is war, there are brave men on both sides who get suckered into giving their lives. Wars are not started by ordinary people, and they never benefit us. Having said that - beat a drum, sound the trumpets play the bagpipes, wave the flags, listen to the same old lies, and you will get enough to get a war going. THEY know that only too well.

[IrishGold]

When you can't support, oblique march.