Siege of Kut 1916

[David Filsell]

Lancashire

But is there evidence that any of these soldiers and etc who met with the Turks were in touch with Townshend? Is there any evidence that the Turks advised him of these meetings - I hardly think that they or any other Turks would have enlightened him of the plight of the British troops. Different time, different mores. I ask these question only because no one seems to have asked them before, or if they did the answers seem lost in time. The British Army took particular pride of the way officers treated men. I find it almost inconceivable whatever his military competence or otherwise Townshend would turn his back on his men or his responsibility for them. So far all that exists seems to be long repeated allegation of callous behaviour. Can anyone come up with firm evidence that hd knew all, or any, of the facts about the POWs?

[lancashire]

David, as I continue to read my current books, I will keep an eye out for any information on this point.

Hazel there are numerous comments from Townsend / maybe others too regarding why Kut was selected, rather than summarize I will look later and add if either as a screen shot of copy it out in full.

[hazelclark]

Hi David,

I don't think there can be much question about Townshend's knowledge of what was happening with his men. He says himself that he was allowed to see the American Ambassador on arrival in Constantinople, and while the information may not have been available immediately on his arrival, it sure as heck must have arrived in short order given the help arranged by the Americans in Baghdad. He may not initially have been aware of the extent of the abuse, and certainly would not at that time have been aware that the problem was endemic, but in any case, I don't see what he personally could have done. But I have never seen written independently, that he was fully cognisant of what was happening, or for that matter that he was not aware prior to the end of the war.

Will have to keep digging, but I still think he got something of the short end of the stick.

Hazel

[David Filsell]

Hazel

My point is that points like:

"while the information may not have been available immediately on his arrival, sure as heck must have arrived in short order given the help arranged by the Americans in Baghdad"

to be sure, for the view that he knew, there is no genuine evidence that he was aware. With respect this is simply, at the moment, opinion and I accept it as such.

Even had he known, what could he have done? Would the Turks have allowed him to join his men? Tipped him out on the street, shot him? I doubt it.

I do not judge his competence or incompetence as a military commander, simply ask if there is any actual proof that he knew about the POWs situation and am interested to know more about his (very limited) ability to have influence the treatment of his men had he done so.

I am not aware that anyone criticises or holds responsible Percival for the treatment of his men by the Japanese after the surrender of Malaya - although I am happy to be cvorrected Townshend's case seems similar.

My interest in this comes from looking recently at Hunter Bunter. Not perfect for sure but much of what is regularly trotted out about the (Unbiogrphied) man is constantly repeated hearsay and unsubstantiated single lines/paras from books by subordinates and those who met him. Certainly a body of evidence - but not proof of anything. Recently MacDonald has judged HB "Insane", interestingly HB himself said the very same about Gough. Both comments may well find currency in future books.

I realise that comment about HB - the man who said the plans for the Gallipoli operation was faulted and did much the same about the Somme (but carried out his orders as directed to the best of his and his division's ability) -- is likely to bring a storm down on me , but it is important to judge from the situation then - not simply now from possibilities..

Nothing I have seen or heard yet shows me that Townshend, whatever his military competence/incompetence, starts to convince me that he knew about the plight of his men and simply accepted or ignored it.

Yours contentiously

David

[lancashire]

Hazel, David:

From Crowleys book:

Communique from Townsend to the troops " I intend to defend Kut and not to retire any further, there are also comments by Brig Gen Remington on Dec 1st that questioned this and Townsend "did not want the prestige of his force to be further damaged by successive retreats"

The decision to stand at Kut has a lot to do with him, yes of course his seniors would have supported the view though there are comments that Townsend did not understand "the bigger picture".

I thing that clarifies the decision so halt at Kut.

Regarding what did he know about his troops conditions: ( I have looked at the book from the end-backwards to try and gather some information to try and help answer this too)

1. Townsend had very pleasant accommodation, was treated as a guest, had free travel, had some British and Turkish staff (incl Cpt Morland), kept in contact with the American Embassy, English newspapers, regularly taken out with the Naval Schools yachts, he blamed the Germans not the Turks for the prisoners treatment. (One book written of Kut was done by a cousin who of course supported his own memoirs which hardly mentioned the plight of others)
2. Broussa which was not far from Constanople ..became the home of the other senior oficiers from Kut and were joined by Generals Delamain, Melliss the later was especially aware of the other troops conditions as due to illness had been transported more slowly and had seen the conditions.
3. "General Melliss continued to do his best to support the prisoners and could not have been impressed by the relative lack of effort being made by his old commander on Prinkipo Island - Townsend does not even appear to have made an attempt to visit his old brigades commanders."
4. AJ Barker wrote after the war there were rumours that a deputation led Melliss to the War office to protest about Townsend behaviour - it unlikely that this will surface even with the 50 year rule
5. Melliss did have covet correspondence with Admiral Wemyss regarding an escape plan so the Admiral must have been elsewhere perhaps Murdos.
6. Townsend left Prinkipo 18th October landed at Mudros 20th October. F Marshall Haig in November 22 1918 after a visit with the King (Europe) wrote in his diary "His majesty went on to tell me how General Townsend of Kut fame should have remained to share the fate of his fellow prisoners, instead of asking for his liberty in order to help the Turks to get a satisfactory peace......."

My conclusion is that I without doubt given the contacts especially with the Americans he must have some knowledge though I agree with Hazel maybe not all of it regarding the overall conditions the bulk were facing. it didn't stop the like of Gen Melliss fighting for the others!

Given the proximity of the other camps (Broussa was just one of them), contact could so easily have been made to see his fellow officers).

There are many extracts that he was keen to ensure he was well looked after, even in the first surrender terms (rejected) he requested parole for himself to go to London asap, his book is considered to defend his role as the public became aware of the situation, his cousins book defends him and by this time he had no friends in high places and the military shunned him too.

Yes, there more books than these two, I am sure we will learn more, however I do still support the statement I sent earlier as written by Lt Gen Sir Graeme Lamb Army Field Commander 2009.

Seajane I will separate later some of the Naval parts from Sandes books and place them in a new topic probably on the lines of River Boats in Mesopotamia as this topic seems now to resolve around Townsend.

Edited 25 July , 2015 by lancashire

[hazelclark]

So much of what is written is "opinion", David. Often garnered as a result of reading several sources, it is the way that most people come to conclusions. However, the scary thing is, that authors of books which are well written and well researched, often prove to have reached conclusions which the next generation of writers "disprove". Maybe something to do with material taken out of context or whatever.

The book largely responsible for my skepticism, was Terraine's "The Road to Passchendaele" which to me, consisted largely of quotes from official sources as well as private correspondence. The very next book I read tore it to bits. I think maybe it was Winter but could be mistaken. From then on, I have questioned the sources for just about everything I have read, and have come to the conclusion that someone will always have a different interpretation which to me means that the truth is very hard to come at.

I personally don't have the background to be able to tell the difference. So many memoirs were distorted to suit the writer or present a point of view.

I really didn't mean to write a book, but what would you accept as "evidence" as to Townshend's knowledge, or lack therof regarding his men?

As far as the decision to remain at Kut is concerned Lancashire, I would concur with what Townshend said, but I still think that he was being controlled by a superior. I think that by then the India Office had passed control to London. In any case, there was a dereliction of duty on behalf of his immediate superiors, IN MY OPINION.

Funnily enough, my one and only Grandchild, born six months ago, named Hunter Macaulay Clark, is a bit chubbly at the moment and has attracted the name "Hunter Bunter", although it was more BILLY I had in mind!

Hazel

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

The taking away and isolating senor officers is as old as war.

Check out what happened to officers like Percival and the US commander of the Phillipines in Jap hands.

Also check out what happened to the Australian commander of the 8th Aust Div in Singapore after he escaped, he was never allowed a command again?

SO would he have been better to have been captured?

Don't be so hard of Townsend.

S.B

[David Filsell]

Sorry to bang on but still no proof

Hazel

I want proof and since it is such a serious assertion against Towshend a back up second proof. Not unreasonable really

second proof" to back it.

If it was Winter, his research has long been condemned and disputed by serious military historians. I admit to trusting John Terraine way beyond Anything written in his book about Haig.

Lancashire

Point 1 proves nothing, 2 indicates conditions on the march certainly, source of quote would be helpful,but notes 'does not appear to' etc so is not proof, 4 Certainly not proof.Barker himself uses the word 'rumour', 5 I do not understand relevance, 6 the King's opinion only - was he aware even that Townshend had been 'imprisioned' apart from his men.

So team, if your views are correct, and they may well be, I remain unconvinced that they meet

[hazelclark]

Well, I'm stumped - for now! I guess you are not about to take Townshend's word??!!

Hazel

[David Filsell]

I am really not trying be difficult, I still simply see no proof. have I missed something? Where has there been Townshend's word on his knowledge of POW conditions on this thread? Do please let me know if I have been foolish enough to miss it.

[hazelclark]

Well, (in my opinion), it is the kind of thing that, if there were proof positive out there, that he knew the degree to which his troops were being maltreated and did absolutely nothing to even attempt to alleviate the situation, the press, (unless muzzled) would have been all over it. His men appeared to like him, and he had a good army record up until the Kut business.

Maybe McAuslan will have to wait.

H

[David Filsell]

Hazel,

Pretty much 'Not Proven' as Scottish Law has it is my view. Doubts about his action certainly but that's can be all.

The ruination of his reputation as an honourable man and soldier will hover, but is in my opinion far from being proven.

This thread has shown nothing whatsoever which supports the assertions of poor conduct against him.

David

[lancashire]

David, Hazel,

Firstly it's good that questions are being asked its very heatlhy, I am having to read the books more closely and hunt for sources, I have not read Townsends memoirs of those written by his cousin that surely must have something to say even in their purpose would have been to maintain his reputation etc. Believe it or not I am trying to fair in my comments as opposed to be judge and jury!

David I have copied out your comments to my last numbered point I will reply and add a scan for point 2, my more recent comments on the whole have been typed from the book as opposed to me summarizing them!

Hazel:

"and he had a good army record up until the Kut business"

This comment could also open a can of worms, without making any unsupported comments given the very successful advance before Kut an issue that keeps cropping up is that by retreating to far backwards it impacts upon this initial success, this not only could effect Townsends reputation but that of his superiors and their political masters too

Have either of you read the letter from M Gen Sir Charles Melliss to the Secretary od State for War - sent from Broussa on 15ht August 1917?

(sent by the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople 5 Sept 1917)

National Archives Kew: FO (foreign office) 383 (formerly file 249) covering 1917

[lancashire]

1. Townsend had very pleasant accommodation, was treated as a guest, had free travel, had some British and Turkish staff (incl Cpt Morland), kept in contact with the American Embassy, English newspapers, regularly taken out with the Naval Schools yachts, he blamed the Germans not the Turks for the prisoners treatment. (One book written of Kut was done by a cousin who of course supported his own memoirs which hardly mentioned the plight of others)
2. Broussa which was not far from Constanople ..became the home of the other senior oficiers from Kut and were joined by Generals Delamain, Melliss the later was especially aware of the other troops conditions as due to illness had been transported more slowly and had seen the conditions.
3. "General Melliss continued to do his best to support the prisoners and could not have been impressed by the relative lack of effort being made by his old commander on Prinkipo Island - Townsend does not even appear to have made an attempt to visit his old brigades commanders."
4. AJ Barker wrote after the war there were rumours that a deputation led Melliss to the War office to protest about Townsend behaviour - it unlikely that this will surface even with the 50 year rule
5. Melliss did have covet correspondence with Admiral Wemyss regarding an escape plan so the Admiral must have been elsewhere perhaps Murdos.
6. Townsend left Prinkipo 18th October landed at Mudros 20th October. F Marshall Haig in November 22 1918 after a visit with the King (Europe) wrote in his diary "His majesty went on to tell me how General Townsend of Kut fame should have remained to share the fate of his fellow prisoners, instead of asking for his liberty in order to help the Turks to get a satisfactory peace......."

Point 1 proves nothing – except that there were proven existing communication links that should he have wished too could have followed them up and learn’t more IF so inclined! –NB - I will add to the American Consuls knowledge separately as there is proof in this respect!

2 indicates conditions on the march certainly, source of quote would be helpful, but notes 'does not appear to' etc so is not proof - Information gave Townsend the option to at least to visit his fellow officers / commanders, which one would surely expect the like of him to do, if he had any interest in doing so, this could have been achieved?

4 Certainly not proof. Barker himself uses the word 'rumour' – however there is formal letter written by Melliss in 1917 details sent already in the Kew Archives

5 I do not understand relevance, 6 the King's opinion only - was he aware even that Townshend had been 'imprisioned' apart from his men. – background information and sentiment perhaps that its likely to have come from any news circulating, especially after Melliss letter to the Secetary of State for War!

I am really not trying be difficult, I still simply see no proof. have I missed something? Where has there been Townshend's word on his knowledge of POW conditions on this thread? Do please let me know if I have been foolish enough to miss it.

David,

My comments are in italic's if they copy that way

Once digested I have further information ref the Amercian Consul and Red Cross - to follow.

Struggling to load jpg file will try as a stand alone

[lancashire]

David, I had to shrink the file via an alternative system first.

[hazelclark]

As you are well aware, the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" is more damning than a "Guilty" verdict! Anyway, I am curious now, to find out, but don't hold your breath!

H.

Hazel,

Pretty much 'Not Proven' as Scottish Law has it is my view. Doubts about his action certainly but that's can be all.

The ruination of his reputation as an honourable man and soldier will hover, but is in my opinion far from being proven.

This thread has shown nothing whatsoever which supports the assertions of poor conduct against him.

David

Lancashire, I was referring to Townshend's pre war military record.

David is looking for a smoking gun still in the hand of the shooter.

H.

Edited 27 July , 2015 by hazel clark

[David Filsell]

Hazel,

My point exactly. Damning without any damned proof But still not proven, so as Lancashire puts it, show me the smoking gun.

Regards

David

[lancashire]

Hazel, I reckon I have found one, will post it tomorrow after I have considered it further overnight, it certainly links up most of the issues we have debated, to me anyhow on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" as we have gone legal!

ps the can of worms refers to his pre Kut era so we are aligned there.

Edited 27 July , 2015 by lancashire

[David Filsell]

But we are talking about post Kut issues - I will be interested to see the relevance, .cos I ain't seen nothing yet!

[lancashire]

David, Morning, ref the "can of worms" it relates to Kut and pre Kut not afterwards, I will leave that out, I'm working on the what did / could he have known ref the other POW for now!

Basis to the smoking guns! #1

David, Hazel,

I intend to build the case piecemeal partly to see what we have consensus on, then I will seek / add further information in attempt to reduce the speculation! (I feel I have quite a bit)

Are we able to agree that Townsend had access to various personnel who either had information from their own independent sources and the ability to communicate with others international bodies, of prime importance here is the contacts with the American Consuls and via them the American Red Cross.

Various personnel from the officers and other ranks were either met or assisted by the American Consul (notably Mr Brissell), French Nuns and the American Red Cross, Gen Delamain, Col Hehir, Lt Col Baines and regular hospital visits.

The enclosed section also states that 21 officers and 323 m3n were evacuated to British lines in August another officer was exchanged to Basara. (more information to follow).

The importance of this has to be that information managed to get out externally though of most importance is that links between the American Consular service, surely information would have been at least discussed with the commanding officer during his meetings given that he should have had some interest regarding his colleagues.

Sherson (his cousin – author) wrote “Townsend worked daily for the relief of the prisoners of war who had been at Kut” thus its more than fair to deem he showed an interest!

“Some gifts also arrived at the camp via the Red Crescent or organised by the American Embassy in Constantinople” Kastamuni Camp.

So it’s beyond reasonable doubt #1 to conclude that what the American found and did (incl the Am Red Cross), would have reached the ears of Townsend, the link clearly goes back to Constantinople.

I feel that this link is proven to exist before adding Sherson’s comments.

That is disregarding any information gleaned from the press, any feedback from officials regarding returned prisoners at this stage is hard to prove however its reasonable that the Army command / war office etc must have some news of the “evacuated / exchanged troops) who would have been aware of the general conditions due to whence they were hospitalized.

American Consuls involved (so far), Baghdad Mr Brissell and Messina Consul appealed for the sick to be collected and taken to Adana and Tarsus.

Timeline: Townsend arrived at Constantinople 3 June, 20 October 1918 arrived at Mudros, Armistice signed 30 October on HMS Agamemnon.

Edited 28 July , 2015 by lancashire

[hazelclark]

Haven't time to read everything right now but Maureene resurrected this old thread today. Don't know how much use it is.

 

H.

[lancashire]

Hazel,

Thanks have left a comment on the link Maureen sent as well, having posted smoking gun #1, I have more # 's to add though I would like David to comment on the #1 before I add more to the party as what I have found out today all form a pattern.

I would be interested to see David's comments on that link!

J

[David Filsell]

Lancashire

Not sure what you mean . I see no smoking gun in post no. 1. Indeed it states that Townshend did work on behalf of prisoners!

[hazelclark]

Hazel,

My point exactly. Damning without any damned proof But still not proven, so as Lancashire puts it, show me the smoking gun.

Regards

David

Actually, I was the person who said you wanted a smoking gun, but I didn't say anything about providing it! Did I?

H

[lancashire]

Evening,

Let me go back a step. my understanding is that David's comment was "My point exactly. Damning without any damned proof But still not proven" and that David was looking for proof that Townsend deserves his reputation and disgrace, so I opted to try and provide the proof that he does

deserve it!

Lancashire
But is there evidence that any of these soldiers and etc who met with the Turks were in touch with Townshend? Is there any evidence that the Turks advised him of these meetings - I hardly think that they or any other Turks would have enlightened him of the plight of the British troops. Different time, different mores. I ask these question only because no one seems to have asked them before, or if they did the answers seem lost in time. The British Army took particular pride of the way officers treated men. I find it almost inconceivable whatever his military competence or otherwise Townshend would turn his back on his men or his responsibility for them. So far all that exists seems to be long repeated allegation of callous behaviour. Can anyone come up with firm evidence that hd knew all, or any, of the facts about the POWs?

Its clear that everyone else knew about it!

Ref my last points just because a cousin of Townsend wrote that Townsend worked daily on this issue on this there is consensus here, I have not seen a shed of proof that he actually did so, that this is just a line of text in the book supporting T.

On this point we have the involvement that the American Consul, various Red Cross's, other external bodies were all aware of prisoner miss treatment however I get the distinct feeling that Townsend who has frequent contact some of these bodies seems oblivious to it, yet everyone else including the British Government is aware of the issues.

The Red Crosses were involved (American and Swiss), the British Govt, knew from numerous sources, including escaped x-prisoners which leads to my point ref the Kings comment to Haig all before Townsend left Turkey. We have the letter from Gen Melliss that is in the Archives too and other written and verifiable proof that others were trying.

I have the distinct feeling that T did next to nothing to ease the plight of his Kut personnel, until he began to be affected after his return to the UK when it began to hamper his future!

Edited 28 July , 2015 by lancashire