Battle for Jerusalem

[michaeldr]

9 hours ago, stevebecker said:

Michaeldr,  I think what they are getting at is the surrender of Jerusalem was by the locals, not the Ottoman Army, who had withdrawn.

Steve,

I think that the 'local' man was the mayor, Hussein al-Husayni

and he took his instructions from the Ottoman Turkish Governor, Izzet Bey*

Now whether a surrender is any different if it is written by a Ottoman civil servant rather than by an Ottoman military officer is a very, very fine point indeed.

A surrender is nevertheless just that, a surrender.

 

edit to add: * In his book 'Jerusalem in World War I; The Palestine Diary of a European Diplomat' the Conde de Ballobar describes Izzet Bey as a relative of Djamal Pasha

Edited 24 February , 2017 by michaeldr

[Guest]

Mate,

 

I would not disagree, they are really clutching at the finer points.

 

But like I said, its still some discomfort to the Turks about was it surrendered or left as an open city.

 

I checked the AIF records, but could find no record of the Turks sending a message to Allenby, about they (the Turks) allowing the city to be open, so the British would not shell it?

 

Are you aware of any thing your end (British records) from the Turks?

 

Of cause once the Ottoman Army had withdrawn, the locals as you state, Hussein al-Husayni and Isset Bey, had no choose but to surrender before the British did anything to the City, since its protection was gone?

 

Cheers

S.B

[michaeldr]

Steve,

 

Can I correct you on one point: your “the locals as you state, Hussein al-Husayni and Isset Bey”

 

Izzet Bey was not a 'local' – the name Izzet is Turkish and the Conde de Ballobar thought that he was a relative of Djamal (the latter was the Minister of Marine and Governor of Syria, and one of Turkey's ruling triumvirate together with Enva and Talaat)

The surrender of the city was ordered by Izzet Bey as Governor of Jerusalem. However he fled, leaving the actual handover to the 'local' man: the mayor, Hussein al-Husayni

 

Regarding the question of whether or not to attack the city and endanger the holy places:

Somewhere or other I have seen a claim that Falkenhayn was indeed anxious not to endanger the city, but I have never come across any hint whatsoever that there was communication between the two sides on the subject.

 

Allenby was very well versed in the biblical writings and may himself have had reservations about an attack on the city, however nothing was left to chance. The matter was discussed by the cabinet in London and they instructed the CIGS (Robertson) to pass on to Allenby their concerns:

 

Robertson to Allenby 16 November 1917

(telegram despatched 2200, received 0700 17NOV1917)

“The Prime Minister desires that every possible precaution should be taken, if occasion arises, to secure the Holy Places, both Christian and Mahometan, from violation of any kind. I am sure the importance of this is realised by you but should be glad of an assurance which I can give War Cabinet with regard to this matter.”

[from 'Allenby in Palestine – the Middle East Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Allenby' edited by Matthew Hughes & published by the Army Records Society]

 

Any concern which the Ottoman Turks and their European allies may have had for the city did not however extend beyond the city's walls. The English hospital was blown-up: see h

Storrs wrote

"The Ophthalmic Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem is a long picturesque building on the east of the Bethlehem Road, straggling down the slopes of the Valley of Hinnom, and so known by the Arabs as Abu Salalim, the Father of the Staircase. For many years before the War it had rendered selfless, unpropaganded and deeply appreciated service to patients of all races and creeds ranging from the Sinai to Aleppo. I found it in a pitiful state, as the Turks had used it for an ammunition-dump and blown it up on the eve of their retreat.”

 

regards

Michael

[Guest]

Mate,

 

Your right, while this maybe discussed at a higher level, but that appears not to have filtered down to the ranks, if two Sgts received the surrender of the City, why was there not some group put together for its surrender with the withdrawal of Turks Troops.

 

It appears that its surrender was unexpected by Allenby and the other commanders that morning?

 

One does wonder why this was not improved after a year, when in Oct 1918 our troops (10th ALHR) under Olden entered Damascus to find a mess.

 

Cheers

S.B

Edited 26 February , 2017 by stevebecker

[michaeldr]

Battles are chaotic, Steve

Diplomacy requires opposing parties to communicate with one another, but war (diplomacy by other means) leaves that stage behind.

 

Regarding the question of a surrender, or a withdrawal, and whether or not it was 'local' or high-command

My worry here is the military and their apologists trying to rewrite history so that they can avoid their responsibilities.

E.G:

In the 1920s & 1930s Germans were fed the propaganda of the 'stab in the back'

And similarly, after years of profligacy with their army, in the last year of the war the UK's generals tried to blame the politicians for a manpower shortage brought about by their own strategies and tactics.

Edited 27 February , 2017 by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

Quote from post No. 28 above:- Any concern which the Ottoman Turks and their European allies may have had for the city did not however extend beyond the city's walls

Expanding a little on this, there is evidence that the Germans did exert influence on their Turkish allies to ameliorate their treatment of the civilian population, made up as it was of various ethnic and religious groups, who were viewed with some considerable suspicion (for divided loyalties) by the Ottoman authorities

There is an article here http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/books/.premium-1.608235 * which may be of interest. It is based upon “A Century Without Monument and Memory: A Public Appeal for Commemoration of the Jewish Community of Eretz Israel’s Fallen in World War I,” published in the Hebrew journal Aley Zait Vacherev (Olive Leaves and Sword), by The Galili Center for Defense Studies.

 

* It is free to register and, I understand, receive access to six articles a month

Edited 27 February , 2017 by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

The position of Germany here can be further expanded & explained by ref to -

Deportation of the Jewish population in Palestine during World War I

by Osik Moses,  Bergische Universitat Gesamthochschule Wuppertal

[see http://www.academia.edu/11548530/Deportation_of_the_Jewish_population_in_Palestine_during_World_War_I ]

 

page 15>

The timing could not have been more disadvantageous to Germany. The discovery of the [pro-British, NILI] spy-ring coincided with Kaiser’s visit to Dardanelles. Von dem Bussche-Hadenhausen, the Under Secretary of State, “was shocked” when he heard the news from Otto Warburg, Chairman of the Zionist Executive in Berlin. The Turks, he feared, would again react harshly and thereby create another “wave of revulsion around the world,” and Kaiser’s visit could be used by the Entente as a proof for German complicity.

 

Kühlmann, now the Foreign Minister, saw the danger the incident could create for Germany’s image. Once more Germany could become “the object of worldwide condemnation.” This conviction was reinforced when the Governor of Jerusalem, “a most virulent anti-Semite,” “delivered a violent speech against the Jews.” The German Consul General tried his utmost to convince the Governor not to do “anything that will anger the Jews as a community and provide our enemies with ammunition for more ‘horror propaganda’.”

 

 The German policy for the next few weeks was to prevent the Ottomans from excesses and treat the spy incident merely as an episode involving only a minority of the Jewish population in Palestine. The Germans also on many occasion express their concerns about the “certain danger to Germany if [Constantinople] did not moderate their behavior toward the Jewish population.” At the same time, German representatives in the Ottoman Empire were instructed to prevent the Turkish officials at any cost from taking measures against the Jewish population on the whole in order not to “furnish the enemy with material for further propaganda.”

 

 Bernstorff contacted Nazim Bey and Talaat with the request “for as mild a treatment of the Jews as was practicable.” Talaat assured him that although “We have done much harm to the Armenians, we shall do nothing to the Jews.”

  

With the arrival of General von Falkenhayn, Inspector-General of the German forces in Turkey, in Jerusalem, everyone felt relieved. Falkenhayn was charged with conducting the investigations and handled the issue with utmost competence. He released those who were unlawfully imprisoned and punished only actual members of the Nili group—two principal leaders, Joseph Lishansky and Naaman Belkind, were executed; the rest received various imprisonment terms.

 

 On December 9, 1917, Jerusalem was captured by the British. “To their surprise they found that with the exception of Jaffa, the Jewish colonies had survived unscathed. Nor had the population in Jerusalem been bled white as might have been expected.”

 

And in his Conclusion (p.17) Osik Moses writes: German officials wanted to prevent providing gratuitous propaganda for the Entente, and thereby jeopardizing German leverage at the future Peace Conference, due to atrocities committed by their ally, the Ottomans Empire

[Guest]

Mate,

 

Its an interesting time, if not also a concern for the ethnic peoples of the Ottoman Empire.

 

While in 1914/15 they were using a lot of ethnic Troops as well as units from Muslim counties, as an example these in 1915 Invasion to Suez;

 

Other forces of the 8th Corps (10th Div 23rd 25th 27th (part) +
1st Hecin (Camel) Regiment - LtCol Sadik +
Volunteers Group - 270 men
Circassian Cav Regt - 200 men
Kurdish Cav Co - 300 men
Libyan platoon - 150 men
Sakir Arslan Platoon of Lebanese Druzi - 270 men
Nurettin Volunteers Group +
Mevlevi bn and
a company of Turkish volunteers from Deliorman of Bulgaria
 

But wait ever the Ottomans believed about some of the Jewish people, they still continued to recruit Jews into the Ottoman Army. Most not so many as Officers, but a number of work units were formed of Jews, during the war. I am still unsure if they were called Labor or Construction or pioneer units, as the details come from Jewish writers who don't seam to say what unit is was only what they did.

 

Like wise many other ethnic peoples continued to be picked up by the Ottomans and placed into their units, and many deserted during the war, while others stayed to fight?

 

An area that still needs more research.

 

Cheers

S.B

[Eran Tearosh]

On 13.2.2017 at 17:26, Gareth Davies said:

According to the Official History, 'Kh. 'Adase' is a 'hill between Bir Nebala and the Nablus Road'.  

 

Have a look at map 11 in the second volume of OH maps.  It's top right. Today it is on route 60 by Pisgat Ze'ev.  

Actually, there are three (!) places called Kh. Adaseh / Adasa in that area (For some reason, I'm failing to add a map), two can be seen in the map added by Michaeldr (Post 14) - one a little left of the map’s center and the second at the bottom (A bit to the right). The third one is not marked by this name on Great War maps, but it's a bit west of El Jib.

 

All three sites were battlefields. The one west of El Jib (Next to today's Givon Chadasha, east of Beit Izza) was on the line itself for a few weeks and finally captured by 230th Brigade, 74th Division, on December 28th (OH page 279). The central one is the one Gareth quoted as 'hill between Bir Nebala and the Nablus Road' (OH page 278). This means, it's west of the Nablus Road. This is the Kh. Adaseh mentioned by Robert in post 15, which was attacked by the London Irish Rifles (2/18 Btn, 180th Brigade, 60th Division) on December 23rd.

 

Gareth, you mixed two sites - you wrote "Have a look at map 11 in the second volume of OH maps.  It's top right. Today it is on route 60 by Pisgat Ze'ev." This refers to the third Kh. Adaseh, which is east of the Nablus Road. The main Turkish attack there fell on the 179th brigade, 60th Division during December 27th. It's described in the OH pages 279-281. By the way, a footnote on page 280 refers to the 2 points with the same name. 

 

Eran

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 March , 2017 by Eran Tearosh

[Gareth Davies]

I did indeed mix 2 sites Eran, thank you.  

[Guest]

Mates,

 

Just to add to our Jewish mates, here are some jewish soldiers who fought for the Ottomans I have on record;

 

Amin-Salim Jarjora unknown unknown 1886 – 20 August 1975) jewish served in the Ottoman Army during World War I
Benajel Istor Adana Composed Labour Bn Pte jewish soldier died at Adana Miltary Hospital of wounds on 23.5.1917 brother Sehit?
Benajel Sehit Adana Composed Labour Bn Pte jewish soldier brother Istor?
David Hacohen unknown unknown born 1898 died 19 February 1984) enlist 1916 jewish soldier
Eliyahu Eliashar hosp unit Lt Dr 1899 - 30 October 1981) Jewish medical officer in the Ottoman Army
Haim Ariav Efendi translator Palestine and Caucasus Fronts Lt born Haim Krupski: 1895 – died 16 June 1957 an Israeli politician who served as a member of the Knesset for the General Zionists between 1951 and 1957 a Jew
Moshe Sharett or Shertok an interpreter Lt 16 October 1894 – 7 July 1965) jewish the second Prime Minister of Israel (1954–55)
 

 

Cheers

S.B

[Guest]

Mates,

 

I notice this when checking for an Ottoman officers who commanded troops at Jerusalem

 

Its reported that he commanded a Bn from Jerusalem, last seen fighting in village Gib near Nebi Samuel outside Jerusalem 

 

He was Albanian born deputyGovenor Ali Rusen (Alb) LtCol Jerusalem LofC 1914-1918

 

He was believe lost (killed) during fighting or during the retirement from Nebi Samuel?

 

Cheers

S.B