Mespot- PoW exchanges in 1916

[charlie962]

I can confirm it was HS Sikkim  that evacuated the sick for "Exchange 1" from Kut and took them to the Merdical Units behind the British lines where they were transferred to a variety of sips, incl Blosse Lynch, for transport on to Basra.

 

As noted in my post1, Sikkim was also the boat that took the "Exchange 2" men from Magasis to Basra.

 

Peter, reconciling figures I note the following differences:

First Trip- Sikkim says 167 not 173 Indians. I cannot see obvious explanation for difference.

Third trip- Sikkim says 234 not 243. I think this is transposition error by newspaper (or you?)

Fourth trip- Sikkim says 235 not 281. I cannot see obvious explanation for difference.

 

Note last (sixth) trip was 63 men.

 

Since Sikkim shipping totals agreed with 7 Div ADMS received totals I can only presume newspaper or Tigris Corps made errors.

 

Charlie

[PRC]

5 hours ago, charlie962 said:

I think this is transposition error by newspaper (or you?)

 

Lots of places along the way that a transposition could creep in, (including in the original diary!), but 243 is what it says in the newspaper.

 

 

Apologies for the low quality - the source microfilm has had over 25 years of misuse!

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

Edit. Just looked on FindMyPast Newspapers and periodicals section with a search criteria of "Hospital Ship Returned To Kut" and found 22 incidences in the period 8th May 1916 to 14th May 1916 and one in the following week. A quick check looks like they all reference the same press release and they appear to quote "243", so almost certainly any number error slips in at the War Office or earlier.

 

While trying variations of search of search croteria, I also came across a report on the arrival of the Sikkim in Theatre, in a report filed by an Edmund Candler, dated Basra March 26, which appears in newspapers from March 29th 1916. This says the Sikkim can accomodate 144 cots, so looks like this was regularly exceeded during those prisoner exchanges.

 

As to number variations, presumably there were no unwounded medical or chaplain staff included in the exchange?

 

 

Edited 22 June , 2021 by PRC

[charlie962]

18 hours ago, PRC said:

This says the Sikkim can accomodate 144 cots, so looks like this was regularly exceeded during those prisoner exchanges.

 

As to number variations, presumably there were no unwounded medical or chaplain staff included in the exchange?

144 cots and presumably more standing room. It was only a short trip down from Kut.

 

The medical staff thought they would be released but it did not happen. Some were released in Exchange 2, eg Major Barber. Others, eg Capt Spackman, had to wait a lot longer. There were many who were retained until the end.

[PRC]

2 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

144 cots and presumably more standing room.

 

I was assuming stretchers on the deck and between the cots - would walking wounded \ sick, (i.e. those who could stand) have been included in the exchange as I would have thought a large number of the garrison would have qualified at that point. Wasn't the physical state of the men one of the reasons Townshend gave for surrendering.

 

Looking back a few days from the notices I've already posted, another War Office one dated Tuesday 6.30 pm, appeared in the edition of the Eastern Evening News dated Wednesday, May 3, 1916. After talking about an action near Bushire on April 29th, the second paragraph reads "In Mesopotamia a letter, dated May 1st, has been received from the Turkish Commander in Chief Khalil, in which he agrees to exchange General Townshend's sick and wounded for an equivalent number of Mahommedan Turkish prisoners. Hospital and other ships have been sent up to begin the evacuation."

 

From what you've written I take it the "other ships" were turned back without being allowed to take any of the exchanged prisoners on board.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[charlie962]

Peter

Sikkim was the only ship allowed up to Kut to take sick and wounded. She brought them down to Falahaiya where the were put through the various field ambulances and then transhipped on a variety of boats down river. A ration barge sent up was held back for days and only benefited a proportion of PoWs wbefore they commenced their 'death march'.

 

The number of sick and wounded was reduced in comparison to what was expected. The Turkish would say the fault was the Indian and British Govts who did not resond quickly enough. The deciscion as to who was sick was the Turks', not the British. Some perfectly healthy Indians were allowed on but some seriously sick and wounded were refused. It was not very scientific.

 

It was the British that surrendered and thus had to accept what the Turkish imposed. If it had been known in advance how the Turkish would act then the British might have tried harder to break out of the Garrison and link up with the Relief Force, despite the losses that would entail. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Thanks for all these extracts. One never knows what might provide the next clue.

Charlie