WW1 Commissions of Inquiry

[PhilB]

Am I right in thinking that only two WW1 commissions of inquiry were set up - the Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles Inquiries? What were the reasons for picking out these two and deciding that the conduct of no other theatre or campaign merited investigation?

[FROGSMILE]

19 hours ago, PhilB said:

Am I right in thinking that only two WW1 commissions of inquiry were set up - the Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles Inquiries? What were the reasons for picking out these two and deciding that the conduct of no other theatre or campaign merited investigation?

Because both involved unmitigated disasters that were recognised as such at the time, i.e. the surrender at Kut el Amara, and evacuation from Gallipoli, would be my guess.

Edited 22 July , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[ilkley remembers]

Both reports were published in 1917 when the campaign in the Middle East was ongoing and as Frogsmile notes were military defeats. Presumably, no inquiry was thought necessary for the whole of the war since the British were on the winning side and any official analysis of its its conduct including shortcomings might have rather 'muddied the waters' as far as a narrative of victory was concerned.

 

The conclusions of the Dardanelles enquiry can be read online http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/battles/p_dard_comm.htm

 

The whole of the Mesopotamia report is online https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100036338403.0x000008 at the Qatar National Library website which also includes a large resource of original documents from that particular campaign.

[PhilB]

Er… didn’t we win the Mesopotamian campaign?

[FROGSMILE]

55 minutes ago, PhilB said:

Er… didn’t we win the Mesopotamian campaign?

Yes we did, but Kut was seen as a particular disaster for all kinds of reasons, including repeated failures to relieve the garrison by a relief Army.  Like Gallipoli it led to all kinds of accusations and recriminations and so in typical British institutional fashion was deemed worthy of an inquiry.  “Something must be done….heads should roll”…..etc,etc.

Edited 22 July , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[PhilB]

So, no suggestion that, despite the huge loss of life on the Western Front in offensives that didn`t fulfil their aims, the Western commanders were somehow above suspicion?

[FROGSMILE]

28 minutes ago, PhilB said:

So, no suggestion that, despite the huge loss of life on the Western Front in offensives that didn`t fulfil their aims, the Western commanders were somehow above suspicion?

Apparently not.  There’s no doubt I think that the Western Front was seen (and treated) differently, perhaps in part because it was more intimately linked with political personages in London.

Edited 22 July , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[PhilB]

15 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 because it was more intimately linked with political personages in London.

Delicately put!