Foreword
The introductory article below was originally developed in relation to the
recent 'Larry Lawrence Scandal' in the U.S. concerning his bogus military
record -- resulting in his remains being unceremoniously dug up from
Arlington National Cemetery. (Supposedly he was a crony of Clinton's.)
As the dust settles on the new gravesite of Larry Lawrence, an outside Australian perspective...
Aren't there some really eerie similarities here between:
'Larry Lawrence -- Clinton', and
'T. E. Lawrence -- Churchill'?
With triple emphasis on 'Lawrence', history repeats itself, almost like it
is trying to tell us something, trying to point a finger.
And when Richard Aldington ('1892-1962) went after 'Ned' with his "Lawrence L'Imposteur" ('1955), his main biographer, Liddel Hart got Churchill to do the same as Clinton. (Actually, Aldington called him 'Tiddle Fart' in a letter to Lawrence Durrell.)
Coincidentally, I'd been looking into the T. E. Lawrence sham over the last couple of months. It all started when I was doing some genealogical research about an ancestor who came back from World War One and named a new settlement 'El Arish' (N.E. Australia) -- in honour of his war experiences in the Middle East Campaign ('1916-1918).
Well into the research, a kind of epiphany began to surface: As hard as it may be to believe for an American or Briton today, "Official War Records" gives heavy weight to the conclusion that -- if not for the aggressive Australian Light Horse Brigades -- naturally suited to the conditions (as many were from 'Outback' Australia) -- the British War Office would have maintained a defensive strategy in the Middle East campaign -- happy to hold onto their Egypt /Suez Canal interests, and prepared to do a deal with the Turks over Arabia. They were then too preoccupied with the stalemate and slaughter going on in the trenches of the Western Front.
The Australians turned the show around when they halted the Turco-German attack on Suez at Romani and El Arish (Sinai) in late '1916, and then spearheaded the offensive which pushed the Turks all the way out of the Holy Land, just in time for the Armistice.
Thus, if not for the Australians the Turks would still be there, coming up to 500 years instead of only 400. And nobody would ever have heard of Lawrence. And, there would be no Israel, to boot! Just one small extract from the supporting evidence: the 'Balfour Declaration' was signed two days after the Australians won the 'Battle of Beersheba', October 31, '1917, putting the writing on the wall for all to see.
Bottomline, the unfashionable Australians had pulled off arguably the greatest prize in modern history, executed by the most successful cavalry in modern history, and leave no doubt in the conclusions of the objective researcher, it was an Australian, General, Harry Chauvel, who was in command of the cavalry force in the field, not a British General. And Chauvel led the final victory parade through Damascus in October '1918 ...not Lawrence!
However, all these historical FACTS are deeply buried under 80 years of Arabian desert sand, further obscured by referring to the Australians euphemistically as 'British' or 'Allied' troops. Nobody would believe such a huge sham possible. But then, along comes the 'Lawrence Sham II'.
But then again, even if 'Lawrence Sham I' could be proved, nobody would want to do anything about it. Too bad it didn't adversely affect the U.S., because they wasted no time in digging up "Lawrence of America" from Arlington. (And scared off former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop from even trying!)
If this really happened how did it come about? 'Lawrence Sham I' plays out like this:
"Dateline -- Middle East '1916:"
The Turks are firmly entrenched in the Holy Land for some 400 years. They have their eye on the British held Suez and Egypt. April 23, '1916: They attack the British outpost guarding the Suez Canal. Up to this point the Turks were boldly on the
offensive.
British officers who observed the Light Horse's early preparations in Egypt, thought they were a joke - "Cavalry are obsolete my dear boy, quite useless against modern weapons like machine guns and tanks...". What nobody figured on, is the mobility of the horse in the Middle East terrain, and the psychological effect of a "charge of madmen" (as one German commanding officer called them, "they just kept coming" -- gets kinda difficult to concentrate on operating a machine gun or reloading).
General Chauvel's forces stopped the advance at Romani (August 4-5). The battle marked the beginning of a series of victories which ultimately drove the Turks from Egypt and Sinai, and the rest of the Holy Land. The liberation having been completed with the capture of Damascus on October 1, '1918.
Later, biased historians tried to detract from their accomplishment by talking about a demoralized Turkish army. The question is, "What really demoralized them?"
The doubting reader can check the archives of major newspapers like the 'New York Times' or those of Britain. You won't find any mention of Lawrence during the war. Of course, there is mention of Allenby, the overall British Commander, and even Chauvel -- being given command of the entire cavalry forces in the field.
Take the UK "Daily Telegraph" of October 3, 1918: "...news of the fall of Damascus ... On the last night of September a force of cavalry rode into the city and took possession of it ... and the fact that its captors were all of the Australian division is not the least fantastic detail..."
Further, W. T. Massey (official correspondent of London newspapers in the Middle East campaign) in his "Allenby's Final Triumph" ('1920) states that: "There was some discussion as to who were the first troops to get into the city..." he goes on say "to settle the question as to whether British troops or Arabs were first in Damascus. The Australians were in the city hours before the Arabs." (p.251-3)
Then comes Lowell Thomas -- 'The Mythmaker' -- an American journalist/ opportunist ('1892-1981). Quite simply: 'No Thomas = No Lawrence of Arabia'. Lowell Thomas had been sent across the Atlantic to help swing the American public in favour of entering the war. He found the raw material he was looking for in Lawrence, an expert at feigning modesty at the right time, the classic 'poseur'. Even Lowell said he had a penchant for "backing into the limelight".
Thomas took his show on the road in the U.S., complete with moving pictures (including footage taken by the official Australian war photographer, Capt. Frank Hurley), it became so popular that he was enticed to Britain by the impresario, Percy Burton where of course, the general public had never heard of Lawrence - the show opened well after the war had ended in August '1919. The promotion brochure called it, "America's Tribute to 'British' Valour".
Lawrence also deliberately perpetuated, and greatly enlarged the sham further in his pseudo-autobiography "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" ('1926). Seven Pillars makes disparaging references to the Australian Diggers and General Harry Chauvel to deflect attention away from their true dominant role in the liberation of the Holy Land.
Lawrence of Arabia, is one of the most emotive names in modern history. Ironically, a name he had little respect for. His father, Thomas Chapman, a landlord in Ireland, was a bigamist, having run off with a servant. Later he used her name as a family name, although she too was illegitimate, of Scottish ancestry, and gave birth to Thomas Edward (who was called 'Ned') in a town in Wales while they were on the run. Lawrence grows up to become interested in Middle East archeology, and so learns Arabic. After the outbreak of the war, this gets him into Cairo Intelligence as a clerk, having been rejected by the army for being too short.
To cut the story short, quite simply, if Lawrence had never existed, the result would have been the same. But take out the Australians, and history is turned upside down.
General Allenby, the overall commander of Allied Forces in the Middle East, asked for his view on Lawrence, replied, "I had several officers who would have done as well, and some would have done better." (Lawrence James, "The Golden Warrior", '1995, p.442)
"If there was one person who had no particular illusion about the military value of the Arabs it was, as Lawrence freely admits, Allenby. He took no account of them as tactical units. Again as Lawrence records, Allenby's chief of staff repeatedly stated - so often that Lawrence got annoyed - that all GHQ wanted or expected of him and his Arabs was 'three men and a boy with pistols' outside Deraa on a given date. And that was about what he got." (Aldington, p.232)
And Lawrence wasn't the only Allied soldier to wear Arab costume. Nor was Lawrence the only one blowing up the railway, which, in any event, had little impact on the Turks. Colonel Newcombe, Colonel Dawnay, Major Joyce, and Colonel Meinertzhagen are prominent examples. All four crop up all over war records relating to the Arab guerilla campaign. Arguably, these quiet achievers, like the Australians, played a more effective role than Lawrence. (Lawrence's Arab band actually included an Australian who managed the mortar, and the Australian Flying Corps carried out most of his air support.)
Lawrence, who never married, is discharged from his refuge in the military, amid rumours of kinky behavior in 1935. He is dead just 3 months later, an apparent coincidence. Churchill attends his funeral, and a flood of biographies ensue.
The legend snowballs.
Enter Richard Aldington -- the dissenter. Aldington publishes his "Lawrence L’Imposteur" ('1955), and is promptly ostracized. Ironically, he has the opposite of the intended effect, and renews public interest in Lawrence.
Enter Sam Spiegel and David Lean. Criminally, the entire screenplay of the their '1962 film, was based on 'Seven Pillars'. And Lean cast Peter O'Toole, who stood 184cm (6'2"), to play Lawrence, who as mentioned, had been rejected for regular duty -- being too short at 165cm (5'4"). The script leaves the Australians out in the desert completely.
History on the battlefied had been rewritten as it has been so very often. For time immemorial, Lawrence single-handedly drove the Turks out of Arabia. Even supposedly reputable organizations like the BBC faithfully follow the sham: "'1914-18: The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century" (Jay Winter and Blain Baggert, BBC Books, '1996) -- which is a companion to the TV series -- perpetuates the lie and continues to insult Australia by stating (p.124): "[Lawrence] entered Damascus before the rest of the British forces arrived."
No doubt, most Israelis and Jordanians never think of Australia, let alone their keystone role in putting them on the world map. The main border crossing between Israel and Jordan is called 'Allenby Bridge', yet the only real notable deed Allenby performed was to put Chauvel in command of the cavalry.
So, the British and the rest of the world were brainwashed by the likes of Lowell Thomas, his creation, Ned, David Lean, and the other sycophants proudly led by Tiddle Fart.
If the Heraclitean flux should ever ('2018 would be appropriate) bring forth the poetic justice that would see "Lawrence of Arabia" get the same treatment as America dealt in such a literally 'down to earth' way on "Lawrence of America", the ineluctable Hollywood film should be called:
"Australians of Arabia ...& Lawrence"!!!
And how different American foreign policy might have been in the Middle East, if the Australians had not traveled half way round the world -- to a region to which they had no direct ancestral ties, to get killed and maimed with Australian families and communities back home damaged -- all for nothing.
And as if the Fates were hitting us over the head with a sledge hammer, in just a few months on May 14, comes the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel:
"...as Palestine had passed from Turkish to British control
[solely as a result of victories spearheaded by Australians, '1916-1918] this provided the Zionists with the charter they had been seeking..."
(Prof. Michael Cohen, Stanford University, "Microsoft Encarta '95")
So that is where we are at -- the sham continues -- and so does ingratitude of historic proportions.
In view of the above it's timely that major Judaeo-Christian based nations belatedly gave a little thanks for the dominant role Australia played ...if not for the 'no-nonsense-get the job done and get home Billjim' mounted on their Walers (as the Australian Light-horsemen called themselves and their beloved war horses, bred in New South Wales), Israel may not be now located as favorably on world maps (at one stage they were looking at giving them land somewhere in Africa!). Similarly, modern-day pilgrims from the U.S., Britain, France, etc., may not otherwise have had as favorable access to the Holy Land (if it had stayed in Turkish / Islamic hands).
In short, the unfashionable Australians accomplished in 2 years what the famed and revered 'Crusaders' failed to do, in a somewhat longer time period.
~
Postscript
It is perhaps ironic if not eerie, that the man at the center of the recent (ongoing?) Middle East Gulf Crisis, Richard Butler (UN Chief Weapons Inspector) happens to be an Australian.
* * *
In memory of the
60th Anniversary ('1938-98)
of the death of
John Edward Hogan
(founder of El Arish, Aust.)
b. December 8, '1887
d. March 7, '1938
* * *
Lest (some of) Us Forget
Include the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition / Australian Labor Party, Mr. Kim C. Beazley.
Go to his letter
Email:
aoal@hotmail.com
Get your own Free Home Page