It all started when I returned to Sydney from living in Japan for most of the 90s and began researching my family history – my great grandfather, James Hogan ('1833-'1899) was one of the first pioneers into Byron Bay (E. Australia) in '1882 .
Later, the family expanded their holdings north to the Atherton Tablelands. This was done by the sons, Jack, Jim and Matt. When WWI broke out Jack volunteered to go half-way round the world to fight for the freedom of other peoples. He barely survived, came back, founded and named El Arish (N.E. Aust.) in honour of his war experiences.
Alarmingly, further research into the war showed that major military victories by the Australian Mounted Division (under the command of Gen. Harry Chauvel) in the Middle East campaign, had been totally obliterated from history, through proliferation of the Lawrence of Arabia sham.
Then I happened to see the local Daily Telegraph’s Wednesday, October 1, 1997 issue.
In their “Today in History” section (p.52) I was horrified to note that they presented to the average Australian reader (including children) the following piece as official world history:
"Today in History [October 1, '1918]
British officer T.E. Lawrence – dubbed Lawrence of Arabia – and the Arab forces of Emir Faisal capture the Palestinian city of Damascus from the Turks."
Complete with a photo of Lawrence in his infamous Arab costume, the caption reading,
"Victor ... Lawrence of Arabia".
Of course, war records clearly show that it was the Australian Light Horse that captured Damascus. And they and the other Allied troops bore the brunt of the heavy fighting in the lead up. By the time Lawrence arrived on the scene, the Australians had liberated and secured the city, and were already in hot pursuit of the fleeing Turks.
This shows that even major Australian newspapers and therefore the public at large still follow the Hollywood version of history. Thus, the Diggers had spilt there blood to free the indigenous people, the Arabs, from the tyrannical Turks, in a far off foreign land, for nothing.
There was plenty in the library on the subject and I knew films had been made in the past – Charles Chauvel’s (nephew of Gen. Harry Chauvel) “Forty Thousand Horsemen” of 1940, and more recently, the Steve Wincer / Ian Jones, “The Lighthorsemen” (1987). But clearly they had no effect on the Daily Telegraph (probably because they focus more on the earlier charge at Beersheba in 1917). Also they had story lines that didn’t work for international audiences. Hence, the Lawrence travesty continues unabated, and our victory at Damascus remains buried in the sands of the Arabian desert.
Like most Australians, growing up all I remember was the emphasis placed on Gallipoli, a defeat. Of course, Australia’s gallant efforts to make the most of that situation should be respected, but it almost seems like it has been partly glorified to deflect attention away from those responsible for the slaughter, like Winston Churchill, General Hamilton, et al.
Anyway, it does seem to have overshadowed our later kicking those same Turks, and the same German commander – Liman von Sanders, out of Palestine. I, like 99% of other Australians (let alone the world) never realized the enormity of their victories, and far flung repercussions on future world events, until I stumbled onto this project. It’s all-time epic stuff, but buried deep. (I feel like an archaeologist, not a researcher, digging stuff up that remains buried ...buried by the sham-makers.)
The ALH had originally disembarked at Alexandria in '1915. Unexpectedly, they found themselves separated from their horses and detoured to the Gallipoli fiasco made by Churchill and Hamilton. It was only when an Australian war correspondent, Keith Murdoch, blew the whistle, that the British high command was forced to admit the truth. The ALH were then re-united with their horses back in Alexandria, on the eve of an epochal change to history in the Middle East.
Now, the keystone point is this:
War records give weight to the conclusion that the ousting of the Turks from the Holy Land, enabling the later conjuring up of Israel and Jordan, may not have happened without the keystone contribution of Gen. Chauvel and the Australian Light Horse.
Their aggressiveness early on, showing that it was possible to take Romani and El Arish (December 21, 1916) seems to have made the British [including Lawrence – not surprisingly, he dates his book’s fantasy activities from January 1, 1917 to Damascus early October 4, 1918 (when Allenby gave him the boot) – the period that the Australians dominated the war] realize they could change from a defensive strategy, and go on the offensive, placing their sights on Damascus for the first time.
Otherwise, they may well have just done a deal with the Turks (lets face it, nobody had moved them in 400 years) – something the British showed a willingness to do on several notable occasions throughout the Middle East campaign (e.g. the Kut saga). Particularly, as the Allied focus and resources were committed to the more important Western Front in France.
Anyway, it seems one effective way to make the Australian public aware, might be to have a special 80th Anniversary 1918-1998 Commemorative Celebration on October 1, 1998.
And to get more attention why not hold it in El Arish?
And unveil a special monument depicting the Australian Light-horsemen and Cameliers. (To show Lawrence was not the only one riding camels.) For added publicity a competition could be announced for the design and creation of such a monument, with the prizes donated by sponsoring companies.
Thus, taking advantage of the almost eerie perfect timing and circumstances that have come to pass.
And, the anniversary celebrations could include lots of special festivities and paraphernalia to enhance the celebration: a parade of light-horsemen and cameleers, a Flying Corps fly-past in WWI era planes; displays and information booklets, old photographs; etc. – all leaving no doubt to the observer, to the world, who was the keystone force in the liberation of the Middle East.
To get international attention, we could seriously consider using diplomatic pressure to lobby/pressure both Jordan and Israel to allow similar commemorative celebrations in Damascus and Jerusalem (and may be other relevant towns).
[Though Jerusalem was captured December 9, 1917 (an 80th anniversary which coincidentally passes at the time of production) Damascus was seen to be the key objective that marked the symbolic end of the whole campaign – a belief deeply held by Lawrence, who after all, is the icon we are trying to shatter.]
As alluded to above it would be clearly demonstrated to these governments that, if not for the aggressive Australians (and not the British) they may well not exist today as countries. Just to offer one piece of evidence to support that claim:
Apart from the obvious Damascus factor, there are other points like the Balfour Declaration – promising the Jews a country in Palestine. A raw sobering fact: history shows that it was signed on November 2, 1917 – the famous charge of the Australians at Beersheba was just 2 days before on October 31, 1917. To try to say that the two were unrelated is shear naïveté.
Further, some Israeli versions of their recent history mention Allenby (i.e. British) as a key influence in putting them on maps of the world, as a country.*
(*Note: The main border crossing between Israel and Jordan is called Allenby Bridge.
It should be called Chauvel Bridge.)
It's again no coincidence that in mid 1917, the Palestine campaign was floundering with Gallipoli-like blunders by British commanders (especially the Gaza battle fiasco). Then Gen. Murray was replaced by Allenby in July, 1917. No prizes for Allenby, in quickly summing up that he should give Chauvel complete command of the entire Middle East cavalry forces. And it was insisted by Australia that the Imperial Mounted Division be changed to Australian Mounted Division, going a small way to reflecting reality. (Again, this is all very close to the Balfour Declaration.)
Then, and only then, did things really start to move – Turkish-held towns began falling like dominos. Also, the reorganization saw most of the English cavalry go to France (after the alarm caused by the German spring offensive in Western Front), and were replaced with the rather green Indian Lancers.
[The Indians made up the majority 4th and 5th Cavalry, under Barrow and Macandrew – although again it is often cunningly implied that they were mostly English-British, e.g. Anthony Livesy’s Great Battles of WWI – ‘The Battle of Megiddo’ – hardly mentions the Indians or Australians, and the more epic Beersheba battles.]
This really only left the “keystone” Australian Light Horse. Allenby, like Murray admitted as much in dispatches to the London War Office, in which he refused to allow the transfer of the Australians, knowing full well that without them the campaign would stagnate into a stalemate, like the Western Front.
Newspaper archives have been checked for the relevant period. There is no mention of Lawrence at all in the London Times or the New York Times. Of course, there is mention of Allenby, and even Chauvel – being given command of the entire cavalry forces.
At the time of the capture of Damascus Gen. Chauvel’s family was living in London and his daughter, Elyne Mitchell, quotes the following newspaper article in her book, Chauvel Country (1983):
“The [UK] Daily Telegraph of 3 October 1918 said: ...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...” (p.65)
Even more interesting is that the Sydney Daily Telegraph has several pieces on the Allies closing-in on Damascus. Then on October 4, 1918, they state:
“DAMASCUS TAKEN BY BRITISH
...Official message states:- ‘Australian mounted troops entered Damascus on the night of September 30. At 6 o’clock in the morning the following day the city was occupied by the British and portion of the Arab army...”.
Then it goes on to cover the Turk’s desire to now sue for peace.
What a difference the Lawrence sham has made in the intervening years, changing the way media reports history. The Daily Telegraph doesn’t even use its own archives.
It is also interesting to note that the article faithfully emphasizes the British over fellow Australians. The local media certainly don’t help our problem. In fact, Chauvel took control of Damascus.
Also, I checked Dymocks book store to see if what they have on their shelves corresponded with historical fact, in terms of popular reading. In the WWI section there was nothing that specialized on the Australian victories in the Middle East. On the contrary, the most prominent book on the shelf, a very large volume –“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 – perpetuated the lie and continues to insult Australia by stating (p.124) :
“[Lawrence] entered Damascus before the rest of the British forces arrived.”
One would expect better of the BBC.
W. T. Massey (official correspondent of London newspapers in the Middle East campaign) in his 1920 Allenby’s Final Triumph 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. So were an Indian cavalry regiment, the advanced guard of the 14th Cavalry Brigade, which was well ahead of the leading Arab troops.” (p.251-3)
And Viscount Wavell’s 1946 biography Allenby: Soldier and Statesman, concurred:
“A brigade of Australians were the first to enter [Damascus].” (p.241)
So the British and the rest of the world were brainwashed by the likes of Lowell Thomas1 and David Lean.
Lowell Thomas – Mythmaker
1Lowell Thomas 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. Then he took his show on the road in the U.S., complete with moving pictures, it became so popular that he was enticed to Britain (by the impresario, Percy Burton) where ironically the general public had never heard of Lawrence – the show opened well after the war had ended in August 1919. And it included motion picture footage taken by the official Australian war photographer, Capt. Frank Hurley. The promotion brochure called it, "America's Tribute to British Valour". It should have been a tribute to Australian Valour.
So it was the 'Thomas Extravaganza' that began building the myth/sham – that Lawrence and his Arabs single-handedly conquered the Turks and liberated Damascus on October 1, 1918.
Lawrence also deliberately perpetuated, and even enlarged the sham further, in his pseudo-autobiography “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”, on which, criminally, the entire screenplay by Robert Bolt of the 1962 David Lean film “Lawrence of Arabia”, was based. And Seven Pillars makes disparaging references to the Australian Diggers and Gen. Harry Chauvel to deflect attention away from their true dominant role in the liberation of Damascus.
Well, that's the background summary.
Email: ct12000@yahoo.com
Note: 'Body' of email must contain the words "no junk mail" otherwise the spamguard filter will send it straight to Trash.
Copyright © '1997 Peter Hogan
ISBN: 0-646-34870-1
Get your own Free Home Page