‘Would the Allies have defeated the Turks in the same time period without Lawrence? – From the viewpoint of the official war records (compared to Lowell Thomas, Lawrence, his biographers, and David Lean) most definitely, yes.’
But... without the Australian Light Horse – starting with their early success in taking Romani and El Arish* in the Sinai peninsula, due in no small part to their innate advantage in the desert conditions – there is evidence that indicates the British may have kept their focus on beating the Germans in France (especially after the Gallipoli fiasco), and then later would probably have done a much less advantageous deal with the Turks in the Middle East, which was considered a ‘sideshow’ (compared to the Western Front). Even Lawrence later admitted that his Arab revolt was a "sideshow attached to a sideshow." (James, 318).
Both sides were always looking to do a deal to end the conflict, as late as October 1917 (James, 268). At one point when the Turks had the upper hand, the British even used Lawrence (when he was a clerk in Cairo intelligence administration) as an envoy, in an effort to bribe Turkish Generals with £4 million [during the Kut saga – money alone cannot win a battle, it always depends on the calibre and idiosyncrasies of the troops, as epitomized by the Light-horsemen]. And the implied solidarity of Lawrence’s Arabs with the British was a myth – rightly, Feisal didn’t trust any of the imperial powers and was still in negotiation with the Turks up to July 1918, when the war began to tilt clearly in favour of the Allies. (James, 270). Indeed, for most of the war there were just as many, if not more Arabs fighting on the side of the Turks, due to their shared Islamic ideology. Lawrence and his Arabs can be eliminated from the scenario. At any one time the Arab forces rarely exceeded more than a couple of thousand men, reflecting the apathy of millions of local Arabs who knew only too well that whoever won, they would still be bedouin peasants in their own country. Thus their forces were unreliable, required enticement with large amounts of British gold, and after a reasonable amount of plundering and looting they would go home. On the capture of Jerusalem [December 9, 1917] the Allies entered the city, Jewish and Christian elements of the population were clearly jubilant. However, in contrast, as the historian Gullett notes of “the Arabs who made up so large a part of the population... silent Arabs served to remind the representatives of Government in London that Jerusalem is sacred to others besides Christian and Jew; that the Arab race is the parent of both faiths; that in war for the right of self-determination it [i.e. the Arabs] had the master-claim of all of Palestine.” (Official War Records, Gullett, 1923, p.517)*Up to this point the Turks were boldly on the offensive, they had "attacked the British outpost guarding the Suez Canal on 23 April, 1916. Chauvel's forces stopped the advance at Romani (4-5 August). 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 (Peter Dennis et al, Oxford Companion to Australian War History, 1995, p.143).
Their wish for independence was further compromised by perennial internecine – with so many scattered Arab tribes throughout the region, there was no unity, just constant bickering.
Was it worth the spilling of Australian blood – maiming and death of Australians – damage to families and the overall socio-economic repercussions back in Australia?
1) Did the Light-horsemen fight to defend Australia?
No.
They were fighting half way around the other side of the world.
2) Did they fight to free the indigenous people, the Arabs? No.
In behind the scene double-dealing, the imperial powers, bumped the Arabs – Damascus/Syria to the French for political and diplomatic reasons, and Palestine was given to the Jews for financial and economic benefits, direct to the British, and were heavily influenced by the American Zionist lobby.
The Arabs were dispossessed yet again, before the Australian even got on the boat to go home.
3) Did the Australians receive international recognition? No.
Thanks to Lowell Thomas, Lawrence himself, and David Lean, the fame went to them. Any other mention, buries Australians in with the ‘British Forces’ (remembering that many of the Australians were of non-English, mostly Irish descent) or ‘the Allies’.
4) Are the Light-horsemen at least honoured at home in Australia as the liberators of Damascus?
No.
As the Daily Telegraph piece (October 1, 1997) shows, the Australian public (through the influence of our media and educators) are programmed with the British/American version of history.
In frank terms, Australia got absolutely nothing from sending troops half way across the world. We suffered the highest casualty rate (62%) among all Allied Forces.
(And they were all volunteers – ‘conscription’ was defeated in a national referendum, forcing Prime Minister Billy Hughes to resign).
It would not be so bad if we had been able to capitalize on our participation, to elevate our position on the world stage. Compare our return on the investment of resources – money and blood, to the Americans and British. The Yanks entered the war late, and from that moment in history really began to dominate international affairs. And along with the British and French they carved up the oil rich Middle East.
~
It is interesting to note, that what recognition Feisal and the Arabs did gain, came through a term that often shows up in official documents – what the British called the rights of a ‘belligerent’ party to sit at the negotiating table. This referred to the influence the Arabs gained through war, i.e. in direct proportion to their contribution on the battlefield.
Using this approach to international diplomatic logic, Australia is morally entitled to a piece of the Middle East, along with the Americans, British, French, Jews, and the indigenous Arabs.
Ironically, in the modern day, we get daily news reports on the saga in the Middle East: ‘Netanyahu said this, Arafat that, Clinton this’, highlighting all the ‘big players’: Jews, Arabs, Yanks... it was the Australians who kicked the Turks out after 400 years, and we’re out of the game.
Perhaps if there is any such thing in the long run as ‘poetic justice’ it is about time we got what’s due to us.
~
Putting the hype aside, the place to look is at the summary of movements of all the little coloured icon pieces on the War Table.
When looking at the cold hard facts of what went on – on the battlefield that is – the Lawrence icon in white costume, the Arabs and the British hierarchy in the Cairo Hotel, can be eliminated from the equation – their few token pieces can be swept off the war table, leaving pieces representing Australian spirit, the Light-horsemen, facing the Turkish pieces. And no matter what they say, the Australians turn a defensive situation into a clear offensive one, starting with the march into El Arish. This presented the possibility of outright victory, if they can keep it up all the way to Damascus. And that’s exactly what they did.
[At one point a captured German commander of the Turkish garrison said he thought the charge of the Australian Light Horse Brigade was a bluff, but to his bewilderment, they kept coming, he added “the Australian’s were not soldiers, they were madmen”. (Gullett, Official War Records)]
When Major Olden’s piece (in the 10th Light Horse colour identification) takes the surrender of the Turks at 6:30am on October 1, 1918, at the Damascus Town Hall, the show is over.
~
Well into the research a kind of epiphany began to dawn on the old neurons, a hunch as to what really happened...
All the attention and glorification of the Australians at Gallipoli...
[Churchill’s blunder. It was clearly evident on the day of landing, April 25, 1915, that it was an impossible situation, but the Generals kept giving out false reports of steady progress, until the press leaked the truth. That delayed evacuation 8 months until December (90% of WWI books published in Australia are on Gallipoli, not to mention its basis for Anzac Day]
as well as the deification of Lawrence, particularly by the British... Were they used as a clever ploy in a kind of 'conspiracy of silence' to deflect attention away from what Australians had really accomplished – the liberation of the Holy Land from 400 years of Turkish / Islamic rule.
Primarily the booty, was to be carved up by the dominant colonial judeo-christian based powers, viz. the British, American, French; and the Jews. They just could not have future generations knowing the naked truth. That while they came out of the war with nothing...
[Nothing but 10,000,000 men dead, plus wounded, in the unromantic trenches of the Western Front, plus the socio-economic ramifications of these losses in communities. At one point British Prime Minister Lloyd George had requested Allenby to take Jerusalem before the end of the end of December, 1917, as a Xmas present for the British people, who desperately needed some good news. And he did (but again the 10th Australian Light horse were the first Allied mounted troops to enter.)]
...in stark contrast, the unfashionable Australians had pulled off the greatest prize in modern history, executed by the most successful cavalry in modern history. Even buried in Lowell Thomas’ promotion brochure is the comment, “...it is the most astonishing cavalry achievement in the whole history of war, ancient and modern”.
No. That would not do at all. It would make them look even more ridiculous. That cold hard fact of the war would have to be deftly obscured.
Euphemisms like: British troops; Allied Forces; Allenby in Palestine; would work their magic spell, helped along by the serendipitous advent of Lowell Thomas, and later David Lean, leaving the public with the euphoric escapism of Lawrence of Arabia.
On October 1, 1998, we will be up to 80 years of Arabian desert sand and deception having buried deep what the Australians did – from the taking of El Arish on December 21, 1916 to the liberation of Damascus and the whole Holy Land by October 1, 1918. It looked like the sham would continue unabated indefinitely.
But then we have the ineluctable workings of the Heraklitean flux, Jungian Synchronicity, an unforeseeable monster like the World Wide Web, even...
Now, “The Ride of the Billjim '98” begins – the descendants of Billjim grim reapers cometh...
P.H.
November 11, '97
POST SCRIPT
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 ('1948-1998) 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..." (Microsoft Encarta, Prof. Michael Cohen, Stanford University)
Send a letter to your politican, schools/universities, newspapers, and
anybody else you can think of. Tell them that you are very angry about the
dishonouring of the ancestors of Australians, and demand that they support
AOAL.
We want children to be properly educated. And we want the Government to use
diplomatic pressure to force Israel and Damascus/Syria to recognize the
80th Anniversary commemoration on October 1, 1998.
Further, we want a delegation of Australians sent over there, and street
parades and monuments in relevant cities, especially El Arish (Sinai and
Nth Qld!), Jerusalem and Damascus, and major cities in Australia.
"The Fates draw the willing, and drag the reticent"
INT – GOVERNMENT MINISTER’S MAIL RECEIVING AREA – DAY
(Checking AOAL Outline)
STAFF 1
(Opens P’s envelope and starts flicking through the papers, and turns to a colleague.)
Wuh, check out this one.
STAFF 2
What is it?
STAFF 1
(Ominously)
Some kind petition to support the
Australians of Arabia ...and Lawrence...
project...
STAFF 2
What...?
INT – MINISTER’S SENIOR STAFF DEPT. – SOME TIME LATER
STAFF 3
(Holding the AOAL Booklet.)
I’ve been thinking, may be we should take a look at this ‘Australians of Arabia’ thing a little closer?
STAFF 4
(With back turned working on computer)
Nah. We have more important things to do than waste time on some pipe-dream. Now, quit bothering me will ya, I gotta get this finished or the boss will kill me.
STAFF 3
Yeah, ‘killing’ and ‘blood’, that’s what this is all about...Lawrence’s guts and Aussie blood.
I have ancestors that fought in the war, and you do too. This guy has a point.
It’s not him talking to me. It’s my grandfather.
If he were here right now, in this office, at the age he was in his warrior prime, watching this conversation... if I ignore this, ignore that him and his mates have been forgotten, the credit going to this, this impostor... he’d kick my carcass from here to Damascus.
What do you reckon yours would do?
STAFF 4
(Stops abruptly. Swivels around
on his chair with an open mouth unable to answer immediately)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Re Etiology
Protagonists:
<[WR(KA,SS)-JDS-HM-LD-RA(et al)-"TEL"-ALH]-"AOAL">-"CT"
&
& "PB"
Antagonists: PD-"JN" cf.
And, last but not least, RK & MJRH.
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