'Mesopotamia. Commission' [‎91r] (184/256)

This Document is the property of the Secretary of State for India.
SECRET.
Collection of Telegrams
made in the Press
from Kut-el-Amara.
and Letters regarding the allegations
as to General Townshend’s advance
(Telegrams are paraphrased).
No. 1.
From Secretary of State to Viceroy, Army Department,
1st April 1916.
P.—Kindly telegraph any information you may have concerning the
allegations which have been made here that owing to insufficient forces at
his command Townshend formally protested against moving on Baghdad.
Islington on my behalf stated in the House of Lords, in answer to
a question whether Townshend was responsible for decision or had
advised move to Ctesiphon, that prior to such move if Townshend
had made any such representations he would have addressed them to
Nixon, but that no such representation or advice had been made to us
here. The Government sanctioned the advance on the advice of General
Nixon and of the Government of India, as 1 have already stated in the
House.
Further, Islington stated that we had not been informed whether
Townshend had been consulted by Nixon.
No. 2.
From Viceroy, Army Department, \th April 1916.
P.—Beferring to your telegram (No. 1) we have no record of any such
protest, 'fhe correct procedure would have been for the General Staff,
6 th Division, to have recorded any such protest, if made in their War
Diary. (Vide Field Service Regulations.) We have received no such
record. But entries are made in the War Diary, 6 th Division, dated
3rd October, referring to an appreciation which may be the origin of the
allegation to which you refer, Army Headquarters received these on 14th
December 1915, and you will find them in Army Despatch No. 15, para
graph 22, dated 25th February. This appreciation appears to have been
addressed to Chief Staff Officer, Force “ D,” and we have no record of it itself,
and the General Staff Diary makes no reference to it. On the other hand,
kindly refer to telegram to Chief of General Stall', India, from Nixon, dated
October 6 th, repeated to you, and a telegram of his addressed to you,
of October 8 th, repeated to Chief of General Staff, India.
In order to clear this point and to get a statement from Townshend,
General Officer Commanding Force “D” is being referred to. We will
make a further report on receiving an answer to this. We have received no
War Diaries from the 6 th Division subsequent to October.
No. 3.
From Secretary of State to Viceroy, Army Department,
4t/i April 1916.
P. —Referring to your telegram (No. 2), in a leading article in the Times
on Saturday it is stated that before he moved a step from Kut there can be
no doubt that Townshend had declared constantly that he had insufficient
forces. This article also alleges that the strong objections which Townshend
had made had informally been brought to the notice of the Government
of India, and further asks whether it is to be understood that neither the
.MS 210 2 0—5/1910
T$. 4 Vo