LITERATURE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3611, 29 May 1923, Page 62

LITERATURE.

BOOK NOTICE. “The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine: 1914 1918." By H. S. Guiiett. Angus and Kobertson, Sydney. (Per Messrs Stark, Princes street, Dunedin.) This large and excellently illustrated volume forms the seventh in the Australian Official History of Australia’s Part in the Great \\ ar. The whole work, which was noticed in these columns a year and a-half ago. is a most complete and excellent war history, giving a full and clear account of all tnat Australia did in the <rregt contiiet, with such brief explanations of the general political and military developments of the war period as are necessary to clear comprehension o" the course of Australian activities. The volumes are the work of various writers, the first (noticed Previously) giving the history of Australia’s entry into the war and of the Gallipoli campaign. Each volume deals with a distinct phase of the war, and may be ordered separately. The present volume contains 792 pages of letter press, exclusive of appendices and index, and has 77 maps and 83 illustrations. Thus the reader is enabled to follow with full comprehension every step of the military operations in Sinai and Palestine. A brief chronological summary of the general history of the war from the end of 1915 to the armistice is an additional aid. The author’s style is clear and di-oct, sometimes rising to picturesquenrss: there is nothing superfluous, and through its 800 pages the narrative never drags. In a brief preface the author states that the work purports solely to record the work of the. Australian Light Horse, and “is in no sense a complete narrative of the campaigns in Sinai, Palestine, and Syria.” The strategy and tactics of the whole force engaged have been described only in such a degree as is necessar-- for comprehension of the Australian activities. This is owing to no biassed sense of the relative parts played 'by Australians and by forces from the United Kingdom and India, but to the scheme of the work. 'The writer himself was with the Aus alian Light Horse frem December of 1917 onwards. For information of the earlier operations he systematically col lected testimony from leaders and visited the scenes of the various engagements. He records acknowledgments to many Imperial officers, and to Mr Winston Churchill for access to the Army records, as well as to hundreds of officers and men of the Australian Force for assistance given. No pains have been spared to ensure accuracy. The Palestine campaign is a phase of the Great War that appeals strongly to the imagination. The field of warfare was or.a possessing (He glamour of immemorial antiquity and of sacred associations common to all Christendom. And in this land of Biblical memories modern soldiers waged war with all the appliances of science in the service of war. Most incongruous of all seemed the presence of soldiers from the distant lands of Australia and New Zealand—the newest of new worlds brought into contact with the oldest of the old. The first chapter gives a brief review of the situation at the termination of the Gallipoli campaign. The failure of the enterprise released a great Turkish army for fresh operations, and immensely encouraged the Turks. Bulgaria had joined onr adversaries. Kervia was ruined ; Germany now had a free way in the East, and made use of the Turks as her instruments. The more British forces there were engaged in the East, the fewer would -be have to contend with in France a.nd Flanders. Of the Turks, as the Australians knew them, Mr Gullett says: “The modern Turk is strangely complex. The Australians and the British found him throughout the war a clean and even a chivalrous tighter, and a docile, tractable, unresentfnl prisoner. But he has another and a sinister side to his character.” The Young Turk leaders appealed of set purpose to primitive savage instincts and love of plunder, so that the same “Turkish soldiery whom the Australians knew as gentlemen fighters worked every species of atrocity»on the unhappy Armenians, whom they were incited to destroy. “Australian 3?:d Turk fought as strangers, impelled by no racial antagonism or spirit of revenge, and the struggle, though wholehearted an' 4 blondv. was always strangely free from bitterness.’’ The Palestine campaign was that in which the special finalities of Australian soldiers could best display themselves. The conditions of the country and the nature of the fighting gave scope to their initiative and resourcefulness; t-nev, - better than other British soldiers, could endure the heat and the fopquent srarcitv of water, and here Australian horsemanship was brought into requisition. IVTr gives a fair and dis-riminating appraisement of the characteristics of the Australians who fought- in Palestine, in the course of which he savs : “Ail through the war the light horseman tried things bv the light of his strong common sense. On a hard-riding advance, when victory depended on speed, and snec'l upon a supply of horse feed, he did not Imitate to help himself to anv grain or othej* feebler possessed bv the natives of the country. Orders forbidding such cor,dint might have been couched j n the strongest terms • but when it was a ehoice between failure through loss of horses and success to be achieved bv the commandeering of fodder, he did not hesitate* to flout swithoritv. He dismissed such incidents from bis mind with the scornful th- nghf that »a Genera! Staff which could pot settle trifling a “airs of that sort with the natives was not fit for its iob; and rode on b.-fpnv because the bulging nosr bag ensured an evening meal for bis be lover wa! re.” Fv raordinar*' instances are given of the endurance of the Australian horses, which

proved themselves superior to camels when long desert distances had to be traversed rapidly. In an account of the fighting about Katia in August, 1916, it is said : “The horses of one squadron of tne 6th Regiment had not been watered on the night of the 3rd, and actually went 60 hours without a drink. These wonder walers were so exhausted on the march to Katia that, despite all their spirit, they lay down in the sand at each temporary halt; but when urged by their riders responded gamely, and carried them forward. As they approached the oasis where they had frequently been watered on reconnaissance they revived and engaged with spirit in the final gallop before tho dismounted attack; they also carried their riders back that night to Romani. Such endurance becomes the more remarkable when it is remembered that, owing to the intense heat, the horses on the i desert refused food when they had been , more than a few hours without a drink.” I Of the New Zealand Brigade, associated j with the Australian Light Horsemen, the i author says: “Lite the Australians, they ! were all pioneers or the children of I pioneers, born to and practised in country life, natural horsemen and expert riflemen. Closer in physical type than, the Australians to the big men of England’s northern counties and to the Lowland Scotch, they perhaps lacked something of the almost aggressive independence of thought and individuality of action which marked the Australians. They represented, in fact, a younger dominion than the Australians; they were more closely although not more purely bred to the parent British stock, more ‘ colonial ’ and less ‘ national ’ in their outlook than their Australian comrades in the division. But, if the two bodies of young men presented interesting differences, mental and physical, they were almost indistinguishable as fighters. All the qualities which their countrymen rejoiced to find- in tire Australians were to be found in the New Zealanders, with the exception of Little incidental excellences which sidelights disclosed on either side. The New Zealand Brigade not only won much glory for its people, it reflected everlasting credit upon the great business qualities of the New Zealand Governmem, during the war. Not only in its fighting capacity, but in its administration and economy, it was a model of what a mounted brigade should be, and Australian Light Horse officers of distinction were frequently beard to declare that the finest mounted brigade engaged in Sinai and Palestine was this splendid little body of New Zealanders. Between the Australians and the New Zealanders there was never in the long campaign a thought of jealousy oF a moment of misunderstanding. Each trusted an,d swore by the other.” In the desert fighting the sufferings of the wounded, who had to be conveyed over rough country with at first very illdevised methods of transport, were most terrible, and it is sad to read that after the disastrous battle of Romani, owing to bungling of, those responsible for the railway transport of the wounded to Kantara. the suffering men were left many hours neglected at the railhead, and then taken in open trucks, “the iourney of 23 miles occupying, from six to 15 hours.” ‘‘From the opening of the fight at Romani to the end of the campaign -n 1918 the light horsemen observed a voluntary and unwritten law that no sound man should allow himself to be taken prisoner, and no wounded man should be permitted to fall into enemy hands. To a singular degree this noble pledge was observed. After two and a-half years’ constant lighting only 73 light-horse prisoners had been taken by the Turks, and most of these were wounded before capture. Not a ingle light-horse officer was captured bv the enemy. During the same period the light horse captured between 40,000 and 50,000 Turks in an advance which extended in a straight line over 400 miles. The “law” concerning the wounded often led to heavy sacrifice, since men endeavoured to save these who had fallen, and it was more than once condemned from headquarters. But in the heat of battle it was always remembered ; wounded light horsemen with the fight thick about them had the satisfaction of kn'ow'ing that, if it was humanly possib’e for them to be carried out they would not be allowed to fall into tlie hands of an enemy who, if he fought chivalrously, was extremely callous in his treatment of prisoners; they knew also that they would be spared from the brutality of the Bedouin, who always prowled round the edges of the battle-grounds ready to tear uniform and boots from the fallen and even to dig up and strip the dead.” At first the wounded were carried in “cacolets,” a, sort of deck chair contrivance, swung one on each side of a camel—“frightful appliances of torture.” If possible the wounded would ride their own horses to avoid them, and mention ,s made of two Australians who, suffering from fractured t-highs, rode upwards of seven miles. One of there survived. Soon the Australians devised sleighs made of galvanised iron and turned up in front, which proved a safe and gentle means of transporting the wounded. Another Australian expedient was the laying down of wire netting to facilitate progress in sandy country. Hundreds of miles of wire nettincr tracks were put down in the desert and Southern Palestine, and used for both the infantry and light motor traffic. Many instances of conflict between colonial inventiveness and British military conservatism are related in the course o-f the narrative. The Hejaz Arabs, our ostensible allies, are thus described:—“The Arab of the desert, when equipped for battle, is one of the most picturrsnue figures in the world. Armed with the modern rifle and great quantities of tile ammunition which is so dear to his heart, he carries also a vicious little dagger and often a sword. His Arab horse is disappointing. In place of the noble steed of tradition the modern animal is nearly always an illconditioned scraggy pony, which receives very harsh treatment from its owner. But

the shortcomings of the horse are more than balanced by the splendour of the man. Tall, straight, spare, the modern Arab is one of the most beautiful physical examples of the human race. His large, dark, hashing eyes, his good features, Ins black shining beard, are all impressive ; but it is in his bold pride and grace of bearing - that the Arab is in this as in every age without a peer. As a soldier he was one of the most useless and harm less individuals that have engaged in modern battle.” If the Arab failed in Ins picturesque rush on an outnumbered enemy he speedily turned tail and melted away iir the desert. A curious incident which occurred towards the close of the hostilities in Palestine is illustrative of the respective quality of Turk and Arab fighters and of the Australian s feeling towards them; it is described in chapter xlii. The commander of a- Turkish force of about 6000, knowing his position hopeless, was prepared to surrender to a sinal 1 advance force of Australians. But the position was complicated by the present.r of a host of 10,000 Arabs, and the Turks reasonably feared that if they laid down their arms the Australians would not be able to protect them from massacre by the Arabs. The commander proposed that the Australians should stand clear and allow his troops to dispose of the Ar-g-bs, and then they would surrender to the Australians. This proposal, though seemingly not against the inclination of the Australians, could not be entertained, so the only expedient was for Australians and Turks to join forces for the night. They bivouacked together a-round the same fires, sharing their food, and by many signs expressing reciprocal respect and admiration. The Australians, though outnumbered eight to one. had no concern for their safety. Early next morning the New Zealand Brigade arrived, and the Turks la-id down their arms and were marched to Amman. This was a picturesque ending to Chavtor’s spirited campaign east of the Jordan. But the war was a picturesque one throughout, and its many dramatic and moving incidents are here effectively-, though unostentatiously related. This volume, describing a field of war in which Australians and New Zealanders played such a conspicuous and distinguished part, should be in great demand by their countrymen in botli countries.