HL Deb 06 August 1941 vol 119 cc1124-31
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, Lord Mottistone is unable to be present to-day. Therefore I am taking the liberty of asking the question which is in his name on the Paper, namely, whether His Majesty's Government can give the names of the units which took part in the operations in Syria and whether they can give any general information on the subject of this important campaign. There are, your Lordships will note, two questions. The first is whether His Majesty's Government can give the names of the units engaged in the recent operations in Syria. As we all know, those units comprised distinguished regiments in the British Army and in the Dominion Forces and also in the Indian Army. His Majesty's Government have shown signs of departing from their extreme reticence, which some of us regretted, and have given names of units in other campaigns, and it is hoped that they will be able to give information on this point. In the second place, my noble friend asks whether it may not be possible to give some general information on the subject of the Syrian campaign. We are undoubtedly very much in the dark about the details of that campaign, more so, I think, than about the details of all the others that have been fought since the beginning of the war, and in many respects this is by no means the least interesting of the different campaigns in which our Forces have been engaged.

There is a singular element of paradox about it, because although our Forces were engaged against a portion of the French Forces, yet the operations were not directed against France but altogether against Germany. If it had not been the case that the Germans had proved that they had intended to treat and use Syria as a base of operations in the Middle East, it certainly would not have occurred to us to invade that country with our Forces. I believe it was the case that during the course of the campaign both sides were unwilling—so far as soldiers can be unwilling—to deal hardly with the Forces opposed to them, and certainly the spirit was quite contrary to that which is visible in the contest between Germany and Russia to-day. I do not know how far the noble Lord who will reply for the War Office will be able to speak of the future. As we know, Syria has been occupied by France under the terms of a Mandate, one of those Mandates which contemplates the ultimate independence of the country—a parallel case to our Mandate in Iraq. I take it that we should view with benevolence the attitude of French people, as distinct from the present Vichy Government, if there was a prospect of Syria obtaining freedom and independance in due course. I beg to ask the question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT)

My Lords, the noble Marquess who has asked this question on behalf of Lord Mottistone will not, I imagine, expect me to say anything with regard to the future of Syria and the area adjoining Palestine, but I will endeavour to answer his other questions as briefly as possible. On June 8 we entered Syria. The first columns to cross the frontier from Palestine consisted of Yeomanry (horsed) and mechanised cavalry, Australian infantry on the left, British and Australians in the centre and Indians followed by Free French on the right. It was hoped that on the first contact with their countrymen the Vichy French forces in Syria would face the realities of the situation, realize our friendly attitude and yield without bloodshed. These hopes were not fulfilled. On the contrary, the Vichy French and the finest French Colonial troops fought with great courage and determination. Indian troops and the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force on the right captured Dera, Sheikh Meskin and Esra, after which the Free French passed through them with Damascus as their objective. The Royal Fusiliers took Kuneitra on June 9 and the Australians Merjayoun on June II. Simultaneously, Australian troops with the Cheshire Yeomanry moved along the coast with objectives Tyre and Sidon, which they captured on the first and seventh days. The Australians were greatly aided in crossing the Litani River by the landing of British infantry north of the river. They were landed from ships of the Royal Navy, and took part in a very gallant action with decisive local tactical results, enabling the Australians to proceed.

On June 15–16 Vichy Forces counterattacked with armoured vehicles, and recaptured Esra and Kuneitra. In the latter place, as mentioned in the newspapers, our Forces had run out of ammunition owing to considerable fighting in the area. Esra was again taken by the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force and Free French on June 17. On the same day Kuneitra was finally captured by the Queens. The delay in the centre in difficult hilly country resulted in the Vichy Forces having a menacing though narrow re-entrant right down to the south, which might have threatened the communications of our columns advancing on the west and east. Stiff fighting took place at Merjayoun which the Australians finally captured on June 24 making further advance possible. The Australians, having already captured Sidon, were advancing north, whilst the Free French under General Catroux, and Indian Troops, were well on the road to Damascus. It was at this juncture that a dangerous threat to the Vichy French defences emerged away to the east. Here a mobile column consisting of Household Cavalry Regiment, Wilts. and Warwick Yeomanry and Essex Regiment took a great sweep from Iraq into Central Syria on the Pipe Line route to Palmyra.

I must digress for a moment to explain how this column, with others, came to be in this area so far from our base. When the Iraq revolt took place and the gallant defence of Habbaniya aerodrome was in progress, it will be remembered that-Indian troops were opportunely landed in Basra and pushed right through by rail to reinforce their hard-pressed comrades, whilst other reinforcements were flown by air. They took part in a still wider flank attack in North Syria, to which I will refer later. Again, by a remarkably fine desert march of over 600 miles without hope of supplies en route, a British column came all the way from Trans-Jordan to the Baghdad area to stem the revolt. It was from this area that our mobile column already mentioned suddenly proceeded to invade Central Syria, threatening Palmyra. This threat greatly relieved the situation in front of Damascus, and on June 2I the British and Free French columns advancing from the south, were able to enter the City, which was happily at the last moment evacuated by our opponents.

The Australians had by this date entered a far more difficult terrain on the coast, where a succession of valleys ran down from the Lebanon mountain range to the sea. As the Australians crossed each valley capturing the hills beyond, they had to start the same process over again storming successively hills which were all skilfully defended. The Royal Navy was happily able to give close support to these advances, although French destroyers also on occasion came in shore and shelled our forces without holding them up. These French destroyers were forced by the Royal Navy to withdraw. The Australians reached the stiff obstacle of the Damour river on July 4. It was crossed and a bridgehead gained by an Australian battalion after heavy fighting, and Damour being captured on July I0 the way was open for a further advance on Beirut. By now our threat from the east had reached Palmyra, with its important aerodrome, which, in spite of a gallant and stubborn defence, was captured on July 4.

There now emerged yet a further flank attack from Iraq by Indian troops who, coming all the way from India via Basra and Baghdad, as I explained earlier, entered the north-eastern point of Syria in most dramatic fashion, advancing along the Syrian-Turco frontier in a very wide sweep threatening Aleppo in the extreme north. Simultaneously our central column in the south had cleaned up the position at Merjayoun and the Free French had advanced well North of Damascus. With the frontal advance progressing everywhere, with Palmyra captured, and with the astonishing appearance of British and Indian troops threatening to cut off the French army in the north at Aleppo, General Dentz saw that the game was up and sought an Armistice. Syria was ours and this most distressing campaign was brought to a triumphant conclusion.

I think I have read somewhere a suggestion that these operations were conducted tardily and that we were fighting without that frightfulness which is associated with German "Blitz" campaigns. I would remind your Lordships that the whole campaign for the conquest of this country so strong in natural defence positions, took exactly five weeks—a few hours less than five weeks—and that we were fighting numerous picked and well-equipped French troops on their own ground, in equal strength to the attackers on practically every occasion, and led with resource and considerable military skill. I can imagine no folly greater than that of bombardment of the Holy City of Damascus, or ruthless war on the civilians of Syria for, apart from moral considerations, we have got to hold this country and live among the Syrians until the war is over. As a result of our clean fighting methods and our scrupulous efforts to avoid needless suffering to innocent people, I believe we have won and we certainly deserve Syrian good will, and this may well be reflected throughout the Arab world and the whole of the Middle East. The terms imposed by Sir Maitland Wilson were in keeping with the conduct of the whole campaign. Wounds there were bound to be, but they have been staunched and we hope healed by a truly wise and liberal recognition of the special character of this struggle in preserving that country from Nazi domination as a jumping-off ground for attack on Egypt from the north.

Once more, I can say, British, Dominion, Indian and Free French troops of all arms have emerged with great credit and honour. Once more we utter our thanks to the sister Services for denying the possibility of reinforcements and supplies to the enemy and giving the Army close support. Once more we can say that the architects of these military successes have displayed master minds of strategy and an excellent tactical application in exploiting the strategic plan. In answer to the other question put by the noble Marquess on behalf of his noble friend, the following units took part in the Syrian operations:

  • Household Cavalry Regiment,
  • Royals,
  • Scots Greys,
  • 13th D.C.O. Lancers,
  • Wiltshire Yeomanry,
  • Warwick Yeomanry,
  • Cheshire Yeomanry,
  • Staffordshire Yeomanry,
  • Royal Artillery,
  • Royal Australian Artillery,
  • Royal Engineers,
  • Queen's Royal W. Surrey,
  • King's Own Royal Regiment,
  • Royal Fusiliers,
  • Leicesters,
  • Border Regiment,
  • Essex Regiment,
  • Durham Light Infantry,
  • 1st Punjab Regiment,
  • Rajputana Rifles,
    • 1129
  • Frontier Force Rifles,
  • Frontier Force Regiment,
  • Gurkha Rifles,
  • Trans-Jordan Frontier Force,
  • Arab Legion
in addition to the Australian infantry battalions to which I have already referred. I am glad Lord Mottistone has given me the opportunity to mention the units which took part.

Amidst great events elsewhere too little notice has been paid to this solid achievement, but we have only to look at the map to see that one supporting pillar to our Middle. Eastern defence—Syria—which so unhappily collapsed with the fall of France, is now restored and we can face the enemy with far surer grounds for confidence in the Middle East than was possible seven weeks ago. Again, look at the map and remember that only a year ago Marshal Graziani, with an immensely superior force, was threatening the left flanks of our Middle East defences at Mersa Matruh. In spite of the setback at Benghazi, Tobruk—your Lordships will please note—is 200 miles west of Mersa Matruh, our starting point, and Graziani's original Army has been largely destroyed. The great territories of the one-time Italian East African Empire have passed into British keeping with the complete defeat of 320,000 Axis troops which threatened the rear of our strategic defence. That threat at least is permanently eliminated. Again, further north in Iraq, a revolt threatening our right flank, the rear of Egypt, our sea and land communications with India and our oil supplies, was stamped out by prompt military action, and now Syria, which exposed our right flank in Palestine and the approaches to Alexandria is under our control.

War has many surprises, but I doubt if many of your Lordships last August could have hoped, without being dubbed complacent, or even optimistic, that this series of military achievements could have brought us so much comfort and so largely have restored the situation. When the various units of the British and Imperial Forces recall the part they played in Libya, Eritrea, Italian Somali-land, British Somaliland, Abyssinia, Iraq and Syria—and I think I might add in Greece, in Crete and in Malta—when they remember all these fiercely contested fields of battle, it will be with pride and the knowledge that they upheld the highest traditions of the Service to which they belong. Greater struggles lie ahead, but I think we can say in answer to those who sometimes ask "What has the Army been doing?" that our troops have never ceased fighting over this vast area, that they have in all these encounters acquitted themselves with great credit and have now become veteran soldiers of the British Empire who have inflicted defeat on Armies of over half a million soldiers of the Axis Powers. They will, we may rest assured, render a magnificent account of themselves wherever they find the enemy.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, since the conclusion of this campaign in Syria, this is the first time, as far as I am aware, that Parliament has had the opportunity of hearing from a member of His Majesty's Government the names of the British and Empire troops and units which took part in this successful five weeks' campaign. May I recall to the House that in a statement made by the Prime Minister a short time ago in another place he also divulged the names of units which took part in the operations in Greece and Crete. What I desire to ask His Majesty's Government—and perhaps the Leader of the House can inform me—is whether it is the intention of the Government that at the conclusion of all these campaigns, wherever they may be fought, questions may be asked and answered in Parliament in order to ascertain which units of the British and Imperial Armies took part in a particular campaign. I would like to make this further observation. The troops who took part in the Battle of Syria were under the command of General Sir Maitland Wilson while the Free French came under the command of General Catroux. I do not know whether any report has yet been received of this campaign from the Generals. I take it that the statement which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Croft is one that has been drawn up by the War Office and is the story of the War Office of this campaign and not the story of the two Commanding Officers of the respective Forces.

LORD CROFT

My Lords, if I may be permitted briefly to reply to my noble friend, the answer to his question is this. It has been stated in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, that it is intended, whenever possible, to mention as speedily as possible the names of unit: that have served in the different campaigns. This, of course, must be governed by military considerations. Your Lordships will remember that earlier on, when particulars were desired in regard to the African campaign, it was obviously impossible, at that time, for the names of all units to be mentioned without disclosing the movement of our troops, which, of course, could not be done. But the principle I have stated has been announced by the Secretary of State for War, and we realize fully the importance of the point mentioned by the noble Earl. With regard to the question as to whether the account I have given of the campaign in Syria was the account of the Commanders-in-Chief, the answer is in the negative. No full report has been received from them and I am afraid the story I have told may be lacking, to some extent, in detail. The story as I have endeavoured to present it has been drawn up from the Communiqués received and from other information which the War Office has been able to obtain.