For a number of months I have been trying to determine how both the Allies and the Ottoman Army did their "Intelligence Analysis" to justify some of the things then published in their Intelligence Summaries. To date I have found absolutely nothing from the Allied side at the AWM and was wondering if anyone knows whether GHQ MEF and the Cairo Intelligence files ended up back at the WO/TNA.

Surprisingly though, an Ottoman Ordre de Battaille chart of Allied Forces is reproduced on the back of Enver Pasha's map of 4 Aug 1915 in the book "Gallipoli: The Front Line Experience" by Tolga Ornek and Feza Toker. The chart was printed on 20 Jun 1915 and then updated to 17 Jul 1915 and correctly identifies the units in each brigade and so forth, the English Divisional Commanders, but not the Australian ones. What is more it identifies the Australian Light Horse as a seperate cavalry formation, rather than dismounted formations which had augmented the Anzac Divisions.

Cheers, and looking forward to any pointers,
Hendo

Hendo

There is a rather interesting entry in the bibliography of Grasping Gallipoli by Peter Chasseaud and Peter Doyle - an unpublished dissertation by Sarah Nicholas British Military Intelligence at Suvla Bay, August 1915 (2000).

I have looked through all the web based information and search sites to try and track down this dissertation but to no avail. I have also checked with the IWM and University of Birmingham - they too drew a blank. I can only assume it was not a PhD dissertation but for a one or two year post-grad and thus has not been catalogued. Sorry not to be more helpful.

John

Hendo

The only original interview of a Turkish prisoner that I have come across from whence an intel summary was drafted was attached to the 9th LHR WD. You can read it transcribed here:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...ry-22-november/

Or go to the original WD held by the AWM.

This is an example of a POW interview.

Judging from this and many other oblique comments, especially later on the intel section lays out the exact form of interview to be undertaken and the items to believe and not believe, I would guess that this is very representative of the style of intel collection from prisoners.

In addition, there was air and naval intel.

Cheers

Bill

Hendo,

I too have wondered this. I didn't come across anything at TNA. Much of what appeared in the 'intelligence summaries' was not verified. If it was, it was often done so by interviewing prisoners (I haven't seen these originals), or as Bill states, from naval and air intel. Reconnaissance flights would verify troop movements, or camps etc. and naval intelligence, particularly that undertaken by the various submarines who were successful in the Marmara, was used primarily for supply intel (especially for information about supplies coming from Germany). I am not sure if it went beyond this to any great extent. Sorry I couldn't be of much more help.

John,

Out of interest, did you contact Chasseaud or Doyle? Perhaps it was a student of theirs? I would be very interested in this source.

Rhys

I should have qualified my original post by saying that I had read a number of interrogation reports, the results of aerial reconnsaisance and the one special agent report held at the AWM, each in itself are only information reports, not intelligence, what is lacking is the integration, comparison, interpretation and analysis with all other reporting. What is also lacking are the reports from front line troops in the trenches, that of observers and most importantly the proof of analysis, rahter than just reporting, by the intelligence system.

There was a list of GHQ MEF files, that I think included the intelligence working files, which was kept by the CofS GHQ MEF (Haldane ?), the copy held by the CofS was sold on eBay.uk a year or so ago. Does anyone know whether the GHQ MEF file made it to and survive at the TNA?

The Turkish Army handbook frequently updated during the campaign by Cairo Intelligence does in fact allude to or state the results of analysis, but the reports from which it was built on and the reports used to corroborate or refute information are also lacking. It would be a very expensive, difficult and long process to determine the intelligence analysis from the handbook, even with the aid of computers and text pattern recognition software!


Cheers,
Hendo

Rhys

Good to see you posting on this forum. Welcome. How's the write-up going?

No, I am afraid that is still on my 'to do' list. I guess the best approach is via their publishers, or does anyone have any contact information that they could let me have via PM?

John

John,

The write-up is coming along quite well - as long as I don't get too caught up in reading all the great posts on the forum.

See http://www.peterdoylemilitaryhistory.com/page14.htm for Doyle's contact details. I'd be grateful if you could pass the details onto me.

Rhys

John and Rhys,

If you google Peter Chasseaud, you will find his websites and blog's, his contact details are on those,

Cheers,
Hendo

Many thanks Hendo - I have tracked down a contact email address from the blog. Email on its way to him. I will keep you posted Rhys.

John