Saturday 12 December 2020

IMAGI-NATIONS. PART 31.

 THE INVASION OF IRAN.



Following the Iranian invasion of Mexico in Spring of 1885 the UNION government decided to launch a retaliatory invasion of Iran. The instructions to the UNION army were to destroy the Iranian army and Republican Guard and devastate the infrastructure of Iran to ensure that Iran would be unable to initiate any military activities for many years. This strategy would include the forceful removal of the civilian population from the southern part of the country, the most agriculturally productive area with the majority of the population outside Tehran.

The date of the invasion was set for 1st October 1885. UNION army command decided to use a full army for the invasion with an additional army to follow up and take positions to the west facing the border between Iran and Syria to prevent that nation coming to the aid of its brothers. The 5th army was given the task of launching the invasion with 6th army from Fort Laramie providing the follow up force. During the summer a railhead was built just below the border on the railway between Mexico City and Acapulco. The 5th army objective was to advance to the Iranian capital Tehran destroying all armed resistance and driving the civilian population before it. UNION Pioneers would follow the advancing troops destroying all infrastructure, in effect creating a scorched earth. On reaching Tehran, that city would be devastated by massed artillery fire before troops would enter the city to complete the destruction. The armies would then withdraw leaving Iran in ruins. As the distance from the new railhead to Tehran was only 500 miles no supply railway would be built, UNION forces would rely on wagon transport throughout the campaign.

After the return of their troops from Mexico the Iranian government waited for the expected UNION retaliation. As time passed without any UNION response the Iranians became increasingly uneasy. Vague reports came in of a UNION military build up in Mexico but at no time did Iran ever expect the invasion that crashed over the border on 1st October. Vast columns of UNION troops swept into Iran along a one hundred mile front.  The civilian population had been moved away from the border regions back in Spring but only about ten miles. By the end of the first day UNION troops were seizing Iranian villages, forcing the people to pack up and driving them north without mercy. Small groups of Republican Guards guarding these villages were wiped out, no prisoners were being taken.

By 8th October UNION forces were 120 miles inside Iran and showing no signs of stopping. The Republican Guard and regular army were ordered south to stop the UNION onslaught. Regular army generals urged caution knowing full well that without heavy weapons they could not take on the mighty UNION army in a pitched battle. They urged instead the use of ambushes and hit and run tactics as so well used in Mexico. However the Iranian leadership demanded they attack the UNION army head on. On 12th October the combined regular army and Republican Guard, some 55,000 strong, dug in across the main road from Mexico about 270 miles south of Tehran. UNION cavalry watched the Iranians deploying and , after reporting to Command, the whole cavalry brigade moved to the east and, out of sight of the Iranians, moved behind the Iranian positions.

On the morning of 13th October the UNION army of around 57,000 came into battle formation in front of the Iranian positions. At noon the UNION artillery opened a massive bombardment on the Iranians. The barrage, from 16 battalions of field and heavy artillery,  continued for three hours by which time the Iranian positions had been obliterated and  half their troops were dead or wounded with the other half shell shocked and incapable of resistance. UNION infantry swept over the Iranian positions during the late afternoon. Some groups of Iranians fought to the last man, but UNION infantry, taking no prisoners as ordered, soon reached the small Iranian baggage train which was quickly destroyed. Most Iranians who were able to flee north soon ran into the cavalry blocking force and were wiped out, very few actually manged to escape the battlefield.

However, on the far eastern flank of the Iranian positions, a regular army colonel, realising the situation was hopeless, withdrew his command of about 1,000 men, mostly regulars, and moved quickly east then south behind the advancing UNION troops. Although he had expected to be defeated, even he was surprised by the power of the UNION army. He decided for the sake of his country he had to strike a counter blow and the UNION supply wagon trains to the south perhaps offered that opportunity. Leading his men slowly south mainly by night he searched for a target.

UNION casualties were 147 dead and 257 wounded while they buried over 50,000 Iranian dead on the battlefield during the following days as they prepared to resume the march north. In Tehran panic broke out within the government and leading members of society. The hated UNION had somehow wiped out their whole army and would clearly soon continue their advance on Tehran. The government called for all males of fighting age to gather to defend the nation. Aid was requested from the other Arab nations who rushed to help. During the rest of October and early in November around 90,000 men were collected to defend Tehran. Arming this mass however exhausted the stocks of weapons in the whole Arab world. In addition the humanitarian situation in Iran was rapidly deteriorating as thousands of refugees flooded into Tehran from the south. Food stocks began to run out despite the arrival of extra supplies from Syria and Iraq. The government had little choice but to force the refugees to continue to move north towards Iraq in search of safety.

Early in November UNION forces resumed the march to Tehran. Far to the south a small Iranian force, living on what little they could forage, watched heavily loaded UNION wagon trains moving north.

4 comments:

  1. Well, that was pretty horrible. Seems a bit hard, visiting upon the Iranian civilian population the sins of the Iranian military. There have been precedents, of course, and I seem to recall a plan for post-war Germany by one Henry Morgenthau, at the time US Secy of Treasury (not the only instance, but the one I recall best). It was not, in my view rightly, taken up by the US government - at least not fully - although President Roosevelt came within an ace of approving it. It was estimated at the time, that Germany would have lost 40% of its population from penury and starvation had the Morgenthau Plan been implemented. If we conservatively estimate Germany's population at war's end to be 60 million, you'd be looking at 24,000,000 dying. The war had already cost Germany something like 5 million dead, and a huge destruction of infrastructure. Cordell Hull loathed the idea, and General George Marshall blamed its publication as strengthening Germany's resolve to resist. I really don't think the Allied leaders (Churchill crossed the fence from opposition to favouring the Plan) properly thought this one through.

    The impression I get is that US public opinion is what finally got the Morgenthau Plan dropped - which says a lot about the humanity of ordinary American people at the time. Eventually the US promulgated the far more humanitarian Marshall Plan, which made a heck of a lot more sense to aid the recovery of a war-ravaged Europe.
    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ion. ..It will get worse !!!!!!! The next few installments are also fairly horrible. I am not trying to be horrible for the sake of it but to illustrate a certain type of war, that is total war, rather than just a purely military campaign. I think the classic example of visiting upon a civilian population the sins of a military is the mass bombing of German cities in WW2. The impact on German military production was minimal compared to the loss of civilian life. Dresden took so many lives virtually at the end of the war. I was not aware of the Morgenthau plan. I will look it up right now. A good case of learning from readers comments thank you. As for public opinion, not wanting to give too much away but I think Imagi-Nations Part 34 will be interesting in this regard. Cheers. Tony

    ReplyDelete
  3. Understood. The problem I have with 'Total War', is that its 'totality' tends to be one-sided. I guess that might well be a point you are making.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Absolutely right. As far as I know most "total" wars are one sided. Sometimes the roles reverse like Germany/Russia in WW2 but one side usually has the upper hand. Most colonial wars fall under this heading too. That said, I do try to be even handed to some extent. The next chapter will show that even under-dogs can bite !!!!! Regards

    ReplyDelete