'Expenditure on Malleson Mission and troops in East Persia, 1918 to 1921' [‎3r] (5/34)

0
Mission to Meshed, but had refrained from sending instructions to withdraw in
deference to opposition from the War Office.
On 7th January ]919 an inter-Departmental Conference was held at the Foreign
Office to consider the position of the Mission.
At this Conference the Director of Military Intelligence described the object of
maintaining General Malleson’s force as follows :—■
(1) To prevent the Bolsheviks from penetrating into Persia.
(2) To protect Krasnovodsk from the east (including hold on the Transcaspian
Railway).
(3) To contain a large Bolshevik force which would otherwise be free to attack
the Orenburg Cossacks, to which should be added
(4) The collection and evacuation of released Austro-German prisoners of war.
The C Conference decided to consult the Government of India.
Pending a meeting between Generals Milne and Malleson, the Viceroy authorised
General Malieson to give further financial assistance to the Transcapian Government.
This action was said to have been approved by an inter-departmental conference
and by the Treasury representative thereon 14.086/19).
#
(iv) On 22nd January 1919 the Treasury wrote to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. referring to
the decision of His Majesty’s Government to limit to 100,000L the expenditure to be
incurred in connection with the expedition, stated that the Treasury would not be
responsible for any excess, and asked that General Malleson should cable an exact
statement of The expenditure up to the date when General Milne assumed command
(1822/19).
(v) The answer from the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. to the letter quoted above (ii) (31769/18)
was received on 20th February 1919.
The Secretary of State for India was unable to accept the Treasury view, and
wrote :—
“It was no part of this Mission’s aim to influence or organise the population of
Persia. It was designed to establish an intelligence centre for watching events in
Russian Central Asia with the ultimate object of intervention in that region if circum
stances required or permitted. It definitely assumed after a time the form of a
Military Mission, but throughout its object was to counteract German-Bolshevik
developments in Central Asia.”
Accordingly the Secretary of State asked the Treasury to accept as a charge upon
Imperial revenues all expenditure on the Mission other than ordinary charges of
officers or men of the Indian Army employed on it, which would be chargeable to
India under the terms of the Parliamentary Resolutions.
(vi) The answer of the War Office was a request (addressed to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ,
15th January 1919) that the only charges to be brought against Army Funds in
connection with the Mission should be those in connection with the troops actually
engaged in military operations.
(vii) The Treasury, in reply to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. (8th March 1919), merely asked
for an account of expenditure incurred before considering the question further.
(8013/19).
(viii) The Foreign Office view of the question of the incidence of charge was
sent to the Treasury on 4th March, and was entirely opposed to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors.
view.
In Lord Curzon’s opinion the Mission was Indian, both in its inception and in its
composition. It was, moreover, intended in the main to serve Indian ends, viz., to
prevent enemy agents from penetrating into Central Asia and causing trouble in
Afghanistan.
Lord Curzon accordingly considered that the cost of the expenditure should not
fall upon Foreign Office Votes. (9911/19).
(ix) On 8th February 1919 the Middle Eastern Committee resumed discussion of
the proposal to withdraw General Malleson’s Mission from Transcaspia, having now
before them General Milne’s report of his visit to General Malleson, Askabad and
Merv.
The gist of the report was :—“ Either he must help (the Transcaspian)
Government, both financially and with troops, arms and ammunition, or clear out
altogether.”