Official History inaccuracies

[WilliamRev]

Last Sunday I was in London for a late afternoon concert, and first managed to spend a couple of hours at the Imperial War Museum, which I haven't been to for nearly ten years.

I went into their study area, and saw that they had twenty-odd large red-bound volumes of The Official History of the Great War. Looking at the volume which covered 3rd Ypres, I turned to the assault on the village of Zonnebeke and Hill 40 by the 8th Brigade (a special interest of mine), and found a somewhat garbled account with several factual errors. In particular it said that Lt. Col Teacher, who died in the battle, was the commander of 2nd Battalion Royal Scots, whereas in fact he was commander of 1st Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers. An easy mistake - but sloppy none the less. .

Rather more importantly, the 8th Brigade are reported as ending up 600 yards short of their objective - given that they were supposed to take around 1000 yards of ground this would have been a major setback, but in fact after some savage fighting in which they lost nearly half of their strength as casualties, and 18 out of 24 officers, they ended up barely 150 yards short - halfway up the gentle slope of Hill 40 instead of just over the crest as intended - I am fairly sure of my facts because on a visit to Belgium in June this year my brother and I paced it using the map that my grandfather had (he was a company commander in the attack, hence my interest in the battle) and the official report from the war diary to compare it with.

Perhaps this is a particularly bad page as far as errors are concerned, but it occurs to me that if the whole 20 volumes of this influential work are riddled with as many errors, then there is the potential for simply thousands of mistakes and inaccuracies to be quoted as fact in perpetuity, which is rather worrying eh?

William

.

[Guest]

The CWGC also seems unclear on Teacher's Bn

1st/2nd Bn? Lt-Col Teacher

Mike

[Chris_Baker]

William, I've examined the OH in depth for a few large scale actions, notably in 1918. The history is clearly based on the war diaries and operational reports. It was also amended/tweaked to take into account the comments that came back when drafts were sent out to many of those who took part. Much of the battle narrative is verbatim for those sources. The Third Ypres volume is, I believe, the least useful volume. Whether it contains more factual errors as you describe I can not really say, as I have not looked at it in quite the same depth.

[David Filsell]

Errors, certainly. But, when you consider the length and breadth of the work undertaken by Edmonds and his team mistakes, errors, call them what you will, were inevitable. That said enormous attempts were made to ensure accuracy. Thousands of sections were sent out for checking, thousands of replies recieved (which frequently did not agree one with an other). In my research of 1st Ypres, comparing the OH with published regimental account (clearly often touched up by frequently proffesional - and some 'hack' authors, personal accounts (often by those who in the heat of war saw and knew nothing other than the ground ahead and beside them) and War Diaries (not always written with the committment to fact needed by tired and concerned adjutants concerned about showing their bns, bdes, divs and etc in the best possible light) I have found many contradictions - but few so serious as to condemn the work. The OH attempted to straddle the (insurmountable) problems to guide in future conflicts, to record events in many places, by many men, in many areas, and be as readable history as honestly as possibe. As they say mistakes are inevitable, but the OH remains an invalable resource - errors and all - and remains the starting point for research. That said you can sometimes be convinced that you "know better".

Best regards

David

[WilliamRev]

I must emphasise that I was looking at one action only which is covered by only several pages - a pathetically small sample, and for all I know I may have been unfortunate in stumbling across the volume's only errors.

Lt.Col N. McD. Teacher's battalion, (1st Royal Scots Fusiliers, not 2nd) is easy to mix up - it is the fault of the numbskull who thought that puting 1st Royal Scots Fusiliers and 2nd Royal Scots into the same brigade (8th Brigade, 3rd Division) was a good idea! It caused confusion then, and it still is 90 years later!

In the battle 26-28th Sept 1917 the 2nd Royal Scots did indeed stop 600 yards short of the brigade's objective, which is probably the fact that the writer of the Official History has seized upon, but that is exactly what they were supposed to do! The 1st Royal Scots Fuliers then passed through their ranks (at the red line on the map below) and continued the attack, heading for their objective, the blue line. In fact by about 7 hours later they dug in at the short black line (just next to the number "21") which eventually became the new British front line, and you will see that it is only 100 yards or so short of the blue line.

All this matters so much to me because this action is either regarded as a failure, which it certainly wasn't at the time, or is left out of books almost completely when the equally fierce battle for Polygon Wood which was happening down the road at the same time gets all the attention.

William

[KevinBattle]

William, time for a chill pill, I think. Please don't get so aerated about this incident. It seems that not only have they confused 1st Royal Scots Fusiliers with the actions of the 2nd Royal Scots, assuming therefore that they stopped 600 yds or so short. Your explanation shows how the confusion occurred, so is a grateful clarification, but to get so steamed up about it seems irrational so many years later.

What does get under my skin is that so many of these attacks were so hard won, yet lost again a short time later, then the whole scenario repeats itself, often time and time again. More than any inaccuracies (even now, if a traffic accident is witnessed, each will have a different view, sometimes conflicting make and colour!) the saddest aspect of the Western Front is that tiny strips of land could be fought over back and forth so many times for over 4 years.

Might I suggest that you at least address the error about Lt Col Teachers Battalion directly with the CWGC?

[6th Shropshires]

Hi William

I tend to find with OH, that it jumps from Division to Division and back again as it follow a days fighting, which is a pain, I have lots of page marks so that I can follow the flow of the battalion/brigade/division that I am looking into.

Annette

[Guest]

Hi William

I tend to find with OH, that it jumps from Division to Division and back again as it follow a days fighting, which is a pain, I have lots of page marks so that I can follow the flow of the battalion/brigade/division that I am looking into.

Annette

This is where the DVD is so useful, searching is so easy, even I can do it

Mike

[Ian Riley]

There were corrigenda booklets/sheets issued for some volumes, I think, although I do not know exactly for which. I have seen correspondence, written personally by Edmonds to the historian of one battalion (neither a member of the established history-writing industry nor a regular soldier), undertaking to correct shortcomings in the account of one particular action in any future edition although I do not think that there was another edition of that volumne and I have not seen a relevant corrigendum item. Clearly the OH was open to correction in principle if not in practice. As the series was not completed until after WW2, by which time Edmonds was, I think in his eighties, it was unlikely that there would be corrected re-issues thereafter. I have a slight suspicion that some editions before WW2 migh have made a second edition; I am afraid that I don't have time to do a search on this, however, either in my own set or on the Internet.

I would be interested in opinions as to the accuracy of the maps in the France and Begium series. I understood that Captain Archibald Becke and his team constructed them pretty well independently of the text although there must have been some liaison planning in connecting the two. However, I can't remember where I read this, perhaps an OH preface.

Ian

[6th Shropshires]

On getting out my copy of OH and reading the chapter on the Battle of Polygon Wood, I find that the battle gets very little coverage, seeing that it was a fairly successful battle, except for the 33rd Division, who had been heaverly attacked by the Germans the day before, were unable to carry their objectives.

OH records-"Eventually the brigade (8th) was brought to a standstill by machine-gun fire near the foot of Hill 40, six hundred yards from the objective", which like William points out is no were near 600 yards, plus it's only on half the brigades front the 7th K.S.L.I. captured and held it's objective. If you look at the objective map in OH, only the lower slope of Hill 40 is included in final objective. The 76th Brigade had like the Aussies had gone beyond their objective, so it could be that OH as miss worded it, instead of being 600 yards short of objective the 8th Brigade were about 600 yards in rear of the 76th Brigade, who were about that distance beyond the objective.

That seid I still think OH as good overall coverage.

Annette

[6th Shropshires]

Hi Ian

I would be interested in opinions as to the accuracy of the maps in the France and Begium series.

I find then not to have 100% accuracy, as I point out below, according to the map at back of OH covering the 26th Sept 1917, it only shows the lower slope of Hill 40 being included in objective but going by William's map and going by text in OH it's self, the whole of Hill 40 was included in objective. I have noticed other times when OH maps are not 100 % correct but then again on thinking about it these map are only intended to give readers an approx mark of lines gained and lost.

Annette

[Paris]

William,

Personally I find the OH a mix of joy and frustration. The footnotes and endnotes are fascinating and provide a wonderful source in their one right. However, I do prefer to use primary sources where I feel that the main text of the OH is lacking. I feel It's a pity that the British war diaries are not easily accessible online as is the case for war diaries of other countries - that might well prevent too heavily a reliance on the OH, and the mistakes that are often repeated in subsequent works might be avoided.

The OH is a valuable work, but we should all be wary of treating every word as gospel.

Marcel

[Ian Riley]

I find then not to have 100% accuracy, as I point out below, according to the map at back of OH covering the 26th Sept 1917, it only shows the lower slope of Hill 40 being included in objective but going by William's map and going by text in OH it's self, the whole of Hill 40 was included in objective. I have noticed other times when OH maps are not 100 % correct but then again on thinking about it these map are only intended to give readers an approx mark of lines gained and lost.

Annette

Annette,

Thanks. It is probably naughty of me to have posed the question at risk of appearing to try to hijack a thread that is clearly aimed at the text

Ian

[Guest]

" I feel It's a pity that the British war diaries are not easily accessible online as is the case for war diaries of other countries - that might well prevent too heavily a reliance on the OH, and the mistakes that are often repeated in subsequent works might be avoided. "

Are the Bn Diaries any more 'Gospel' than the OH. If the OH entries were sent out to many who took part, rather than a Captain, taking accounts from his Lt's, on what happened on a particular day, are the OH not more likely to be accurate?

I'm just wondering out loud, as I have the OH, plus various Bn Diaries. If the two conflict, which should be believed?

Cheers Mike

[Paris]

I'm just wondering out loud, as I have the OH, plus various Bn Diaries. If the two conflict, which should be believed?

Cheers Mike

My thinking is that if the OH are read in isolation, then any conflict with Bn Diaries will be missed. When the two DO conflict then alarm bells should start ringing and a bit of further reading would perhaps be appropriate to discern the truth as far as possible.

Cheers Marcel

[Guest]

Thanks Marcel. That's fair enough.

Cheers Mike

[ianw]

The OH is beset with the problems that beset history itself - there are thousands of separate "truths". No amalgam of a selection of them 30 years after the event can be definitive - but I agree that avoiding obvious howlers should be a basis requirement. Herodotus would have sympathised with the problems of this literally monumental task.

[WilliamRev]

I didn't mean to sound quite as upset as I realise that I do now that I read my own post again. But since there is no divisional history for the Third Division, it seems to me that the Official History might be more likely to be referred to for the Third Division's action in Zonnebeke 26-28th Sept 1917, hence my frustration.

On another note, I accidentally messed up resizing the map issued to company commanders of the 8th Brigade on that date that I posted this morning, so I have had another go - hopefully it is less blurred.

It is the map that my grandfather (Acting-Captain S Revels) carried into the battle, and it is interesting to see the level of information that company commanders were allowed to take into the battle with them. I should mention that it is on very lightweight paper, so burning it, (or even swallowing it) would have been possible to stop it falling into enemy hands. It only shows the British "Approximate front line" and has no mention of battalion HQ or exact trench positions etc..

The war diaries for this action only really make sense when you know where the different coloured lines are, and a map is not included in the war diaries I have seen, so that also explains the vagueness of the Official History.

[in fact I am yet to find anyone else who possesses this particular map, marked up with the coloured lines and timings, and am beginning to wonder whether I have the only copy left? I am happy to e-mail copies of scans of the entire map (6 large j-pegs - there is more of it than I have showed here) to anyone who is interested - just e-mail me at william@williamrevels.com and I'd happily e-mail you the scans].

William

[JimSmithson]

William

It may not be the only map remaining as many of this type of map are in brigade and divisional diaries and not in battalion ones. That said, I have a number of higher unit diaries where the map coverage is poor; it would therfore be prudent to keep good care of yours!

It is always interesting to see how unit diaries differ in their descriptions of an event in which they took place. It is difficult enough for the modern researcher to fathom out what might have really happened and we tend to concentrate on a small portion of the action. Imagine wading through tons of material to get a section finished with lets say 2 months of action to cover. They did their best I am sure and would not be displeased with folk writing revisions of their efforts as new material came to light. As with all research, the OH are a secondary source, based upon primary, and should be treated as such; triangulating with as many other sources as possible.

We can never achieve total accuracy, merely do our best to relate what happened to the best of our knowledge and be judged on that.

Jim

[6th Shropshires]

We can never achieve total accuracy, merely do our best to relate what happened to the best of our knowledge and be judged on that.

Could not agree more with that Jim, years ago (22 years) when I first started researching I wanted to know every little detail and for those details to make sence but and it used to send me mad when they did not

[truthergw]

As has been said, no history is 100% reliable. No book is 100% accurate. That said, OH lists written sources and also refers to the fact that personal communications were made and were used to amend and extend official records. The editors of the OH did not sit down to write a history then seek comments. They collated the extant sources and sought to confirm and correct these sources from witnesses. What is printed is a best effort. The discrepancy between 150 yards and 600 yards may well represent two equally likely results, it may represent a situation at two different times, reports of which have become inextricably confused. The editor has finally set down what appears to him the most likely series of events, all things considered. If in doubt, I will always choose to accept the version offered by the OH unless cast iron, irrefutable evidence is given to show where it is wrong.

[JimSmithson]

If in doubt, I will always choose to accept the version offered by the OH unless cast iron, irrefutable evidence is given to show where it is wrong.

Totally agree!

Jim

[WilliamRev]

Many thanks to everyone who has replied to my thread: I now have a much better idea of the considerable stature of the Official History (ie on the whole a wonderful resource - fairly reliable, albeit rather vague concerning the 8th Brigade's assault on Hill 40 26th Sept 1917).

As has been pointed out, the accounts in the various unit war diaries were typed-out within several days, often by an exhausted junior officer, under pressure to produce a report quickly, and who in addition may have been keen to show his battalion in a good light.

[This thread was sparked off by my visit to the Imperial War Museum 10 days ago. I last visited a decade ago; before my obsession with the Great War. I was particularly pleased to find the 60 pounder gun which I spent about 20 mins wandering round and working out what each bit did. I'm not sure that I was so keen to see cuddly rats on sale in the childrens' section of the shop though... .