Dust, donkeys and Delusions

[Dolphin]

Dust, Donkeys and Delusions by Graham Wilson, ISBN 9781921941740, is an account of the life and times of Pte John Simpson Kirkpatrick, 3rd Field Ambulance, AIF. As all Australians are supposed to know, Simpson, a knockabout character who treated authority with distain, was a hero at Gallipoli, as he disobeyed foolish orders and commandeered a donkey to transport badly wounded men – some of whom he rescued from No Man’s Land at great personal risk - from the front down to the beach for evacuation. Indeed, he is credited with saving 300 men, and should have had a VC but for administrative incompetence at higher level.

Well, the above is the commonly held view, but the author does a very good job in demolishing all of the myths. Simpson was undoubtedly a brave man, but probably no braver than many others, and he could have only brought down lightly wounded men on the donkey – while other stretcher bearers were struggling with more difficult loads. He didn’t rescue anyone from No Man’s Land, and to bring 300 men down to the beach at Anzac Cove between the 25 April landing and his 19 May death would have meant working in excess of 24 hours a day, non-stop, not even allowing time for the donkey to feed or rest. He was never recommended for a VC.

The book is good, though Wilson tends to repeat the points he’s made – you feel like shouting “Yes, I’ve already got that!” more than once. Nevertheless, it’s a worthwhile read.

Gareth

[David B]

And here we have a highly paid committee deliberating whether he, and many others, should be awarded retrospective VC's. As far as I am concerned it is a

lot of tosh. As you say he was a brave man, took a lot of that to do what he was up to, but I am sure there were others who did similar deeds and never

got a word of recognition. Will certainly look out for a copy, no doubt there will be plenty of reviews as well.

[michaeldr]

Simpson was undoubtedly a brave man, but probably no braver than many others, and he could have only brought down lightly wounded men on the donkey – while other stretcher bearers were struggling with more difficult loads.

There's no doubt that you're correct there Gareth.

The value of Simpson's work with the donkey was that while he brought down one man by himself, other bearers using traditional methods were required to work at least, as two men per casualty/stretcher. The economy of Simpson's single-handed work freed up valuable resources which were better employed on other cases

He was never recommended for a VC.

This point is open to debate

On 20^th May 1915 Acting Brig Gen John Monash personally forwarded a recommendation for military honours to the HQ New Zealand and Australian Division

Lt-Col A Sutton recorded in his diary

On 24 May 1915 “I sent in a report about No.202 Pte Simpson J. of C Section”

On 1^st June 1915 Sutton wrote “I think we will get the VC for poor Simpson”

On 4^th June 1915 Sutton wrote “I have been writing up poor Simpson's case with a view to getting some honour for him. It is difficult to get evidence of any one act to justify the VC the fact is that he did so many.”

Thank you for bringing the new book to my attention

Michael

[grantmal]

Graham Wilson obviously doesn't agree with retrospective VC's, and he is concerned that Simpson is being considered for one. His book is an attempt to influence that debate.

Wilson claims to be uncovering the 'real' man behind the myth, and he 'concludes' that Simpson's actions were exaggerated, that an undeserving man was made into a hero.

Unfortunately for this argument, Wilson's 'conclusions' as to what Simpson did or didn't do at Gallipoli are contradicted by the eyewitnesses -- Monash, Sutton, Adams, Fry, and others not mentioned in the book.

Whether Simpson rescued 300, 200 or 100 men, whether a possum can survive on a non-native diet, or whether Simpson was neat and tidy or a slob, these questions are just a smokescreen. What is important is what he actually did at Gallipoli, and here the eyewitnesses are all consistent, and they all contradict Wilson.

Retrospective VC's is an entirely different argument to whether Simpson was a 'hero' or not. Wilson cannot alter the fact of the latter because he does not agree with the former.

[gilly100]

Hi Grant

How is the book coming along? Looking forward to reading it. I will get Wilson's book at some stage and have a read. For me - retrospective anything from awards is difficult let alone the VC. Simpson did get mentioned in despatches, which is more than Sid Ferrier got at Hill 60 with Throssell and the 10th LIght Horse. His work was witnessed and commented upon and reported by NCO's and officers alike. Tom Stanley, who got the DCM for Hill 60 was most adamant on what Ferrier should have got.

Just so many men that went unrewarded - officially, during WW1 - right across all combatants. The folk lore that we grew up with in Australia about Simpson, no doubt adds some weight to his case, whether that is right or not to do so. Maybe see you in Perth in October!!!! Good luck with the book. I want one!!

Cheers

Ian Gill

[grantmal]

Ian,

Good to hear from you. Yes, you are right, a few hours spent among the recommendations reveals plenty of blokes who were badly 'short-changed'...personally, I'm not sold on retrospective VC's, but if Simpson is up for one I don't want Wilson's 'version' of the Simpson story to influence any decisions, because, basically, it's complete rubbish! My 3rd Field Ambulance book is crawling to a close.....(said that more than once).

If there's a curry on in October, and I get an invite, I'll see you there. Hope all is well with you and the family,

Good on you,

Grant

[baorbrat]

Dick Henderson a New Zealander was another "Man with a donkey" at Gallipoli. I think Dick was bringing down the wounded before Simpson got in on the act. He too was a brave man but the VC is not awarded for bravery. As Queen Victoria would have said, all British soldiers are brave. The VC is for that sometimes hard to define extra. Valour.

[Herekawe]

Finished reading this yesterday - certainly gives the appearance of being a well researched book although I agree with Dolphin some points are hammered home till you feel a bit punch drunk. As well the author makes no attempt to hide his disdain for some other groups so it is not an impartial book. No doubt Simpson was a brave man, like others who went ashore there and I guess in some ways it is refreshing to just see him as the person he might have been rather than the myth.

Amongst the extensive collateral damage is The Desert Column by Ion Idriess, I always enjoyed this book and while I guessed it had been embellished to improve readibility I didn't realise he had gone as far as to add a whole Simpson story.

Well worth reading.

James

[michaeldr]

Dick Henderson a New Zealander was another "Man with a donkey" at Gallipoli. I think Dick was bringing down the wounded before Simpson got in on the act. .

Peter,

Simpson was using a donkey from the 26^th April

On 4^th May Col Sutton records the Recommendations made by Capt. Fry which included

“Pte Simpson has shown initiation (sic) in using a donkey from the 26^th to carry slightly wounded cases and has kept up this work from early morning till night every day since”

James Gardner Jackson wrote to the Director of the AWM, Major Treloar in 1937 (ref. AWM 93, 417/20/35) confirming that he and three others joined Simpson in working with donkeys for about 5 days from the beginning of May. One of the men with Jackson was Dick Henderson.

Details from 'Across the Bar' by Tom Curran, Ogmios Publications, Brisbane, 1994, ISBN 0 646 16524 0

September 2012

regards

Michael

[grantmal]

Wilson has certainly done a lot of research, more than enough, one would hope, for him to know his arguments are complete rubbish. As for Idriess, Wilson actually says his lie about Simpson "is a very small point and detracts little from the strength of 'The Desert Column'...", while at the same time dismissing everything written about Simpson by Monash and Adams -- two eyewitnesses who provide contemporary evidence -- because he identifies some 'mistake' in their accounts. Consistency is not Wilson's strong suit. He also insinuates that Adams rewrote his diary years after events; that he was just another of the letter writers and diarists “who had read Bean’s hagiographic despatch and wanted to connect themselves with what quickly became one of the bases of the Anzac myth....”, despite the fact that Adams was killed at Pozieres in 1916. Not that Wilson ever mentions Adams' death in action. He has the gall to claim that the “mawkish and maudlin nonsense spouted about ‘poor, brave Simpson’ ....has done a great disservice to Simpson’s fellow stretcher bearers”, and he hopes that his book will rehabilitate their memory, while he is busy painting Adams as a liar. Likewise Billy Lowes, who Wilson claims "was never wounded. This is the absolute truth....when Lowes wrote to Simpson’s grieving mother and told her about his encounter with her son Jack, his boyhood friend, he lied. Without ever bothering to check the facts, the Simpson mythologists have continued to perpetrate this lie..." Completely, absolutely, wrong. Wilson didn't bother to locate Lowes' B.103 (instead settling for a quick online search which revealed Lowes' incomplete RND record card), which clearly shows he suffered GSW's of right thigh and shoulder at Anzac, resulting in admission to hospital in Cairo on 9 May 1915.

Wilson's book is pure polemic. Who should we believe -- Monash, writing on 20 May 1915, about a stretcher bearer who has been passing back and forth outside his HQ for weeks, and Adams, who landed in the same boat as Simpson, who was "paraded by adjutant to ADMS for to swear to J Simpson’s bravery" after Simpson was killed (a diary entry conveniently ignored by Wilson), and who ended up writing a statement for Simpson's VC recommendation (also conveniently ignored), or Wilson, writing nearly a century after events, who is on a self-confessed "crusade" to rid Australian history of the 'Simpson myth'? A myth that, when he finally defines it in the last few pages of the book, is almost identical to Monash's report. Yes, incredibly, Wilson wants us to believe Monash's report, and the Simpson myth (a "falsehood" created "well after" events) are one and the same. Wilson is not debunking a myth, but attempting to rewrite history.

[Guest XLmules]

I have read the comments about Wilson's book - and while I am a bibliophile and do not use anything that needs a cursor to turn a page, I did have concerns about purchasing the book. It appears that you all have done my homework for me....as a writer for Western Mule Magazine of articles about mules and donkeys in world and American history, I did want to write about Simpson, the American mules that died at Gallipoli and also the Zion Mule Corps at some point in the future....so, in your expert opinions, is Wilson full of manure, like most historians who have written about George Washington's jackasses and early mule production in the colonies? I thank you for any additional insight! Ch'ears!

[michaeldr]

Xlmules,

Welcome to the GWF

The animal (or animals) which Simpson employed to carry the wounded were donkeys, rather than mules.

The mules come into the story because Jack realised that his animal needed an ample supply of fodder to be useful to anyone. Jack slept and ate with the Indians of the 21^st Kohat Mountain Battery because they had a number of mules for hauling their guns, ammunition, etc., and while he ate with the Indians, his donkey ate with their mules. By staying close to where his mule ate Jack was able to save time and energy.

Jack Simpson was not the only man to use a donkey to carry wounded down to the beach, but he was the only one who had previous experience of dealing with these animals, and he was the only one who thought through, the problem of feeding them. This is why while the others had to give up because they could not feed their animals, John Simpson was able to carry on and continue to bring down wounded using his donkey right up until his death on 19^th May 1915.

A New Zealander, James Gardner Jackson, wrote to Major Treloar (Director, Australian War Museum) in 1937 describing his work with a donkey, an idea that he said he copied from Simpson. However he went on to say that

“Those of us who had donks (sic) still carried on with them, but found it increasingly difficult to feed them, and forage was practically unprocurable and there was very little grass on Gallipoli.”

Simpson was able to overcome this by messing with the Indians and their letting his donkey feed with their mules. In this he was very lucky to have the support (or blind eye) of both his CO and that of the Indians. (Both Captain T J Evans, the medical officer of the Indian mountain battery, and their CO, Lt-Col A C Fergusson DSO would later mention their 'guests' in their writings)

with best regards

Michael