Peter Barton: The Lost Legions of Fromelles

[b3rn]

Read this on the weekend, after buying a copy at one of Peter Barton's Sydney talks.

Not qualified to critically analyse the author's research or conclusions, but as a general reader, seeing the 1916 action in the context of 1914 and 1915, illuminated by the detail of Bavarian recordkeeping, was a revelation.

The recent claim to an earlier discovery of the Pheasants Wood site is given an airing, and there's also an outline of the post-war graves recovery process when knowledge of the site slipped from ken. These stories, and Barton's account of the WW1 records maintained by the Red Cross in Geneva, give the book a much wider scope than the actions of 19-20 July 1916, although there is lots to learn about the battle in this book.

[paulgranger]

Thanks for that, the book is on my watch list, I think it's due out in the UK in the next couple of weeks

[Fedelmar]

Perhaps some of you might find this review by Stanley interesting.
From what I have seen across the various Facebook groups I am a member of, he has caused quite a stir. The comments are interesting, including my own!

https://theconversation.com/book-review-the-lost-legions-of-fromelles-28095

[widavies]

I have just received my copy, now I just need to find the time to read and digest it.

Will

[moggs]

Perhaps some of you might find this review by Stanley interesting.

From what I have seen across the various Facebook groups I am a member of, he has caused quite a stir. The comments are interesting, including my own!

https://theconversation.com/book-review-the-lost-legions-of-fromelles-28095

Thanks for the link, Sandra. Very interesting indeed. Such a variety of views. I know where I stand in regards to the humanity of the whole situation (right next to you and Tim) but I also understand where Peter Stanley is coming from despite his quasi callous way of expressing himself.

All the best

Jonathan

[Fedelmar]

Thanks Moggs

His rude, nasty and patronising attitude is not doing him any favours nor is the language used in his review. For starters, and I have it on good authority, Corfield did take make use of foreign records.
How much evidence does he need to confirm that the battle was more that 'supposedly' the worst 24 hours. One could go on and on with a critique of his review.
As a PROFESSOR he should take all resources in account before launching into any kind of review and he should not be using semantics to determine what is and what is not grief.

[peterhogg]

I've only read the comments, but quite frankly, I found his views to be a breath of fresh air. Obviously, from the rather spirited responses, he's touched a nerve.

[stiletto_33853]

Well reading the first paragraph I can see Laffin is still alive and kicking, regurgitating the same bilge, but hey ho!!!! Tragic as the human loss was these diversionary attacks were nothing new, with similar ATTACKS, not battles, meeting the same fate with disastrous loss of life. No mention naturally of the British Division that took part in this attack either.

Andy

[auchonvillerssomme]

I look at the comments absorb them, most not very deeply absorbed, and come to my own decisions, some of the critics I imagine are the historical equivalent of internet trolls, possibly even sat in their underpants.

[phil andrade]

The review strikes me as being rather ungracious : an excess of jealousy prevails amongst academics, and, to a degree, this exemplifies that syndrome.

When a reviewer is candid in criticism to the point of discomfiture, there is a corollary ; praise is all the more significant - and there is a good deal of praise in the review, too.

I intend to buy the book. For one thing, our own Siege Gunner has done the work when it comes to the translation from those primal German sources, and that provenance alone enhances the value of the book for me.

Phil (PJA)

[David Filsell]

I have not read this book by Barton but have though highly of his earlier works.

However I rather admire the ba**s of the reviewer, its actually often tough to give a bad review for a book which you consider faulty in any way - and without reading the book - it's difficult to know if it is over long - a very common fault - and lazily quotes documents rather than a good précis - also too common -and of course a reviewers opinions are his own and should be. Not sure that I agree about the question of using dna testing - had it been available after the Great War would it be used? I suspect that it would.

Equally he is almost certainly wrong about the fact that 'digger' was not used at that point in the war. One dictionary of wartime words and phrases published in 1925 dates it to Gallipoli and applied to all in ANZAC. Brophy and Partridge say it was first used in the Australian gold fields Fraser and Gibbons

Also good to see he's a man who can apologise for getting things wrong. As I know only too well reviewers often get things wrong, otherwise the nit pickers would be disappointed.

[SiegeGunner]

For starters, and I have it on good authority, Corfield did take make use of foreign records.

He did indeed, Sandra. He made use of my translations ..... without permission, attribution or acknowledgement. Although they formed part of the historical research reports commissioned from Peter Barton by the Australian Army History Unit, my translations remain my intellectual property.

Peter Stanley seems to have ignored the fact that the book is principally about the battle, its precursors and its aftermath, examined in considerable detail from both sides. Instead, he appears to be fixated on the issue of the treatment of the 250 bodies recovered from the burial pits at Pheasant Wood. He fails to address the question of what Bean knew, but did not report, and does not mention the extremely revealing reports of the interrogations of captured officers and men. He says the book is twice as long as it should be .... perhaps he would rather that it didn't contain all that awkward German material ...

Mick

[IanA]

My copy arrived this morning and I'm looking forward to reading it. The only thing I can comment on right now is the number and clarity of the illustrations, which include photographs, trench maps (German) and aerial photographs - excellent and all new to me.

[peterhogg]

I will purchase it. The review didn't persuade me otherwise. I just enjoyed the cut and thrust in the comments section after the review.

[Steven Broomfield]

Not being particularly interested in the Fromelles thing, I enjoyed reading the (ahem) cut and thrust of Australian debate. I won't be buying the book, and the following comment may well not apply to it, but I am possibly not alone in thinking quite a few recent books could have done with a good editor.

As for identifying the dead, I must say I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Stanley.

[J Banning]

A review from the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/book-review-the-lost-legions-of-fromelles-by-peter-barton-20140729-zv3r4.html

[SiegeGunner]

For those within striking distance of Eastbourne, Peter Barton is giving a talk based on his recently-published book 'The Lost Legions of Fromelles' at the Redoubt Fortress and Military Museum on Saturday 1 November (2pm).

Entitled 'A Tolerating of Mysteries', the talk will illustrate, through the example of Peter’s detailed examination of the Battle of Fromelles from both sides, how our perceptions of many aspects of the Great War are often faulty and incomplete as a result of tradition, propaganda, embellishment and exaggeration, fabrication, and manipulation of the historical narrative.

For further information, tickets, etc, see http://www.eastbournemuseums.co.uk/thedms.aspx?dms=12&search=lecture

[IanA]

I write this short review with considerable diffidence since I have no expertise in the subject, having read only Paul Cobb's book Fromelles, 1916, but I am dismayed that nothing else has been forthcoming since the original poster's brief mention in mid July. I hope, at least, to have better informed folks come along to correct my misapprehensions or point out my omissions and, at best, to have people rush to order their copy! Of course, the very name Fromelles gained prominence, if not notoriety, when the grave was found and, under the glare of media scrutiny, historical and DNA investigations were set in motion to try to identify the bodies and notify relatives. Along with this laudable activity came sensational distractions such as discussions about how badly Lambis Englezos was treated by the authorities and some debate about who was 'to blame'. In my opinion, Mr Barton's book should satisfy anyone wishing to examine any aspect of this battle from its planning stages through to the creation of the new cemetery and the interments there. The book is, in my view, remarkable for its highly authoritative content allied to its crystal clear and limpid prose. I find some battle histories hard going - the author has all the research to hand and is clear what has to be said but is not skilled at presenting it - with Mr Barton, there is a clear and flowing narrative which requires very little effort from the reader. Another of the book's attractive qualities are the extensive translations from German sources made by Dr Claudia Condry and our very own Mick Forsyth whose technical and historical expertise in this area ensures that we have not only correct transcriptions, but idiomatic and technically accurate ones as well.

The story of Fromelles begins in 1914 with an account of a raid in November of that year and the first set-piece attack in December. In May, 1915, the village was the headquarters of the 3rd Battalion 16 Reserve Infantry Regiment during the Battle of Aubers Ridge. The creation of breastworks is described and there is an analysis of the German defences. Barton provides damning evidence of captured Australian soldiers freely providing the Germans with a huge volume of material which not only assisted them in future raids but probably influenced the result of the battle ten weeks later. Charles Bean, author of the Australian Official History, clearly repressed details of the interrogations - presumably thought to be unpalatable to the audience he was writing for. The battle itself, as you might imagine, is described comprehensively and at length and a particularly riveting aspect of this account is the counterpoint of contemporary British and German records. The hopes, calculations, assumptions and conclusions of the attackers generally fall far short of reality. With documentary evidence available and obvious signs on the ground, Barton sees the overlooking of the Pheasant Wood graves after the war as 'baffling' and, reading his chapter 'The Graves before the Wood', one is forced to agree. As you would expect, there is an extensive list of archival sources and a select bibliography.

I enthusiastically commend this book to the academic, the serious student, the specialist and to the general reader - you will learn much and, dare I say, enjoy the read.

[Jim Hastings]

For those within striking distance of Eastbourne, Peter Barton is giving a talk based on his recently-published book 'The Lost Legions of Fromelles' at the Redoubt Fortress and Military Museum on Saturday 1 November (2pm).

Entitled 'A Tolerating of Mysteries', the talk will illustrate, through the example of Peter’s detailed examination of the Battle of Fromelles from both sides, how our perceptions of many aspects of the Great War are often faulty and incomplete as a result of tradition, propaganda, embellishment and exaggeration, fabrication, and manipulation of the historical narrative.

For further information, tickets, etc, see http://www.eastbournemuseums.co.uk/thedms.aspx?dms=12&search=lecture

And a brilliant, thought provoking and insightful talk it was too Mick! Great to see Liz and you again, and to hear Peter talk, as you say not so much about the book but the mechanics of taking a broader and more objective look at events, from all sides and utilising all possible sources of evidence, however raw and uncomfortable the truth that may be uncovered may be, not just regarding Fromelles but when applied to any Great War, or any historical, subject. I took a lot away from the talk (not just the signed book, thank you so much for that ), so many things in my own GW interests to now re-mull over and think again.

Looking forward to seeing/reading Peter's future projects, think he'll be keeping you busy!!

All the best

Jim

[Liz in Eastbourne]

It was an excellent talk and the response can be measured by the fact that we left nearer 5pm than the usual 4pm. I only wished more people could have heard it: the casemate was reasonably well filled - perhaps 50 people? - but it deserved a much wider audience. The high cost of the Redoubt talks and rather low-key publicity probably limited the take-up. A local WFA member told me he got enough by going to the Lewes meetings without spending that kind of money, yet he would have had a real eye-opener if he had come, considering that the talk was in a different league from the more usual talks which use secondary sources and facts well-known to anyone with an interest in the subject.

The point that we need to re-evaluate events using German sources as well as our own, especially as our own may be omitting embarrassing facts, was made with sobering detail from Fromelles and elsewhere. At the most basic level it made me realise with a shock that almost every potted biography of 50 I am doing for a local memorial omits to mention exactly which German forces they were facing. If elementary questions about these start to pop up in the next few weeks, it'll be Peter's doing!

Good to see you too, Jim. I now have a copy of the book (autographed by both author and translator, like yours!)

and am very much looking forward to reading it.

Liz

[Jim Hastings]

it made me realise with a shock that almost every potted biography of 50 I am doing for a local memorial omits to mention exactly which German forces they were facing.

Crikey Liz, you're right, none of the 36 I just completed for the Parish project mention the German or Turkish unit they were facing, if pertinent ... better see if I can square that way ...

As Peter said, "research is never really over" ...

Started the book last night, an engaging read

Jim