1920 Unit histories

[RodB]

I've been reading two histories published in 1920, one of the 42nd Division by Frederick P Gibbon and one of the 1/7 Manchesters by Captain S J Wilson. To an inevitable extent they are describing the same events.

The close similarity of wording in many sections (in some cases virtually verbatim) indicates mutual borrowing, quoting the same unattributed sources or shared ghost writing.

My question is : was there some postwar sausage machine ghostwriting and rushing to publish these histories , which all seem to have appeared simultaneously ? These are not academic treatises, so the usual rules of references and quoting aren't followed.

There are some differences as when one writer refers to Army and the Other Corps, and a couple of dates disagree.

I'm left wondering - are these histories really any use at all ? Because if they are all shamelessly quoting each other or some other source a lot of the time, then these books are not the primary documents they purport to be, and errors will get perpetuated. Seems to me only the unit war diary can be trusted. And I can't get to them.

Any thoughts ?

[Max]

The base data would no doubt be the units war diaries.

Andy

[edwin astill]

I suspect that surviving officers would get together or correspond on the writing of unit accounts. Having worked on Alexander Johnston's diary, I find that some brief extracts appear in both Stack's work on the Worcstershire and Crookenden's on the Cheshires. The Official Histories invited (and received) comments from surviving officers as well - hence the fun job of making the amendments when you get a copy.

Edwin

[John_Hartley]

Rod

Only the war diary can be trusted - and not always then!

You will often see a war diary entry along the lines of "we were entirely unsupported on our left by the 5th Blogshires". Read the Blogshires diary and you will get a quote that "We were in touch with "B" Coy of the 8th Blankcasters on our right and went forward together".

In terms of the two books you mention, I would regard the 42nd Division as a "proper" history, whilst Wilson's account reads as an account for the chaps who were there (much as folk might sit round in a bar together now and, over a pint, recount tales of their times together).

John

[RodB]

I just got the feeling that they were two drafts of the same book. e.g.

"So great had been the drain upon the man-power of the empire that it had become necessary to reduce the establishment of infantry brigades from four to three battalions".

"...the drain upon the manpower of the British Empire caused by the war made itself apparent. It was found to be impossible to maintain in the field four battalions per brigade, and a reduction to three was ordered."

There's something in common here. I'm not trying to nitpick or accuse anybody of plagiarism. I'm interested in how these histories came to be produced.

In other cases they differ in interesting ways :

this version by Captain Wilson :-

"There was a good deal of suspicion, however, about the Portuguese front, and the duties of the 42nd, as 1st Army reserve, were clear if the attack took place there "

this version by Frederick P Gibbon :-

"the Division was relieved by the 55th Division and withdrawn to 1st Corps Reserve..."

The Portuguese Division were in First army, and Captain Wilson's version is correct. I don't know where Gibbon's 1 Corps came in.

[joseph]

The East Yorkshire Regiment History was compiled by Wyrall. The information and content was produced by a Commitee. In the EYR case each battalion produced its own history which was forwarded to Wyrall he then put a draft together using the Battalion, Brigade and Division War Diarys and these historys which was put before the Commitee . Some individual officers who subscribed to the history have their own storys told mentioning them by name.

Regards Charles

[Staffsyeoman]

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. Wyrall was a 'gun for hire' writing regimental histories, so was at something of a disconnect from the actual regiments he wrote about. This might lend objectivity, but on the other hand, if you don't want to offend paymasters/future possible employers..

2. To be an admitted pedant, (academically speaking) no regimental history is a 'primary source' as it is a synthesis of other documents. It's a secondary source. The primary sources are the war diaries, orders, returns and so on compiled at the time without benefit of hindsight.

3. This 'borrowing' is very common, but not grounds to dismiss the histories out of hand. They will have details the higher formations' versions will miss.

[connaughtranger]

I've been reading two histories published in 1920, one of the 42nd Division by Frederick P Gibbon and one of the 1/7 Manchesters by Captain S J Wilson. To an inevitable extent they are describing the same events.

The close similarity of wording in many sections (in some cases virtually verbatim) indicates mutual borrowing, quoting the same unattributed sources or shared ghost writing.

My question is : was there some postwar sausage machine ghostwriting and rushing to publish these histories , which all seem to have appeared simultaneously ? These are not academic treatises, so the usual rules of references and quoting aren't followed.

There are some differences as when one writer refers to Army and the Other Corps, and a couple of dates disagree.

I'm left wondering - are these histories really any use at all ? Because if they are all shamelessly quoting each other or some other source a lot of the time, then these books are not the primary documents they purport to be, and errors will get perpetuated. Seems to me only the unit war diary can be trusted. And I can't get to them.

Any thoughts ?

To me the unit histories written in the 1920s, especially by officers who served in the relevant unit, often have a far more accurate picture of events portrayed in the work, than do many of the modern attempts. They exude a warmth that can't be found elsewhere. They are also remembering events within a decade or even less. One author in 1925 wrote "Already memories are becoming dim with the passage of time"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A War Diary has many shortcomings:

1. It's a synopsis of the day's events, but based on whose information? In the line, company and platoon commanders are well strewn out, in reserve...in support etc. Behind the line a unit can be in 3 or 4 villages, so again officers are unaware of anything other than what is close at hand. This is even more so when in the heat of battle.

2 Events of an attack may be given in a War Diary, but often the main source of information may lie dead, others seriously wounded and already on their way to a CCS. Their important testimony never reaches the day's writer of the diary. However, a few years later much comes to light from such officers who, having recovered from their wounds, relate their story. This is what makes many histories very rich in primary source material.

3. Some diaries were poorly kept and many lost. Little information is put to paper yet each battalion had 20+ officers from whom to glean details.

Of course, there will be errors and disagreements in dates and times. Often this happens in the heat of battle, stress can make 1 day seem like 2. In battalion admin errors in typing and copying happened; there are still mistakes coming to light now concerning the burial of the fallen.

'Guns for Hire' like Wyrall, Wylly, F. L. Petre and Atkinson produced Regimental histories and were given all the source materials available to do it. They produced accurate, though not always highly detailed accounts. They were, after all, renowned and competent historians before the Great War. I must admit that their works are to me, bald and boring. But try to get histories, especially Service or Territorial battalion histories written by nobody above Major in rank.

There lies the heart of the unit. Often you can feel the author's warmth oozing through the pages. And let's face it ...They were there

One final point, these histories aren't academic studies as you rightly say, they weren't meant to be, but by 1918 many staff and battalion officers had double firsts. The army at that time was full of the academic elite.

I've been reading two histories published in 1920, one of the 42nd Division by Frederick P Gibbon and one of the 1/7 Manchesters by Captain S J Wilson. To an inevitable extent they are describing the same events.

The close similarity of wording in many sections (in some cases virtually verbatim) indicates mutual borrowing, quoting the same unattributed sources or shared ghost writing.

My question is : was there some postwar sausage machine ghostwriting and rushing to publish these histories , which all seem to have appeared simultaneously ? These are not academic treatises, so the usual rules of references and quoting aren't followed.

There are some differences as when one writer refers to Army and the Other Corps, and a couple of dates disagree.

I'm left wondering - are these histories really any use at all ? Because if they are all shamelessly quoting each other or some other source a lot of the time, then these books are not the primary documents they purport to be, and errors will get perpetuated. Seems to me only the unit war diary can be trusted. And I can't get to them.

Any thoughts ?