Charles E W Bean, Diaries, AWM38 3DRL 606/256/1 - 1915 - 1936 - Part 9

Melbourne
9^th June 1925

Dear Bean
The years are unfortunately dimming memory!!

There is no possible  doubt however but that the

administration of the N.Z.G.F has rested in Godley

personally. When Godley was G.O.C. A.N.Z.A.C it was

therefore correct to say that the command of the AIF

& N.Z.G.T was by statutory authority in the hands of the

GOC ANZAC.

 

I cannot speak definitely, but I have it in my 

mind that Birdie was in communication with the

N.Z.Govt - not to oust Godley but to obtain

some additional authority to settle some questions

in connection with transfer to France & reorganization.

But whatever he did was with Godley's concurrence

& did not at any time contemplate taking 

the administration of NZGT out of Godley's hands.

 

Please do not hesitate to write on any matter you wish. I am only too glad to 

be of any little assistance.

Yours Sincerely

C B B White

June 30, 1925.

Dear White,

Would you kindly add to the list of questions I sent you

on Saturday the following.

 

Could you tell me the subject matter of War Establishment, 

Part VIII, 1915, and why it was in the first place adopted

for our artillery? The following facts may assist you. It was

your principle that Australian establishments should, in every

possible way, conform to the British. I know you maintained this.

though you eventually gave way to Howes in the matter of the two-

section field ambulance (adopted for a time during February-April,

1916). When the 1st and 2nd Divisions were being reorganised

after the evacuation, Murray was very keen that they should be on

the "New Army" establishments (War Establishments, Part VII, New

Armies, 1915). I find a note in the G.H.Q diary on January 31, 

1916, that it had been decided to adhere to this scale in equipping

the divisional artillery of the Anzac Corps. and G.H.Q. so informed

Birdwood "in order to simplify work". At the conference at G.H.Q.

on February 3rd, however, it was decided that Australian and New

Zealand divisions should henceforth be on War Establishments, Part

VII, 1915, with the exception of artillery and mounted troops.

Artillery was to be on War Establishments, Part VIII, 1915 (three-

battery brigades), and the divisional cavalry was to consist of a

light horse regiment instead of a squadron.

 

Do you remember what W.E. Part VIII was (?M.E.F., or 

troops in Gallipoli), and can you recollect what was the reason for 

making the exception in these two cases? Within a few weeks the

decision in both matters had been reversed, and the Part VII 

establishment adopted.

Yours sincerely,
C.E.W. BEAN

P.S. I have just said good-bye to your nephew,

who is to go to Brisbane on duty. I hope he will

142                                      July 1, 1915.

Dear White,

After hunting for a fortnight for this and other 

things, I have discovered this morning in a chance note that 

War Establishments, Part VIII, 1915, was establishments for

Territorial division serving in Egypt. It seems to have

been amended in January, 1916 by the addition of two howitzer

brigades per division. each brigade of four-battery 4.5"

howitzers. This amendment was notified to Birdwood on 

February 17, 1916.
These facts may assist you in remembering what was 
the main reason for the original adherence to establishment.
 

Yours sincerely,
C.E.W. BEAN
Major- General Sir C.B.B. White, K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O.,
Chairman, 
Public Service Board of Commissioners, 
Melbourne, Victoria.
 

 

146.

 

July 6, 1925.

 

Dear White,

(1)  With reference to the alteration in the establishment

suggested for the Australian artillery, I find in Murray's diary

that the War Office cabled on February 22, 1914 that the 29th and

Anzac divisions should have artillery organised on Part VII (i.e.,

like other "New Army" divisions in France), provided the personnel

was available. Murray referred the matter to Birdwood for an

opinion, and Birdwood advised that the addition of a battery to

each 10-pounder brigade should be deferred until the three-battery

brigades for the new divisions had been organised. Murray, "after

carefully weighing", decided to disregard this opinion, and raise

the full quote. Birdwood, on March 3rd or 4th, wrote that the

creation of additional batteries for the Australian and New Zeal-

and divisions affected adversely the efficiency of the artillery

of those divisions. Murray replied advising that the existing

batteries should be maintained as far as possible unbroken, and 

that untrained personnel should be raised for the new batteries,

to be trained in France on such principle as the authorities there

decided. This may assist you in recalling the principle adopted

for the formation of the artillery.

(2) With regard to Murray's letter to Robertson concerning

the Australians, I find that he did write on February 8, 1916

officially a letter (G.S.11) which possibly contains a reference

to Australian discipline, since on March 5th he refers to it in

connection with the appointment of Major Williams as a special

A.P.M. I was trying to obtain copies of these correspondence.

Murray's letter was, I think, in answer to one from Robertson

referring to Birdwood's command. At any rate, on February 8th, in

answer to a personal letter to Robertson, Murray wired his

arrangements with regard to the command of the A. & N.Z. Forces

 

 

2.

and the two corps, adding "I have informed Birdwood of your kind

promise contained in your last paragraph, and he is not the man

to raise any protect". Have you any recollection as to whether

this was the occasion Murray wrote about the Australian discipline?

(3) Do you remember whether Birdwood in Gallipoli, or at 

the Evacuation, asked for the Australian Siege Brigade to be sent

to Egypt? I find that early in January,1916 it was under orders

(or intended) to proceed to Egypt, but this was shortly afterwards

countermended.

 

Yours sincerely,

C. E. W. BEAN

 

 

 

PHONE-

CENTRAL 5832.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Melbourne, 9th July, 1925

 

C.E.W.Bean, Esq.,

VICTORIA BARRACKS,

Paddington,

S Y D N  E Y

 

Dear Bean,

 

I am sorry to have been so long in answering your

letters of 30th June and 1st July. I have since received

your recent letter of 4th July.

W.E. Part VIII 1915 were Territorial Division

establishments. They have a copy in the Defence Library here.

I cannot now recall the controversy on the subject

of artillery establishments, but I think there can be no

doubt that the problem was one of numbers; but it had also

some relation to guns. The Part VIII Artillery Brigade com-

prised 3 batteries only and each one was of four (4) guns, and

the guns were 15-pr.B.L.G. ( there was at the time a lack of

18-prs.). Comparatively, we had only a limited number of

trained artillery men and no doubt it was forced that if we

adopted the Part VIII establishments (which were on a more

liberal scale, as you know) the whole of the artillery would

be practically untrained - the watering of trained men being

so slight. I can think of no other reason affecting the

question and you may, I think, safely accept it.

As regards the Light Horse, I can remember the

circumstances quite well. We were aware that had sufficient

cavalry been available each British Division would have been

allotted more that a squadron. As we had plenty of Light 

Horse available - and incidentally did not imagine there was

much work for it - we decided on a regiment. A further

faster which influenced us was the inadvisability of isolat-

ing as a small unit as a squadron.

I cannot/

 

 

 

2.

I cannot say from your remarks in your letter

of 6th July whether the correspondence to which you

refer contains the "much objected to" letter from

Murray to the C/G.S. The date you mention is

approximately that in question however.

Yes, Birdwood did from Gallipoli ask for the

siege brigade, but I understand his request was

refused.

 

Yours sincerely,

CBBWhite 

 

 

 

185.

July 13, 1925.

 

Dear White, Many thanks for your note, which really contains

the information I required. Before writing to you I sent

down to the Defence Library to find out if they had the War

Establishments in question, but the replied that they were without this particular volume.

The letter which Murray sent to Robertson was 

dated February 8th, and on February 12th Birdwood sent to 

Godley his letter containing exhortations for the improvement

of discipline. I think, therefore, that the letter of Feb-

ruary 8th must have connected with the "much objected to"

draft, but as Robertson makes no further references to Aust-

tralian discipline that portion of it may have been left out 

before it was despatched.

 

Yours sincerely

C. E. W. BEAN

 

Major-General Sir C.B.B. White, K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O.,

Chairman,

Pubic Service Board of  Commissioners,

Melbourne, Victoria 

 

 

 

TEL. NO. CITY 1740 EXT___________

TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:

"CROTONATE, ESTRAND, LONDON."

 

ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO 

THE OFFICIAL SECRETARY

AND QUOTE

NO____________________

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

 

AUSTRALIA HOUSE,

ESTRAND, LONDON.

 

Committee of Imperial Defence,

Historical Section,

Room A.7, Audit House

Victoria Embankment,

E.C.4.

 

25th November, 1926.

 

Dear Mr. Bean, 

 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter received from Field

Marshall Sir William Robertson, in connection with the correspondence

which passed between the Chief of the Imperial General Staff,

and General Murray, regarding the proposal for the formation

of an Australian and New Zealand Army.

Although it would appear to hold out small chance

of success, I am again approaching the War Office for this

correspondence. The opportunity for doing this presents

itself in the Department's letter of the 15th December 1925,

in which it was stated that, although the letter in question

could not be traced, further enquiries were being made. I 

have heard unofficially, as advised in my letter of the 19th

August, that the further enquiries did not prove successful.

It is just possible, however, that, if a reminder is sent, the 

position created by your recent despatch may be of assistance to us.

Best wishes to yourself and Mrs. Bean.

 

Yours sincerely,

THSHeyes.

 

C.E.W. Bean, Esq.

Official Historian,

Victoria Barracks,

Sydney.