Charles E W Bean, Diaries, AWM38 3DRL 606/277/1 - 1926-1939 - Part 1

AWM38

Official History,

1914-18 War: Records of C E W Bean,

Official Historian.

Diaries and Notebooks

Item number: 3DRL606/277/1

Title:  Folder, 1926-1939

Comprises Bean's and A W Bazley's

correspondence with J L Treloar, Sir John

Monash and other, relating to the qualities of

the AIF soldier.

AWM38-3DRL606/227/1

OPINIONS

No. 277

1st SET

DIARIES AND NOTES OF C. E. W. BEAN

CONCERNING THE WAR OF 1914 - 1918

The use of these diaries and notes is subject to conditions laid down in the terms

of gift to the Australia War Memorial.  But, apart from those terms, I wish the

following circumstances and considerations to be brought to the notice of every

reader and writer who may use them.

These writing represent only what at the moment of making them I believed to be true. The diaries were jotted down almost daily with the object of recording what

was then in the writer's mind. Often he wrote them when very tired and half asleep ;

also, not infrequently, what he believed to be true was not so - but it does not

follow that he always discovered this or remembered to correct the mistakes when

discovered.  Indeed, he could not always remember that he had written them.

These records should, therefore, be used with great caution, as relating only what

their author, at the time of writing, believed.  Further, he cannot, of course, vouch 

for the accuracy of statements made to him by others and here recorded.  But he

did try to ensure such accuracy by consulting, as far as possible, those who had

seen or otherwise taken part in the events.  The constant falsity of second-hand

evidence (on which a large proportion of war stories are founded) was impressed

upon him by the second or third day of the Gallipoli campaign, notwithstanding that

those who passed on such stories usually themselves believed them to be true.  All

second-hand evidence herein should be read with this in mind.

16 Sept., 1946  AWM38 3DRL606 ITEM277 [1]   OPEN     C.E.W. BEAN

 Opinions of the Australian Soldier

Acknowledged

5898 Clemens Avenue

St. Louis, Missouri

13 May-1939

Mr. C.E. Bean, Official Historian,

Commonwealth of Australia,

Victoria Barracks,

Paddington. N.S.Wales.

Dear Sir,

I have learned that you wish information of

Lieutenant Obed Truman Harvig.  It is with

sorrow that I inform you that he was killed by shell-

fire on October 12, 1918, north of Cousenvoye, East of

the Meuse River. He was a brave, loyal, efficient

Officer whose death was to me a great and lasting

grief. He served for many months as my Intelligence

Officer.  I will recall the valuable service

he rendered while by Battalion was attached to

the Third Australian Division south of the Somme, and

thereafter with the 18th. British Division and in the

Verdun Sector.

I must say to you, Sir, that during the three months

we served with the British Army - (getting our Baptism of

fire),-our service with your Tenth Brigade and the 38th

and 43rd Battalions for a brief period in July and August

stands out as our most interesting and beneficial experience.

That association with your 'Veteran' soldiers was invaluable.

The respect and admiration we gained there for many fine

Anzac Officers and enlisted men still abides with me.

Yours Respectfully

Major Earle C. Thornton -

U.S. Army Retired.

5898 Clemens Avenue,

St. Louis Mo.

(C.O. 1st Battalion, 129th Inf.

65th Brigade, 33rd Division.

A.E.F)

Reveille

Oct 1931

War's' Best:  Aussie Soldiers

"The Australian were the most effective fighting soldiers

on either side in the war," was the glowing praise

of Major-General John O'Ryan, the Commander of the

27th (American) Division, in a recent speech in New

York.

"Throughout all their suffering and hardship and sacrifice the attitude

of the Australians was marked by a grim humour.  When they

died, they died quietly and without kicking up a fuss.  There were

a number of Australians who lost their lives in attempts to give aid

to men of our division who had been knocked out in raids.  There are

a number of my men who are buried in France who gave up their lives

in similar efforts on behalf of Australian soldiers; and so, built upon

that type of relation and comradeship, you can well imagine what

a high regard we hold for our Australian cousins and comrades."

The Times

22/7/38

AUSTRALIA IN FRANCE

During 1914-1918 the Australian Imperial

Force distinguished itself in so many theatres

of war, and at so many points in the main

theatre, that at first thought it might seem

hard to select the spot most suitable for its

memorial in France.  But on fuller reflection the

appropriateness of Villers-Bretonneux becomes

manifest. When the Australian infantry divisions

came to France early in 1916 they brought

with them an already great reputation as fighting

troops, gained by their deeds on the

Gallipoli peninsula.  These had struck the

imagination of the world. Yet, without any detraction

from their heroic qualities and inspirational

value, it must be admitted that historical

analysis shows numerous flaws.  They were 

feats of arms which had established the fame of

the Australian soldier as an individual fighting

man, but still left some cause for doubt as to

whether an Australian army would achieve an

equal collective reputation.  The raw material

was there; but would the finished product fulfil

its promise? Or would the very individualism

that was the richest vein of ore in the former 

prove a hindrance to the development of the

latter? The first campaigning year in France

became, through no fault of the Australians,

more of a test than of a triumph. Their main

share in the Somme offensive was one that gave

them little scope for their distinctive qualities.

They were pushed again and again, like a battering

ram, at the defences of Poziěres, where they

could only operate within a narrow sector. The

next year's offensive operations opened for the

Australians with the disappointments of the

muddles Bullecourt battle, and closed in the

swamps of Passchendaele. If their part in

this foredoomed bid for decisive victory was

relatively successful, and shows significant

evidence of their growing efficiency as a fighting

force, it was overshadowed by the general

gloom which surrounded that most dreadful of 

all battles.

At the end of 1917 Australian desires were

met, and a cause for complaint removed, by

the formation of all five division into a 

separate, all-Australia, army corps. But the

complete fulfilment of this wise project was

still to be postponed for several months. For in

March the 3rd and 4th Divisions were hurriedly

dispatched southward to cement the great

breach that the Germans had made in the Fifth

Army front. The 2nd and 5th Divisions 

followed in April. The 1st was also on its way

thither when it was called back to Flanders to

meet the emergency created by the second

German offensive - which had broken through

towards Hazebrouck - and likewise rendered inestimable

service in stemming the tide. After

a short lull on the Somme a fresh emergency

arose there on April 24, when a sudden 

German stroke captured the village of Villers-

Bretonneux, from the high ground near which

there was direct observation on to Amiens. A

counter-attack by two brigades of the 5th

Division was quickly arranged, and at the

Australian's wise insistence was launched under

cover of darkness.  It brilliantly retrieved the

situation. Most appropriately this feat, which

inaugurated a continuous run of offensive successes,

signalized the third anniversary of the

landing on Gallipoli - "Anzac Day." In may

the commander of the Australian Corps. SIR

WILLIAM BIRDWOOD, was promoted to command

an army and was succeeded by an Australian,

GENERAL MONASH. On July 4 the enemy salient

at Hamel, north-east of Villers-Bretonneux, was

eliminated by an ably designed coup which suggested 

greater possibilities. Early in August the

whole of the Australia Corps was reunited on 

the sector in front of Villers-Bretonneux.

Larger than the whole British Army which went

to France in 1914, it is now virtually an

"Australian Army," with its own commanders

and staff throughout.

A few days later, in conjunction with the

Canadian Corps, it acted as the spearhead of

the offensive of August 8 - the importance of

which was epitomized in LUDENDORFF'S description

of it as "the black day of the German

Army in the history of the War." Villers-

Bretonneux, now delivered from months-long

threat, was the scene of a historic meeting at

which the British Commander-in-Chief and 

the French Prime Minister congratulated the

victorious commanders. And, in the months

which followed, the Australian Corps played

such a leading part in the Allied advance as to

win recognition from friend and foe as the

finest attacking force in the field. In gaining

these laurels it enjoyed the distinction of being

a force entirely composed of volunteers, and

also one in which a preponderance of citizen-

soldiers, from MONASH downwards, filled the

commands and staff appointments. With

matured experience the Australian soldier had

learnt to curb his impetuosity and impatience

of control, while preserving the initiative from

which is forged the key to tactical success.

Thus he was able to prove the superior military

value of a free man's conception of discipline

-a self-discipline which develops, instead of

suppressing, the individual qualities to a pitch of 

intelligent cooperation which can pierce any

front that is welded merely by rigid subordination.

Extract from "Story of the 27th Division (U.S.A.)"

by Major General John F. O'Ryan.

---------------------------------------------

"The Australian soldier was a distinctive type.

Much misinformation concerning him exists in the minds of our

American public , who, while acclaiming his martial valor and

individual skill, seem to assume that in the mass he was lacking

in discipline. This view, if it exists, in not correct.

The Australian army was solely a volunteer force. Not a man

in it was present except by his voluntary action. This

naturally affected his physical fitness and its morale. There

were not troops in the war which equaled the physical standards 

of the Australians. The American army had thousands, perhaps

some hundreds of thousands of men who measured up to the very

best physical specimens to be found among the Australians, but

we also had many thousands of men drafted into the army who

were not fighting men, and who knew they were not The

Australians had none of this class. It is true that the

Australian soldier was lacking in "smartness" of appearance

and manner, and good humoredly took a seeming pride in the

cold astonishment he created among others by his indifference

to formality and his blunt attitude toward superior officers.

But if by discipline we mean experienced and skilled teem work

in battle, then it must be said that the Australian troops

were highly disciplined. Their platoons and companies possessed,

as did ours, a highly developed gang spirit which prompted the

members of "the gang" to work together in mutual support, but

in addition to this and by virtue of their long experience in

the war, they had come to realize the essential importance of

military technique. They knew, from harsh lessons they had

received in earlier battles from the harsh enemy instructor,

that the shooting and bombing of the individual man at the

front may be fruitless unless his group maintains contact with

other groups on right and left and at the same time sends a

constant and reliable stream of information to the rear, so

that the auxiliary power of the division may be intelligently

employed to aid them. The operations and the supply technique

of the Australian divisions were of the very best, and so if

was that the rough-an-ready fighting spirit of the Australians 

had become refined by an experience battle technique supported

by staff work of the highest order. Their records demonstrated

that for Australian troops at leas, the refinements of peace-time

precision in drill and military courtesy and formality

were unnecessary int eh attainment of battle efficiency the

Australians were probably the most effective troops employed

in the war on either side."

S.G.THORP, F.R.A.I.A.

F.H.E. WALKER, F.R.A.I.A

F. THORP, A.R.A.I.A.

PEDDLE THORP & WALKER

ARCHITECTS

341 GEORGE STREET

SYDNEY

TEL. B2536

12th April, 1935.

 

C.E.W. Bean, Esq.,

Historian, 

Commonwealth of Australia,

VICTORIA BARRACKS.

Dear Mr. Bean,

Enclosed is a copy of General

Allenby's letter, send to Mr. Adamson.

who collected messages for the Tamworth

War Memorial, which I promised to send you.

Sincerely yours,

S G Thorp

G.T./M.T.

Enclos.

The Residency,

Cairo,

EGYPT.

27th Oct./23.

Dear Sir,

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt

of your letter of 15th Sept. "/23--telling me

of the Memorial which is being raised in Tamworth

to the heroes of the War.

May I offer my tribute of respect and admiration

for the deeds of the Australians who 

fought in Palestine under my command?

I am far away; and can lay no flag, no offering

on the Memorial. I can only say that I

have known no finer soldiers, no braver men, no

more devoted sons of the Empire that those who

fought and conquered in the Holy Land. Those

who fell, those who survive, alike, live in

their country's memory; and wear a crown of

eternal glory.

I have the honour be sir,

Your obedient servant,

Allenby F.M.

The Real Digger Was Not Cherubic

Sir John Monash Answered

by Will Dyson

 

Some bitter things have been said

about the digger, but so far nothing

so bitter as Sir John Monash's statement

that, in the matter of looks, the

digger is "mostly a sweet-faced

round-faced mamma's boy."

Had Sit John made so cruel and

so biting a comment during the war, 

it is doubtful whether the A.I.F

could have withstood the shock to its

prestige.

Sir John has frequently commented 

in friendly hostility on the faces'

wished upon the differ, by Australian

artists - at times when discipline demanded

that one's reception of the 

comment should lack the vigorous

opposition possible in the piping times

of peace.

Not that Sir John ever assumed

that his exalted rank gave him an

omniscience in any matter, least of 

all an aesthetic one, but in 1917 there

was a sort of emanation of divinity

from the crossed swords of a general's

uniform that humbled one's 

natural human arrogance.

  *  *  *  *

But today one can safely say that

in the higher commands of the A.I.F.,

there probably existed a wish to have 

the common soldier deliniated with

the essentially war like qualities

eliminated from his countenance. It

was as though generals expected

their men to behave like lions and

look like lambs. But to an artist

envisaging the war, there is, and was,

only one thing to do - to record as

faithfully as his skill would permit,

his own individual reactions to the

war and its people.

One of my own personal reactions

was expressed in the faces of the diggers 

I drew. I probably failed to 

convey what I tried to convey, but

what I wanted to show in the faces

of the A.I.F. was the human face 

under the stress of spiritual and 

physical conditions of such a character,

 

Drawing - see original article

Dyson's idea of a Digger

 

that any element of the pretty-

pretty in them would have been an

untruth and an offence.

****

My own attitude to the A.I.F. was

one of affection bordering on worship.

If I failed to make the digger

look an heroic figure I am content to

let it rest at that, but in my own way

I tried to make his as heroic as 

I felt him, and in the way I felt it.

Sir John had wide culture and

sound artistic judgment. Any conclusion

of his must be respected, but not

necessarily believed in. He accuses

myself and Norman Lindsay of being

wrong in making the digger "gaunt,

haggard, with harshness in every

facial line."

I deny that I made the digger harsh 

in every facial line; harsh sometimes 

certainly; if I had not I would have

been eliminating something that certainly

was sometimes there. To have

left out all the qualities suggested by

the word harshness would have been

leaving out something that had its 

place in the composite face of the digger.

George Lambert, with greater are

and ability, drew him gaunt and haggard.

Epstein modelled him so, Augustus 

John Orpen, all the artists who 

drew or painted the digger drew or 

painted in essentials as did the 

Australia artist.

****

In war I believe the digger was

gaunt. I believe he was haggard.

He may have been sweet and a 

mammy's boy, as he undoubtedly

often was in character; but the nature

of his work and his environment shut

out the possibility of him facially expressing

those qualities.

The fine qualities of the digger's

face did not depend on mere facial

beauty.