Charles E W Bean, Diaries, AWM38 3DRL 606/277/1 - 1926-1939 - Part 7

Berlin-Grummort, 10.11.35.
Hohenzollerntamen 91.

Schr geehrter Herr v. Fragberg!

Die in freur Preiben vom 8. dv. gefellten Fragen

darf if wie folgt beantworten:

Zu 1 unf bon der Familie v. Roon haben uur

jiingere Mitglieder am Kriege beilgenommen. Der

altefe von ihnen ist als Major gefallen. Ein Jeneral 

8 Roon hart gar nicht im Fade gestanden.

zus, Moglicherweise liegt eine Nannerkwechslung

4 un 5. For dem aubei zuruckfolgenden brief ist auffer

ficft, daB der vermeintliche Qeneral 8. Roon den Raifer

liber die Heignisse informint habe. Da ich, mit beren

Ankerbrechungen dush Frockfellunger, wahrend des

gourgen Kriegel dem Groben paufquecties  us altin,

lungsfch des Generealstabes angehort hate, bin ich user

die dortigen Personalverhaltnit und die Arbeitsvorteilung

Genau im Bilde. Dem Kaider hielt nur der Geneachtatt.

Translated using Google translate

Berlin -Grummort, 10.11.35

Hohenzollern Council, 91

Dear Mr. von Fragberg"

The questions posed in your letter of the 8th of this month

can be answered as follows:

Regarding 1 and 2, only younger member of the von Roon family

participated in the war. The oldest of them fell as a major.  A Gen. 

von Roon was not at all in the line of duty.

In addition, there may have been a change of name. From

The letter following this, it is also clear that the supposed

General von Roon informed the Raifer about the events.

Since I, with my anchor breaks and frock coats,

belonged to the Great Commander of the General

Staff during the Great War, I am fully aware of the personnel

relations and labor discrimination there. The Emperor was only able 

to keep the genealogy

[[????]] über vin [[Lorgu?]] Grim [[Fiure?]] [[?]],
[[?]] den [[?????]], "[[?]]", [[?]]
[[????????]]
[[?]] v. Rauch [[in?]]. So [[?]], [[????]]
[[???????]]
[[????????]].
[[??]] möglig, [[?]] Roon und Rauch
- [[?]] mit "R" [[?????]] 
[[?]] wir [[????]], [[????]]
[[?]] [[?????]]. [[?]]
[[??]], [[?]], [[?]] Rauch im [[?]]
[[?????]] möglig, [[????]]
[[?]] Nicolai- [[?????]] 26, Telefon H.6 6731-
[[????????????]]
[[?????]]
[[??????]]
[[???????]].
[[?]]. 6.[[?]] Offizier [[?]], [[????]]
[[?????]]
[[?]] für [[?????]], [[??]]
[[??]], [[??]] zur [[?]]
Mit [[???]]
Ihr [[??]]
W.[[???]]
 

8.XI.35
Herrn
General von Tieschowitz,
Friedenau
Kirchstr.26-27
Sehr geehrter Herr von Tieschowitz!
Ich versuchte vor einigen Tagen Sie telefonisch zu
erreichen, was mir leider nicht gelang, Vielleicht ist es aber
auch besser, die Angelegenheit, die ich Ihnen vorzutragen habe,
auf schriftlichem Wege zu erledigen.
Uns ist kűrzlich der anliegende Brief mit der Bitte
um Beantwortung der darin enthaltenen Fragen Ubergeben worden.
Da der Briefschreiber als Zweck seiner Arbeit ein besseres Ver-

stehen zwischen Australien und Deutschland angibt und die Bes-

serung unseres Verhaltnisses zum Ausland nur arvunscht sein kann,
habe ich Keine Bedenken getragen, su versuchen, der erwahnten
Bitte in entsprechen. Ich habe mich zunkchst an Herrn General
Wetzell gewandt, der mir den Rat gab, mich wegen der in dem
anllegenden Brief erwahnten PersUnlichkeit eines Generals von Roon
an Herrn Oberst von Rauch zu wenden. Beiden Herren war von einem
General von Roon, der sich im deutschen Hauptquartier betktigt
haben soll, nichts bekannt, Ich mechte nun nicht annehmen, dab
as sich bei dem angefugten Zoitungsartikel um eine frei erfundene
Mystifikation handelt, sondern cher, das der Name des betreffenden
Offiziers, der das Interview gegeben hat, auf dem wege von hier
nach Australien eine Entstellung erfahren hat. Um der Sache auf
den Grund 2u gehen, gab mir Herr von Rauch den Rat, mich an Sie
au wenden, da Sle vielleicht in der Lage wareh, unmittelbar Aus-
kunft 2u geben oder, wenn es Ihnen nicht an viel Mhe macht, im
Reichsarchiy die notigen Feststellungen an treffen, Es wurds sich
um die Beantwortung folgender Fragen handeln; xx
1. Hat es im Kriege Uberhaupt einen General von Roon ge-
eeben oder sonst einen Offizier dieses Namens in prominenter
Stellunge

Translation
Dear Mr. von Tieschowitzl I tried to reach you by telephone a few days ago, but unfortunately I was not able to. Perhaps it would be better to deal with the matter I have to present to you in writing. We were recently given the enclosed letter with a request that the questions contained therein be answered. As the letter writer is hoping for a better relationship between Australia and Germany as a result of his work and an improvement in our relations with foreign countries can only be desirable, I had no hesitation in trying to comply with the above-mentioned request. I first turned to General Wetzell, who advised me to turn to Colonel von Rauch regarding the person mentioned in the enclosed letter, a General von Roon. Neither of the two gentlemen knew anything about a General von Roon, who was supposed to have worked in the German headquarters. I would not like to assume that the attached newspaper article is a completely fictitious myth, but rather that the name of the officer in question who gave the interview was distorted on the way from here to Australia. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, Mr von Rauch advised me to contact you, as you might be able to provide information directly or, if it is not too much trouble for you, to make the necessary findings in the Reich Archives. It would be about answering the following questions: 1. Was there ever a General von Roon during the war, or any other officer of that name in a prominent position?
 

2
2. Lebt der betreffends Offizier heute noch und evtlowe,
sodaB man sich direkt an Ihn wenden ksnnte 7
3. Sollte der ganzen Angelegenheit eine Namensverwechslung
2ugrunde Liegen, welches ksnnte der richtige Nanme des Offizieres
sein 7
4. Ist Ihnen vielleicht Irgendetwas bekannt, was die tiber
die Australier and Neuseeltnder behaupteten Tatsachen recht-
Fertigen wurde 7
5. Gibt es cine Stelle, die darliber nthere Auskunft geben
Kennte ?
5. Ware es nsglich, cinen Offizier bekannten Namens anzuge-
beh, der im Kriege Australlenn oder Neuseelundern gegegnliberge-
standen hat 7 Daf schon der Name dar’anxacs’ unseren Soldaten
Furcht und Schrecken efzejagt haben sollte, scheint mir etwas
stark aufgetragen.
Eidine gefkllige Aushunft und die damit verbundene Mihe-
walhung wurden Sie mich zu besonderem Danke verprlichten.
Mit deutschem Grub
bin ich
Thr sehr ergebener
Translation
2. Is the officer in question still alive today, and perhaps so that we could contact him directly? 3. If the whole matter is based on a mix-up of names, what could be the officer's correct name? 4. Do you know anything that would justify the facts alleged about the Australians and New Zealanders? 5. Is there a place that can provide further information on this? 5. Would it be difficult to name an officer with a well-known name who fought against Australians or New Zealanders in the war? The fact that the name itself should have struck fear and terror into our soldiers seems a little too much to me. You have made me particularly grateful for your kind words and the care that goes with them. With German regards, I am your very humble
[[?]]

12 January 1936.
My dear 'Erb,
Just a note to send you my best thanks for
your  trouble in checking for me that very brazen fake of
the interview with the supposed von Roon.
I am most interested to hear of your present
work, and hope to drop you a longer letter during
few weeks while I am on holidays.
Yours ever,
Captain J.J.V. Herbertson, O.B.E,
 

FL.4151
5789. 
8 May 1930.
The Editor,
"Smith's Weekly",
Sydney.
Dear Sir,
In a recent article in "Smith's Weekly", in reply to statements
in recent war books, Sir John Monash would appear - I feel sure,
unintentionally - to assume an attitude that cannot really express his
feelings towards these British officers who served in the A.I.F. The
statement that General Maclagan was "one of the few imported officers
that we really liked" seems to dismiss under this contemptuous 
reference all the debt we owe to them. (The article says "important", but
the context and later reference show that this is a misprint for
"imported".) Such a generalisation coming from one in so high a
position may be assumed abroad to represent the opinion of the whole
A.I.F.; and it seems so unfair to those - not of our country - who
fought and laid down their lives with us, that I feel certain Sir John
will take an early opportunity of strongly correcting the impression.
I am not so much thinking of the higher commanders - although
it would be absurd and untrue to say that we, as a whole, never really
liked Generals Birdwood, Walker, Smyth, H. V. Cox, Royston, or Lesslie;
I am thinking of the subordinates who, though they were not Australians,
fought and died as members of Australian battalions and brigades, and
to whom we owe an unforgettable debt. I think of Glasfurd of the 12th
Brigade, whose magnificent work along the firing line at the Landing
will never be recorded, simply because he was too modest to speak of it;
of Colonel Croshaw of the 53rd, of whom Father Kennedy (not his 
co-religionist, but a fine and brave Australian) says that he was "the
bravest soldier, the most God-fearing Christian, and the most perfect
gentleman I have ever known"; of Major Saker of the 5th Battalion at
Anzac, of whom every Australian within range spoke with affection and
admiration for days after his death on April 26th; of Major Higgon of
the 32nd, killed leading the left flank at Fromelles; of Lieutenant-
Colonel Gibbs on Corps Headquarters, brilllant, gallant, and beloved by
everyone that knew him, killed with us at Ypres. Did we on the whole
serve better, die better - or were we better loved - than these? Could
we have done more for Australia than they? Among those who survive,
one thinks of Major Clogstoun (of eyeglass fame); and of Lieutenant-
Colonel A.M. Ross, of whom a Victorian digger and officer wrote: "Many
officers in the A.I.F. today still feel his influence and copy him as
much as they can. To hear him give a lecture was an education......He
was the most able instructor I'd ever seen, and I've heard others say
the same.
One does not agree with the principle of employing (except
on exchange) British officers in an Australian force when once it can
do without them; but that is a different matter, surely, from saying
that we did not like the men who served with us. In some instances it
was true, but in a very large proportion the real truth was that, when
we got to know them and they us, the liking and admiration were strong,
sincere, and mutual. When - in accordance with a perfectly sound
principle supported largely by General Dodds - many of these officers
had to leave the A.I.F., many Australians, though entirely in accord
with that principle, felt their departure keenly. Taken by and large
they were a magnificent contingent, to which the A.I.F. owed a great
debt; and to dismiss their sacrifice and service - which were certainly
unsurpassed - with the remark that "we didn't like them" is untrue and
surely not the real wish of their comrades in the A.l.F., or (one
believes) of its great commander.
I am, Yours etc.,

Smith's Weekly
Vo. XIII, No. 9 (Copyright) Saturday, April 12, 1930

"DAMNABLE LIES!" - Says Sir John Monash
WRITERS OF VILE WAR BOOKS
SLASHED BY ARMY CHIEF
Catchpenny Scribblers Brand A.I.F. as
Slack, Boastful and Lecherous
"GREATEST SHOOK TROOPS IN WORLD"
By General Sir John Monash, for "Smiths Weekly"
Newspaper article - see original document

Smith's Weekly
April 12, 1930
GIVE THEM THE LIE DIRECT
A.I.F. Caluminators Trounced
SIR JOHN MONASH'S TRENCHANT
CRITICISM
Newspaper article - see original document

April 19, 1930
SMITH'S WEEKLY
MERGERS - "PENNY DREADFUL" IN
SYDNEY EVENING PAPERS
Newspaper article - see original document

12 SMITH'S WEEKLY April 19, 1930
10,000 Prisoners at Piffling Cost
BATTLE OF AMIENS
"That Day from Dawn to
Dark was Australian"
SAVING THE DIGGERS
No. 11
by John Monash
Newspaper article - see original document