What are you reading at the moment?

Burma 1942. Memories of a Retreat. The Diary of Ralph Tanner KOYLI by R.E.S. Tanner and D.A. Tanner. Which I am not particularly enjoying having just finished ,No Mandalay, No Maymyo. 79, survive by Captain Gerald Fitzpatrick. Both books deal with the role that the 2nd battalion KOYLI played in the retreat from Burma in 1942 and whilst the first is based on the 'wartime' diary of a KOYLI officer who was absent for the early fighting, the Sittang Bridge debacle and the fall of Rangoon it really reads like a six form essay written for someone with no previous knowledge of the campaign. Its fault is that it really contains the diary (which was written some time after the events with later revisions) some maps and an incomplete nominal role of members of the battalion, all of which have not been updated by any additional research by the authors. Their chief contribution is to try to set the scene for the campaign under such headings as, 'The Workings of Memory', 'Leaving the dead (and the living) in peace', 'The Battalion as a closed society' and 'Racism', all of which give the book the feel of a sociology lecture rather than military history. Their main point seems to be that the evidence of former soldiers is unreliable unless it is backed by hard evidence. They appear to me to be attempting to dismiss the many claims about the behaviour of the battalion and especially of its officers, made by Captain Fitzpatrick in his book and at one point dismiss it in the following manner, "The Fitzpatrick book of his personal memories (Fitzpatrick 2001) is an even later production and may not be classifiable as a primary source, paralleling Fraser's account of the Border Regiment's platoon (Fraser 1992)". This seems to be an extraordinary claim as both books were written after the event but only Fitzpatrick was present from the beginning to the end. Their argument appears to be 'if it isn't in Tanner's diary it didn't happen so we do not need to mention it'. Which is quite extraordinary when Fitzpatrick mentions rape, the shooting of officers by their own men, murder, officers being favoured for evacuation above wounded men and the execution of Burmese nationals after they had been caught setting fire to a building full of Indian refugees. Clearly better to brush these things under the carpet than accept the fact that these claims have just have some truth to them.

Gerald Fitzpatrick's book is raw and shocking and clearly written by a man still angry about the retreat from Burma over fifty years later. His anger is directed at Churchill, Wavell, Dorman Smith and the British establishment who left the troops in the Far East under equipped, poorly trained, poorly supplied and lacking in reinforcements and air cover. He was particularly angered by the way that the campaign was largely ignored by the official history and warranted only a couple of lines in Churchill's history of the war. Fitzpatrick clearly vents his spleen and is brutally honest about the way soldiers behave in extreme circumstances. His criticisms of certain officers and some of the dead may be unfair in that they could not or did not answer his claims, one of which was investigated by Scotland Yard after questions were asked in Parliament, but they certainly seem to have the ring of truth and warrant further investigation. What Fitzpatrick found particularly galling was that the battalion's history of the campaign was written by a senior officer who was absent for a large part of the fighting, and failed to take any interest in the experiences of an intake of newly arrived officer's who were in the thick of the action.

If you wish to read both books, read Fitzpatrick's book first.

 

Been near a university history or English department lately? A huge slab of contemporary scholarship (for twenty-five years and more) is devoted to undermining first-hand texts and authors to show what they are hiding because of their sexual, racial and psychological prejudices.

New historicism has brought hope of sanity, but you still have to jump a lot of hoops to get to the proper job of establishing what happened in the past and why.

 

A very good reference book that reflects the French Resistance,SOE agents, a future French President personalities and the goings on of Dericourt,the double agent whose connections and motivation have not been fully proved.

The navigation must have been a real challenge with the pilot having a map strapped to his knee with the route familiarised by recognition of rivers and railway lines by moonlight.Sharp turn rounds for minimum time on the landing field with the possibility that the Germans might be aroused.Some of these landing fields chosen were a little audacious being close to such places as Compiegne and Perigueux.

I think that the Lysander could take three passengers at a push but for larger groups of people,the Hudson came into its own given the appropriate size of landing field that was to be had...these Hudson ops tended to follow the invasion when there was increased clandestine activity.

 

I've just finished this one, which is a good companion book to Typhoon pilot. It's a very short book, covering the authors five years of warfare from enlistment to Group Captain in only 140 pages. It concentrates mainly on the personalities he encountered during the war from well known people like Anthony Eden, Leigh Mallory, Eisenhower to the young friends he lost during his early career flying Hurricanes in 1941.

 

Just finished Boarding Party: The Last Action of the Calcutta Light Horse, by James Leasor.

 

Is this the book they based the 1980 film "The Sea Wolves" on ? Watched it again the couple of weeks ago - not bad little film, even if some of the acting is a bit creaky!

 

I've read both books and was extremely fortunate to be invited to dinner by Gerald Fitzpatrick a few years back, after I had asssited him in finding out more in relation to the KOYLI's who had become prisoners of war. He was as you say still very angry about his experiences during the retreat and has continued to pursue these issues with vigour.

Tanner's book has its own value, being another viewpoint on the same subject from a slightly different angle. The nominal roll of 2 KOYLI's in the book proved to be of great use to me, as a tool in cross referencing the fate of various casualties.

 

This was a tough read and a little dry in places. The author quite rightly lays down a strong foundation for the book, which at times became hard to bear. Once I got my head around all the abbrieviations for the various military and political groups, I began to understand more and there is no doubt I am much more aware of how this conflict developed over the 1960's and 1970's.

 

Tolbrooth, yes, that's the one!

The book is quite like a novel. It's true that the author spoke with MANY people to write it, but for instance there are some bits written from the point of view of the captain of the German ship, who didn't survive, and in general there are often bits describing how someone was feeling. So I feel like there has to be a bit of authorial invention involved. Still, it's a good read!

 

Tanner's diary certainly has value but is very short on names except of his fellow officers. He does not seem to remember the names of any of the O.R.s. It also certainly wasn't written just after the events it describes as it is full of revisions. The one that sticks out is the mention of being interviewed by the police about a potential war crime which happened 35 years earlier.

"I was sitting against the wall near a bullock cart and I saw Fitzpatrick and another soldier leading a column of Burmese, one of whom was carrying what looked like a keg of nails on his head. I heard some distant gunfire. I heard they had been shot as looters or spies. This later became a criminal investigation as a war crime and I was interviewed by two detectives from Scotland Yard".

Fitzpatrick gives a clear account of the background to this incident in his book and yet the authors pay little attention to his account and try to dismiss his work as being of little value.

"A recent book (Fitzpatrick 2001) contains statements about individuals which at best are unproven, statements about an officer being shot deliberately by his own men and the Regimental Sergeant Major being drunk. Harsh opinions based on memory have no part in military history unless they are supported by impartial documentation and by a range of memories". This seems to me to be a cop out as it is easier to dismiss Fitzpatrick's version of events than look into them for supporting evidence. You are well aware that the Ramsden affair has documentary evidence but is not mentioned in the Tanner book.

My real objection to Burma 1942. Memories of a Retreat is that the authors are keen to put the action into some sociological/psychological framework "addressing the shortcomings of memory within the context of oral history and the available records", rather than give a historical account. They appear to have used the few printed documents that have survived as the primary source but do not appear to have interviewed anyone except Ralph Tanner. They certainly do not seem to have interviewed Gerald Fitzpatrick, or give any credence to his narrative, yet they place great store in the official war diary which was compiled from memory by the surviving officers a year after the Retreat, with no involvement from Fitzpatrick. Neither Chadwick nor Tanner were involved in the early fighting unlike Fitzpatrick who was in action from the 6th March 1942.

In short, I prefer to read accounts by people who were there rather than by those who were not but who choose to ignore the accounts of those who were.

I have just spent the last 10 days revising the nominal roll which was compiled by John Heald a member of the battalion over a 25 year period. I appreciate that the records available to researchers now were not so easy to access then. However, it is full of duplication, misinformation, spelling errors and other inaccuracies. The authors have printed it without revisions and corrections and I have had a lot of fun compiling a more accurate version from the official casualty lists. One of the effects of which is that I now have a much bigger picture of daily events in terms of killed, wounded and missing and will now try to construct a timeline.

 

Just finished 'The War of the Landing Craft", 1978



Not really my field but very interesting (although the authors seem to think Sherman flails were manned by the RE).

Next will be 'Short history of the 7th Armoured division' as it's about the only book left unpacked for the coming move. So far we up to about 40 boxes of books and probably another 30 to go!

 

That's a mobile library Tolbooth. Good luck with the move.

 

Thanks. Bibliophiles should never marry - Mrs T is as bad as I am.

 

This summer I delved into the 19th century European warfare. Amazing how much warfare had changed 50 years after Waterloo. During my holidays finished these two books:



Coming up soon:

 

Working on this nice little book now. Quite interesting, getting a blunt viewpoint and accurate description of events of D-Day from the opposition for a change, from men who were there.

 

I read this a short time back and quite enjoyed it. A very illuminating view from the other side, particularly their political views and morale. The book really altered my perspective on the effectiveness of the preliminary bombardments which, for the most part, were downplayed as ineffective. Not quite the same view from those on the receiving end and a far greater impact on their fighting effectiveness than I had always assumed. Particularly the seemingly widespread use and devastating effects of phosphorus shells.
In many respects it is also a tribute to the determination, aggressiveness and ferocity of our assault troops. I will be very interested in your perceptions and especially your take on the last chapter (p. 291).

 

Looking forward to reading the last chapter now. Looks like I have to force myself to not skip over to it for a "quick skim".

It was tough (and different) reading about our guys being the ones getting shot up in firefights, and also with the part about the paratroopers from the 101st that were captured and executed by the SS. Usually it's always the "bad guys" getting it. Also I never knew that the Thompson gun was such a prized item with the Germans. It is a pretty cool looking bullet launcher, I'd probably scoop one up if I was a German too. Probably get a bundle for it selling it to the rear echelon types.

Also I never heard or read about these "Tobruk Bunkers" before. Must look those things up now. My work is never done. Dang.

Aha! (in case anyone didn't know about the Tobruks). I've read about the Germans making these sort of fighting positions before, but never read about them being called Tobruks.

Tobruk

German VK 3001H prototype turret mounted on "Tobruk" at Omaha Beach, June 1944

Tobruk protecting the entrance to the bunker that now houses the Channel Islands Military Museum. This turret from a Renault R35 was originally employed on a Tobruk at Saint Aubin's Fort, Jersey.
The Germans used hardened fortifications in North Africa and later in other fortifications, such as the Atlantic Wall, that were in essence foxholes made from concrete. The Germans knew them officially as Ringstände; the Allies called them "Tobruks" because they had first encountered the structures during the fighting in Africa.

Frequently, the Germans put a turret from an obsolete French or German tank on the foxhole. This gave the Tobruk enhanced firepower and the gunner protection from shrapnel and small arms.

 

angels in the sky story of volunteer airman during Israeli's war 1948

 

A Signal Honour, by Robin Painter a Signals Officer on Operation Longcloth. Glad to have picked this to re-read, as I re-discovered that my edition was signed by no less than 21 Chindit veterans in June 2010.