What value can be placed on veteran's stories ?

Before anyone starts to write-off veteran's memories as debatable rubbish may I humbly suggest that you have a look at this posting of mine that queries a date given in Ken Ford's book that I would dispute.
My diary entry is/was not a figment of my imagination but was written on the date in question.

Ron

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/veteran-accounts/21973-dotting-%22i%22s.html#post271370

Comment #9

 

I have read a fair number of WW2 memoirs, and two of my favorites are Spike Milligan's and George MacDonald Fraser's Quartered Safe Out Here. I yield to no one in my admiration for Spikey, whose soldier stories have had me crying tears of laughter. He's generally trustworthy, especially when he sticks closest to his wartime diary, yet occasionally I had a few doubts. Some of the pictures in his books which he said he drew on the spot looked to my eye suspiciously like photographs that I had seen reprinted in other WWII books. A few of Milligan's wartime conversations and observations sounded anachronistic and more like 1970's hindsight than 1940's experience. Some incidents read a little too much like perfectly recalled blackout sketches in which Spike always gets the best lines. Milligan has much excellent stuff, of course, including some very sad stories and an honest account of his own breakdown, so I hope I'm not blaspheming the Great Goon by pointing out the glitches.

Fraser wrote many years after the events. Since he was a novelist (and a good one) his memoir does have a dramatic, novel-like feel to it. What makes me trust Fraser is his honesty. When he comes to a gap in his memory, he's not afraid to say "I don't remember." Indeed, I find that's common with veterans. Years and decades have passed before stories get told or written down. During the war, men were often so hellishly busy and exhausted that much detail was inevitably forgotten. Wartime stress, of course, played a part. Some things were so bad that men either didn't want to recall them or simply couldn't. The honest men know all that, and they well tell you so or write it so. I once interviewed a fairly senior Australian officer when he was in his 80's. He had no problems admitting that his memory was faulty on some points. On others, however, he was extremely sharp with an excellent recall for detail. He gave me some priceless information.

 

Not for the first time, I’m starting a new thread simply because an earlier thread has become too toxic even for my palette.

On the thread of which I speak, a forum member who writes under the nom-de-plume of Gooseman voiced strong doubts on the true value of any statements or reports that have been made by veterans both on this forum and presumably anywhere.

His exact words were:
Needless to say, as a veteran, I questioned his statement by saying “Really ?” and received back a prompt “Really” so……no ambiguity there!

On considering the matter further, my first thoughts were that he was entitled to his opinion and, if I read him correctly, he was not going to change his mind whatever I had to say on the subject, but on having had some time to mull over his remarks I now consider that I would be failing in my duty if I were to allow them to go unchallenged, hence this new thread.

I start by saying that I can only speak for myself, but qualify that by saying that as a long standing member of this forum I have yet to read postings by any of the other veterans on this site that did not strike me as being both 100% truthful and as accurate as memory of events would allow. If that is to be construed as “mighty dangerous and inaccurate” then we have indeed descended into cloud cuckoo land!

Going back to my own personal recollections, in an effort to substantiate credence, I have made available all my Army records on my personal profile and in addition the Regimental Diaries of both of my units are readily available on this site.

I have also posted an obscene amount of short stories on this forum and most of them are based on diaries kept at the time in question.

Finally, whilst accepting the sensible practice of using nom-de-plumes on most forums, including this one, I would point out that just like some other veterans on this site I write under my real name which is usually a good marker of someone who has nothing to hide.

When I went onto Gooseman’s website I looked for his actual identity (which would have allowed me to see some more of his writings) but I looked in vain. Perhaps he could tell me where I have gone wrong ?

Ron

ps
Since first writing this intro I have re-visited Gooseman's website and found a lengthy Bio under "Author".
I was much interested to see a chapter under "Veterans" that helps to explain his comments on this site.
As a new member to this site, I'm still 'feeling my way around' with MUCH to learn about both the content and protocol of this website. I feel compelled to 'add my two cents' if I may, about the validity, veracity and credibility of the contribution of veterans to this or any other website. My father served in WW2 - in Italy from November of 1943 until transferred with the rest of 1st Canadian Army to NW Europe. My father, never spoke about the war - and any recollections that we heard were passed on to us by our mother, after he died in 1962, at the young age of 44 yrs. We believe that what he suffered, endured, experienced in war took its toll on him in so many ways, physically and mentally, that he never recovered from it. Our mother always said that 'he came home a changed man'. He was a kind and loving father, but we always knew that he did not talk about the war because it was just too difficult, and perhaps he had to do things that he would just rather forget. We did not seek to learn of his history in any meaningful way, until just recently, probably because in many ways, we felt we were intruding upon his privacy, a terrible time in his life, that we had no justification or right in intruding upon, even after his death. THAT is what the war did to him, and many other veterans. My father-in-law also was very reticent to talk about his war experience, a theme that we have found to be common with many, many veterans. Once we decided that we owed it to ourselves, our children and grandchildren, that it was our obligation to learn of our respective fathers' war experience, and in an effort to honour their sacrifice, we decided to travel to Europe to follow their paths, if we could, and honour the sacrifice they made even if they never wanted the recognition in life. We will have a glass of calvados on Hill 195 near Falaise, and a lovely glass of Cabernet in Ortona, if only to remember and thank them in our own way. To think that anyone would challenge the memories of a Veteran, is, in my view, somewhat arrogant. Who better to ask about what went on, than someone who was there??? Everything that I have read. whether in books or documentaries, the writer/journalist ALWAYS says that in referencing the stories from the Veterans to the war diaries, or supporting historical records, the Veteran's accounts are nearly always very accurate, just from a different perspective. Perhaps they are not 100%, all of the time, but who of us can say that about any of our recollections? I for one, respect, revere and cherish any recollection of a Veteran, and hope that they continue to honour us by contributing to sites such as this. It is so important to collect these memories while we still can. For my part, thank you to every veteran past and present, from the bottom of my heart, for your sacifice and courage, then and now.

 

It is quite common to find inaccuracies/errors in 1940 war diaries. The two main errors are wrong dates and wrong place names, there are many others. These were obviously written by veterans at the time or shortly after returning hom from France in 1940.

1940 Missing Men files are another good example-you often find several different accounts of the same man's death or capture. These were normally recorded a few month to a few years after the event.

 

Drew's point makes me wonder if there is a definition of 'veteran' in the context of the original comment which attracted Ron's attention. Is it the passing of the years which is considered to make them unreliable ? At the time, they were simply eye witnesses and although memories may have dimmed, there is also the possibility that they now feel able to talk openly and it may well be that War Diaries, written at the time or shortly afterwards were intended to show some actions in a good light, and others less so.

These diaries were compiled by men perhaps hoping for promotion or favour and, in the case of the action up at the 'sharp end' , on the basis of written and verbal accounts from others. It should also be borne in mind that the diaries were probably written with nary a trained historian or published author within a hundred miles so they have to be regarded as suspect.

In my opinion, one of the most unreliable sources is likely to be a veteran account once it has been through the hands of an author and his editor. There is a good chance then that it will then have been made to support what the author wishes to emphasize.

 

Any serious historian would always want to interview those who took part in an event. To not do so makes no sense. However, there are many who have no idea of what being an historian means.

All I would say is that just as authors don't always get it right, nor do veterans. And in my experience not all WW2 vets are as widely read as those on here. That isn't a criticism or slur, it's just a fact of life.

Having 'guided' veteran groups they are arguably the most difficult and challenging. On the one hand there is nothing I can tell a man who fought in NW Europe or Italy anything he doesn't know about his own experience, and his own war, but there is plenty he can tell me. On the other hand I usually find that veterans very much like to hear the wider picture, especially if this is their first time back, and they also want to know what was happening around them, or who was around them. That as an historian, I can do.

When I was in Italy last year with our dear old friend Niccar he told me so much, but at the end of the week he thanked me for all that I'd done, and that by talking about the wider context of his battles he'd been able to understand them a little more than he had at the time. I'll never get greater thanks that that or ever feel so humble, but I'd just like to think it was veteran and historian working together and achieving something for both, just as it should be.

 

In my opinion, one of the most unreliable sources is likely to be a veteran account once it has been through the hands of an author and his editor. There is a good chance then that it will then have been made to support what the author wishes to emphasize.

A historian at Kew also told that a veteran that had already numerous books on the battles they were in was rarely a factual/accurate and could be a unreliable account because some of what they swear happened or they witnessed they had actually read in a book.

 

On war diaries:

The quality of war diaries varies enormously. A great deal depended on the CO of the unit, and who he delegated the job of diary-keeping to. Some diaries are very complete, with maps, message logs, strength returns, etc. Others are so sketchy as to be nearly useless. In times of severe combat or rapid movement, the diary would often be skimped or mugged up later on from memory. (Many diaries of Malaya Command units had to be reconstructed in prison camps.) I've seen the 50th Div WDs from the Dunkirk and Gazala-Matruh periods, and they often become laconic just when information is most badly needed. Some diaries were hand-written, and if the diarist had lousy handwriting the historian is left scratching his head.

Of course, diaries were written with an eye to the next regimental history, among other things. They often use euphemistic language; 'reorganising,' I find, was often shorthand for 'trying to pull together after being routed.' Diarists were often reluctant to say straight out anything that might reflect badly on the unit or the CO. Sometimes overly blunt comments were lined through, or even scissored out. Diaries were the foundations of regimental and official histories, but they were just as prone to error as the memories of individuals. In my own work I found that personal testimony often told me more than the diaries did, filling in gaps and explaining things that would have otherwise remained mysterious or unknown. (I'll have a specific comment on that in a 50th Div thread elsewhere.)

 

Extremely interesting thread and much grist to my mill as this is what I have been writing about for some time. It is of course a question of finding as much evidence as possible, but in the end, I write as honestly as I can and if something was given to me as a fact which turns out to be a fabrication, then all I can say is that there is no evidence to support the story. The 10th Hussars diary for 1940, which was my original source, was rewritten by a group of officers with a vested interest in a certain type of account shall we say, which doesn't always match up with the experience of NCO's and men. And then again, some of those men's stories changed over time as they spoke to each other again after a long period of time. I have several accounts of the same incident in which a soldier shot Germans in a trench at close range ascribed to different people for instance.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to veterans when I don't take these stories at face value and I'm afraid that unthinking reverence for any memory is not a standpoint I can afford to take - neither as the son of a veteran or a writer. Anyone interested in the subject of memory and recall should look at the work of Ulric Neisser - an essay by him called, "Memory with a pinch of salt", was published in the fascinating Memory- an anthology, Vintage (2008), edited by AS Byatt and Harriet Harvey Wood.

 

I look forward to the day when someone interviews me about what happened in the Iraq War - My reply will be fairly simple 'Dunno'.

 

I look forward to the day when someone interviews me about what happened in the Iraq War - My reply will be fairly simple 'Dunno'.

I remember a news item - can't remember if it was from the first or second Iraq War - (see, I'm doing it now) with Kate Adie talking to some lads in an artillery unit and she's waxing lyrical about what they're doing and they consistently reply along the lines of, "It's the job, we have to do the job as best we can, then we can go home". Adie is visibly frustrated with the replies and clearly attempts to get the soldiers to say more about what they are doing and the consequences of it. I'll try to dig it out of some old VHS tapes - I'll almost certainly find my recollection of it is skewed.

My dad said 'Dunno' for about 40 years or more....and that was about his WW2 experiences. On Korea, he was notably even more tight lipped, but did have vivid nightmares about it on the odd occasion.

 

Infantry Battalion War Diaries:

As Battalion Intelligence Officer I had the responsibility of writing up the War Diary and if the Battalion Commander approved he would sign it and despatch it to Brigade HQ. If you refer to Second World War Memoirs of JOE BROWN pages 28-31 I have included photocopies of the actual diary pages written by me during the Walcheren operation (rather poorly reproduced, but just readable!) In essence it records every factual and important happening about the operation.

Significant events and timings are recorded: time the CO called to Brigade to receive orders to attack the German Command Post in Flushing; time he held his own Orders Group and who attended; and appendices with verbatim orders. You will see that I enthusiastically recorded that we carried in our small haversack a 24-hour ration pack as well as emergency rations, sterilization tablets, pair socks, cap comforter (soft hat), towel, mess tins, and 2 sandbags; that the Battalion's stretcher-bearers would carry 2 waterbottles as a shortage of drinking water was anticipated. Great admin!

More relevant to future researchers was the inclusion of a sketch plan immediately drawn after the battle by the Battalion Intelligence Section showing the enemy positions and obstacles that we had over come and this was attached as one of the appendices. A copy of this is also reproduced in the web-site, page 32. A lot of work went into it making the Diary meaningful and relevant.

Joe Brown

 

Joe

Many thanks for your posting.

I think I can safely say that this is a first for ww2talk.

No less than someone who was actually responsible for writing a ww2 Battalion Diary

I sincerely hope that Gooseman will both read this article and acknowledge, at least in this instance, that it can be safely trusted to be both accurate and truthful.

Ron

 

Joe that's a beautifully detailed war diary and a marvellous website you've put together.


Lee

 

Great contribution to the discussion, Joe, many thanks. I'm sure your unit diary is a boon to researchers.

 

Joe

I too would like to thank you for your posting and for the link to your memoir.

Peter

 

Interesting discussion. I'm not sure that framing the interpretation of veteran testimony in a binary way - that the only possible choices are to revere it as the unvarnished truth or to dismiss it as rubbish - is a particularly useful way of thinking about the problem, however. Surely other possibilities are available too.

Best, Alan

 

I have to agree with Von P as above they were not all saints. My own Grandfather for example was racist, homophobic and a pain in the arse at times. He was human and I would have him back tomorrow even at the cost of my right arm. He was a product of his times and when the chips were down he stepped forward and said my country needs me and I will do my bit. He laughed when you said he was brave and would only state he was young and very possibly stupid. He did not consider himself a hero but life meant he had to do heroic things. I'm babbling but I hope you get the gist of it.

Well said Woapy

You could just as easily be describing my own grandfather. As Adam has noted, these men were part of a broad cross section of the young male population. The good, the bad and the ugly.

But, they did step forward, make sacrifices and performed their duty. I believe the reverence for veterans is a more recent attitude. Due to their thinning ranks and advanced years.

 

re:
Originally Posted by woapysittank
I have to agree with Von P as above they were not all saints

That's for sure, as cross representatives of the public we included all types amongst our ranks. This should not surprise anyone and I doubt if any of the veterans on this site would ever make a claim to sainthood !.

What I was reminded of however, was this little piece I once wrote on this forum about one of the officers in one of my units.

It has occured to me that one of the problems faced by "oldies" such as myself is when one writes about people one knew in the past in what might be considered, by others, to be "less than flattering" terms..

To give an example.

My Battery Commander, when I was in the 49th Light Ack Ack , always appeared to me, a callow youth, as a rather belligerent character and I usually made it my business to keep out of his way.

Long after the war, when I started writing my "memoirs", I wrote about him with scant regard to the remote possibility of anyone who knew him reading my pieces. I also, I suppose, considered that as he was many more years my senior he was therefore was not likely to still be around to tackle me himself.

Imagine my surprise therefore, when a few years ago, I received an e-mail from his son telling me how pleased he was to read those of my stories in the BBC Archives that mentioned his father.

I was of course extremely embarressed at the thought that I might have maligned his dad and offered to amend any of my stories that might have given him offence.

"Not at all" he replied....... "you've got him off to a T"

Phew !..........

Much relief all round !

Ron

 

Despite the fact that I have been posting on the forum since 2004 there are various items on the FAQ section that I confess to rarely looking at.

However, I recently noticed that alongside the main title to this thread there was a single star so, intrigued, I paid a visit to FAQ and discovered the following:
What are ratings?
The forums allow you to rate threads between 1 star (terrible) and 5 stars (excellent). Once enough votes are cast for a thread, stars will appear next to its name in the listings. These show the average vote, and can be an easy way to see which threads are worth reading if you are on a busy forum.
On the forum viewing page you can also arrange threads by rating, with either the highest or lowest at the top.
It therefore makes sense to rate threads because it helps all users. To do this, click on the 'rate thread' link at the top of the thread viewing page. Choose the number of stars you feel best represents the quality of the thread. You may or may not be able to change your choice of rating at a later date.


So, just in case you hadn’t noticed this warning, be aware that 3 members to date have rated this thread as "Terrible" and therefore I humbly submit that you read it at your own risk


Ron