Ypres scandal

[Desmond7]

Found an intriguing two paragraph 'filler' in August 21, 1917 edition of the weekly newspaper I am researching.

It states: - "Daily Sketch reports that questions will be asked about the scale of losses during 16th August advance.

"There are indications that losses in the Irish Divisions were needlessly high."

There was no 'follow-up' in the following week's issue. Censorship? Casualties were high - but this is first time I have found evidence of outright criticism. Does anyone know what the Daily Sketch actually reported about these 'needlessly high losses?'

And further, was Phillip Gibbs, the famous war corr. FAR too close to the top brass? Was he muzzled or did he tone things down for the war effort? He certainly rips into the handling of 3rd Ypres in his pre-war writings, but his contemporary accounts are very soft on the high command.

Des

[Robert Dunlop]

Des

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has evidence of similar comments in other articles.

From the limited material that I have read on this, Gibbs would have had to soft-pedal any material if he had wanted to remain in with High Command. Otherwise, he would have been given the boot in pretty short order.

Robert

[Guest Desmond6]

Robert - Foolishly, I returned a book to the library last week which had a brilliant essay on WW1 correspondents and dealt with the Gibbs issue! However, I think I have a fw more references tio specific incidents which I will try to pull together.

I am puzzled by this little 'throwaway' line from the Daily Sketch. Is there any way to check what appeared other than a British Library visit? Being in NI that would make things difficult!

Cheers Des

[ianw]

Both 36th Div. and 16th Div. attacked just south of St Julien and had a difficult time of it. 16th Div. were counter attacked very vigorously and forced back. Over enthusiasm apparently led to failings in mopping up leading to fire from pillboxes in the rear. Similarly, pillbox fire knocked the stuffing out of 36th Div. but the Fort Hill/Corn Hill position was taken.

Casualties would certainly have been severe on this day and the lack of success would have caused questions to be asked with the inevitable attempts to deflect blame resulting in briefings to the Press.

[Guest Desmond6]

Gibbs 'Now it can be told' -

The two Irish Divisions had been broken to bits and their brigadiers called it murder. They were violent in their denunciations of the 5th Army for having put them into the attack after those 13 days of heavy shelling.

I believe Gibbs wrote this in the 1920s and will check when I get home what he wrote at the time.

I wonder if he could have been 'the source' which stirred the pot over the losses in the 'Daily Sketch'? I am also checking out his relationships with the 'brass'.

Thanks for replies so far.

I have to say that in defence of the 16th Division, Gough tried to blame the failure of the attack on them. And so did Cyril Falls in his 36th Div. history ... and then sensibly corrected it in a separate book purely on the Royal Irish Rifles some years later.

Nugent, the 36th's General, felt his own Division had let the side down and was only mollified when it became apparent that the nature of the ground, enemy defence, exhaustion etc., had had the same effect on everyone.

Haig seems to have seen through Gough's claim and noted in his diary that the 16th Division had been exhausted before the battle even started, faced a long march to their jump-off point and then had to fight from dawn to nightfall.

His own words were: "Consequently they could have had no sleep and must have been dead tired."

Haig liked 'thruster Gough' ... but why did he not stick with Plumer? Had he not proved that his staff work and organisation was up to the job with the Messines advance?

There you are two or three posts for the price of one - value for money every time!