War Diaries - Question

[Guest]

Hello - a quick question.... recently when I was at The National Archives looking at some 1915 War diaries the box was stamped with "closed until 1965". I assume that this meant that the WWI war diaries were not released to the public for 50 years.

1. Can anyone confirm this for sure?

2. Also would it have been possible for anyone (academics?) to access War Diaries during the 50 year closure period. (I assume it would not have been possible).

3. Are the War Diaries at TNA the originals or copies? I read somewhere that Regiments sent copies to the PRO (now TNA) but I have seen no evidence to support this and having handled many, they generally seem to be originals. Was there any protocol to keep duplicates?

The reason I am asking is that I am trying to establish if authors outside those writing the Official Histories had access to War Diaries within the 50 year block out period. If they didn't it means that a considerable amount of original material was not accessible for 50 years and it follows that books published in this period would (in theory) be more subjective on the basis that they had limited original material.

Any thoughts? Regards MG

[kenf48]

Can't answer 3) although I suggest the Diaries were lodged by the War Office rather than the Regiment. The usual protocol is the original documents are lodged at the archive and copies are not retained in the originating department, whether 'unofficial copies' were kept is another issue, but they would have to have been laboriously transcribed.

As for 1) and 2) yes a 50 year rule did apply, later shortened to 30 and no, academics did not have access.

Clark in his foreword to 'Donkeys' wrote of 'documents in museums gathering dust for decades'. He was writing in 1961 and whatever revisionist stance is given to his slim volume it was considered influential at the time, but there are no references to War Diaries. Ten years later, in 1971 Martin Middlebrook in his equally influential 'First Day on the Somme' does cite 'a study of the war diaries'.

In 2009 there was a report on the 30 year rule which has some useful background http://www.30yearrul.../background.htm

esp. section 2 in the full report 'past perspectives' which is relevant to your queries.

It's also worth noting were other sources and archives not least the IWM I'm sure someone will tell you of any 'official' Diaries held there and what the policy for their release was.

There is also the argument that the war diaries are not especially accurate as they would tend to be biased in that they would reflect the Battalion in the most favourable way.

Ken

[dfaulder]

Presumably such Diaries were written with carbon copies as I would imagine there would have been multiple readers - and not just the next level up (e.g. the Battalion War Diary would not have only been read by Brigade HQ)?

David

[WilliamRev]

I have seen a number of regimental histories, written in the 1920s and 30s, which clearly rely mostly on the war diaries. The two I have to hand (without standing up and walking to another room ), are John Buchan's (yes, the one who wrote the novels) 1926 "The History of the Royal Scots Fusiliers 1678-1918", which takes casualty figures and other details verbatim from the war diaries, and "The Fifth Scottish Rifles 1914-1919" published in 1936, which mentions the existance of the battalion war diary in its' introduction, but says that it is "a bare record of facts".

So clearly a copy of the war diaries was available to the official battalion/regimental historians at any rate.

William

[rflory]

I would mention that a number of Royal Artillery brigade and battery histories contain extensive quotes from war diaries and some are verbatim copies of the unit's war diaries. My guess is that in many cases copies of war diaries were retained by the unit. I would also mention that Royal Artillery Institution Leaflets published during the years of the Great War carry a notice titled "Battery War Diaries" which in part says; "With a view to facilitate the task of the future historian, it is suggested that all units might avail themselves of pauses in the operations to draw up brief records of their own part in the war, giving the places at which the unit was on different dates, the officers present, casualties, rounds fired, targets engaged ans similar information. These records to be sent to the R. A. Institution, where they will be treated as confidential, and preserved for the benefit of the historian of the Royal Regiment." My understanding is that these 'war diaries' are still held by the R. A. Institution.

Regards, Dick Flory

[Guest]

Dear All - many thanks to you all for your informative responses.

Kenf48

1. The link was particularly helpful. It seems the 50 year rule was introduced in 1958. Prior to that there was no access. That changed to a 30 year rule in 1967, and the backlog was of material between 30-50 years old was released from 1968. So it seems that any military history written before 1968 would not have had access to War Diaries unless a regiment or battalion had kept a copy. Interesting implications for publications between 1918 and 1968.

2. Interesting that you mention Clark and Middlebrook. I am a fan of both books and I think Middlebrook's approach was commendable. I hope to emulate his approach by only using original material - hence my pursuit of this question.

3. I absolutely agree on your point on the accuracy of War Diaries. Keegan writes well on this aspect of historiography. I have very deep experience of this. I have transcribed a monumental number of diaries - Bn, Bde and Div diaries of all the front line units at Suvla Bay (Gallipoli) in Aug-Dec 1915 - eight Division's worth of Battalions. It was a massive job. It is all on a spreadsheet. Dates top-to-bottom and units left-to-right. It allows me to compare multiple accounts on any particular day at Suvla Bay. It is interesting to compare the accounts and then also compare to the unit's published histories (I have also transcribed over 20 of these for the month of August 1915) and personal diaries where available. One immediately sees discrepancies. It is a very illuminating exercise and the approach I have taken, although laborious, exposes these differences very clearly. It also enables me to spot histories that slavishly replicate the Bn War Diary and it becomes easy to spot when the author has 'other' material. I have found that the correspondence between the senior surviving officers and the official historian of Gallipoli (Aspinall-Oglander) to be particularly useful as he drilled down very hard to get to the bottom of issues where there were conflicting accounts. Often these officers included long accounts drawn up by fellow officers that vividly describe the events. Sadly some of these are not in the War Diary bundles and are missed by researchers as they are in the OH correspondence files. I found one only last weekend which revealed that the American Military attache to Turkey was in the Turk's front line at the landings as an observer in April 1915. I have never seen this in any history.

When looking at the historiography of a campaign, it is interesting to note the dates of publications of regimental and battalion histories. I have seen one exaggerated and erroneous story repeated in a number of subsequently publish regimental histories in the Yeomanry Div. It is interesting to see how these myths actually grow and are now regarded as axioms. Added to that, many of these histories were written years after the events when memories were fading. One hopes by looking at a mass of evidence one can identify, mitigate and limit the errors and exaggerations. That is my hope at least....

David

I have never seen a carbon copy war diary. Most were written in pencil (its waterproof) on very thin paper. The only carbon copies I have seen in the War Diary bundles are Operational Orders. Occasionally one sees notebook pages of the original jottings which were transcribed onto the official Army Form C. 2118 and I have seen some diares that were inked-in after the events. There is a lot of evidence that many diaries were written up a few days or even weeks after the events especially during hard fighting. The change in handwriting is always poignant as the diary keepers become casualties. The standards varied a lot; the best diaries were not necessarily the Regulars' diaries. When approaching Regimental Associations and Museums, I have only ever found photocopies of the National Archives versions, or typewritten transcripts. Some curators sadly don't even know what a War Diary is as people without military knowledge are employed by museums to satisfy the requirements of lottery funding. All very sad.

WilliamRev

I have had a similar experience. The authors of most Battalion and Regimental histories that I have read seem to have had access to the War Diaries. As you point out, many were written years later so it seems that the War Diaries were not immediately sent into the caverns of the PRO. I wonder when that happened. I suspect that there were no copies, and they were working from the originals which were later sent to the PRO.

rflory

I have seen similar approaches in some battalions. In one case the CO asked every Officer to write his account of the battles. Sadly this particular tanatalus was empty - the accounts have since disappeared. In quite afew cases where the Bn War Diary has been lost, it is only due to these extra accounts that it is possible to piece together what actually happened.

Thank you all again. Any further thoughts would be welcome. Any mistakes are mine. Regards MG

[NigelS]

A bit more evidence that War Diaries were available to the authors of regimental histories (through whatever means): The History of the London Rifle Brigade 1859-1919, published in 1921, contains an editorial note:

The history of the first battalion is based upon the war diary, supplemented by a mass of invaluable material diligently collected by Lieut. Col. A.S. Bates. Major F.H. Wallis allowed free use of his private diary; Col. N.C. King, Lieut. Col. C.D. Burnell, Capt. J.H. Stransom, Capt. F.H. Crews, Capt. W.C. von Berg and Lieut. J.S. Lindsay helped with their recollections, and Capt. E.H. Slade is responsible for preparing the itinerary plans.

I've included the list of those involved with the thought that, as some of the officers mentioned are fairly high ranking and possibly still with the LRB post war, that they might have had access to the diaries legitimately through official channels, even if, as suggested, it wasn't officially sanctioned that they were allowed to be used for writing regimental histories etc.

NigelS

[Guest]

A bit more evidence that War Diaries were available to the authors of regimental histories (through whatever means): The History of the London Rifle Brigade 1859-1919, published in 1921, contains an editorial note:

The history of the first battalion is based upon the war diary, supplemented by a mass of invaluable material diligently collected by Lieut. Col. A.S. Bates. Major F.H. Wallis allowed free use of his private diary; Col. N.C. King, Lieut. Col. C.D. Burnell, Capt. J.H. Stransom, Capt. F.H. Crews, Capt. W.C. von Berg and Lieut. J.S. Lindsay helped with their recollections, and Capt. E.H. Slade is responsible for preparing the itinerary plans.

I've included the list of those involved with the thought that, as some of the officers mentioned are fairly high ranking and possibly still with the LRB post war, that they might have had access to the diaries legitimately through official channels, even if, as suggested, it wasn't officially sanctioned that they were allowed to be used for writing regimental histories etc. NigelS

Nigel.

Thank you. This is informative. I am sure many GWF members have considerable collections of early Battalion and Regimental histories. My feeling is that the authors of the histories written straight after the War generally had access to War Diaries - primarily because they had been senior serving officers and still had enough status to get the material from the Regiment or Battalion. Once the first histories had been written, interest waned - the histories had been written after all - until the subject became one of academic interest and pursuit (I think post WWII). Hardly any of the second wave of authors had served in the regiments . Many were not military men but academics. In some ways this gave them an advantage as they were not shackled by any ingrained need to be selective with the facts. I am interested in the different 'phases' of historiography and the development of a more rigorous, academic and objective approach.

The problem is that the early histories generally lacked any developed academic approach or rigorous researching (the OH on Gallipoli is one outstanding exception in my view). Often these early Battalion histories were just the recollections of the senior surviving officer supplemented with material from brother officers. Written by officers, about officers with barely a mention of soldiers by name. They were often written to portray their Regiment or Battalion in the most positive light, with a heavy bias towards protecting their own and their Regiment's reputations. It is fascinating to read different Battalion's accounts of the same action when the line broke. Very few early histories were objective enough to admit failure. They were generally subjective rather than objective. I have lost count of the number of times I have read "...were the best unit in the British Army..."

Few early histories mentioned many individual soldiers. They appear as extras on the grand stage dominated by the Officers' roles. In my grandfather's regiment (Derbyshire Yeomanry) which saw over 1500 men pass through its ranks, only 7 men are mentioned by name throughout the whole book covering the period from 1914 to 1919. Every officer is mentioned on multiple occasions. It reads like a club history. Some (many?) early authors were self acknowledged amateurs who had the task of writing the history thrust upon them by their Regimental Associations. It was an unenviable task for some and many were not up to the task. I often feel the rankers were short-changed in their histories.

It is interesting to see the impact of modern research techniques and academic discipline applied to the same material, and of course post 1968 (I now discover) broad access again to the War Diaries. There is little comparison between the two ages in my view. The explosion in personal diaries and the outstanding efforts of people such as Peter Liddle has added so many more dimensions and humanised the stories. It also has given greater voice to the soldiers as their own accounts get published. Some of the Pals Battalion histories published in recent years are truly excellent pieces of research. Despite this I am always fascinated by how often mistakes and inaccuracies are still (occasionally) perpetuated. Even in modern histories some authors assume early histories were accurate and don't bother to check the original material or stress test these early accounts. These are just general observations of course. There were some truly excellent early accounts, written by intelligent thoughtful men. I think Lord Moran's book on Courage is one that springs to mind (thankfully still in the curriculum at Sandhurst). Also Capt Wedgwood Benn's "In the Side Shows". Truly insightful and very advanced in its thinking.

Thanks again for your input. Any mistakes are mine. MG

[NigelS]

...Often these early Battalion histories were just the recollections of the senior surviving officer supplemented with material from brother officers. Written by officers, about officers with barely a mention of soldiers by name. They were often written to portray their Regiment or Battalion in the most positive light, with a heavy bias towards protecting their own and their Regiment's reputations. It is fascinating to read different Battalion's accounts of the same action when the line broke. Very few early histories were objective enough to admit failure. They were generally subjective rather than objective. I have lost count of the number of times I have read "...were the best unit in the British Army..."

... Every officer is mentioned on multiple occasions. It reads like a club history...

Very much the case with The History of the LRB 1859-1919!

Two different accounts of what appears to be the same event on August 14th 1917 at Halfway House (a large, deep shelter) may be of interest. Firstly, from The History of the LRB:

On the 13th, the officers reconnoitred the route through Sanctuary Wood (I.24) to the front line, and on the following day Lieut.-Col. Husey was wounded while looking for a suitable shell-hole in which to write operation orders, after having attended a conference with the Brigadier. The wound was severe and was the fourth he had received. Leave was obtained at Major Whitmore's request for Major wallis to take over the command...

Secondly, WHA Groom (a corporal with the LRB) in his highly personalized account 'Poor Bloody Infantry: a Memoir of the First World War' (published 1976) wrote:

The afternoon was dry and brighter, so a number of us came out from the smelly underground cavern and sat on the top watching ambulances dodging shells on the Menin Road to our left. Our Colonel and some officers also came up and and were sitting not more than thirty yards away.

Then all of a sudden, with no warning, there was the wrong 'un - the scream of a shell right on top of us. It pitched not more than twenty yards away but luckily our group was under the blast and hawky pieces but it killed two and wounded others farther away. The Colonel was hit (I think it was his seventh wound) and rushing for the steps right behind him I nearly knocked him down the steps. We soon heard that he was not seriously wounded, but he would be in hospital and not with us for the attack...

Neither story really contradicts the other, and there's little doubt that Husey (from accounts of his service) was a gallant, highly respected officer who apparently led from the front. Yet, 'The History's' account appears - at least in my view - to 'talk-up' the event by giving the impression that it was much nearer to the front than it actually was by connecting it with a reconnaisance mission the previous day, not mentioning it was a stray that had been responsible for the wounding, and including the mention of the search for a shell-hole for shelter when the nearby dugout would have been the natural and more obvious choice. On the other hand, Groom's account of the event was written many years later so, his recollection of the event may have been a bit shakey as possibly witnessed by the seven wounds he gives (as opposed to 'The History's' four) and giving Colonel as opposed to Lieut. Colonel (both of which he might have believed to have been the case back on the day).

NigelS

[Alan Tucker]

Someone shortly after the war made a typescript copy of all Royal Warwicks diaries - now in the Fusiliers Museum, Warwick. Some of the interwar battalion histories made use of them.

[Guest]

Someone shortly after the war made a typescript copy of all Royal Warwicks diaries - now in the Fusiliers Museum, Warwick. Some of the interwar battalion histories made use of them.

Alan - Thank you. Interesting. I have seen a similar instance at the Border Regiment Museum. I am sure that many Regiments did this, but it is surprising the number of Regimental Museums that today don't have copies. It is worth considering that a fair few war diaries went MIA or were lost on sunken ships. Steve Morse (GWF member) when writing his history of the 9th Bn Sherwood Foresters discovered that this Battalion's War Diary was missing (Gallipoli at least), but nevertheless did a remarkable job painstakingly rebuilding its history from personal accounts and Officers' recollections. Of the last four Regimental Museums I have approached none had any copy of a War Diary. I suspect that the authors of Battalion or Regimental histories generally had access post War and Inter War, but the standards of archiving varied a lot. At some stage between 1918 and 1968 the originals were handed over to the PRO and locked up, so the copies were the only source for many years. Authors of single battalion histories might have been OK, but if someone wanted to write a campaign history say in the mid 1960s, trying to locate the copied diaries from the various regiments and battalions would have struggled I imagine. Amalgamations in the 1950s and 1960s would have compounded these problems as archives and records were merged and the custodians changed. This is in the day of letters of course, and pre-email. I am always struck by the large volumes of many Regimental Histories that focus almost entirely on the 1st and 2nd Battalions, and reduce the 4 years of war of their Territorial Force and multiple Service Battalions to a few pages. Approaches differed, but it is not unusual to see a highly disproportionate amount of information on the Regular Battalions and very little on the others, unless of course someone wrote a history on a specific Service Battalion. The huge growth in this area in recent years is a welcome redress of this earlier imbalance.

One other consideration is that there was not a natural custodian for Bde and Divisional War Diaries, especially those Bdes and Divs that had been disbanded. I think because of this even the earlier authors would have been writing without easy access to these important sources. Contrast this with our ability to obtain on-line a whole Division's War Diaries from the National Archives. The accessibility of information in the technology age is thankfully way beyond anything that was available pre 1968. When one also considers the additional information carefully harvested by the Imperial War Museum, and the Liddle Collection and others, I think there is a strong case to be made that today's authors have an easier task in some ways.

Now that we have so much information, I think the debate rapidly switches to an assessment of how reliable the diaries are. This is a different challenge which I would argue earlier authors generally did not consider very carefully. There are exceptions of course. Andrew Green's published PhD thesis "Writing the Great War; Sir James Edmonds and the Official Histories 1915-1918" makes a strong argument that Sir James' team of authors were extremely rigorous in their academic approach to writing the Official Histories. My experience in transcribing Battalion diaries and histories to read in parallel has sometimes revealed some considerable gaps between accounts, suggesting that some published histories were sanitised or the author was economical with the facts. Similarly, comparing multiple battalion War Diaries of the same action sometimes highlights how individual's perspectives can give a very different picture from other units in the same locale. An example from a previous thread on a specific action at Gallipoli on 6th Jun 1915 near Gully Ravine:

On the evening of the 5th June the line was held as follows (left to right): 4th Bn Worcestershires, 1st Bn KOSB, 1st Bn Essex, 2nd Bn Royal Fusiliers, 2nd Bn Hampshire Regt. (Note: KOSB and R Fus were attached from different Bdes to 88th Bde during this period). By trawling all the available Bde and regimental diaries it appears that the "line broke" in the area of the Essex Regt and Royal Fusiliers. The KOSB diary reports Turks appearing in large numbers around the Left flank of H 12 and the troops in H11 not firing on them as they thought they were Sikh troops of 29th Indian Bde on their Left. The diary suggested that Turks appeared to be wearing Sikh puggaries (turbans) which is something I had not heard of before. The troops on the KOSB's left flank broke (Worcestershires or KOSB's own?) and retired to the support trenches (H11?). The Essex Regt diary reports that the troops on their right (R Fusiliers) broke. The troops on the KOSB's right also 'retired' (area of the Essex).... so at this stage all units seem to be (sadly) pointing the finger at units left and right. According to the KOSB, C Coy KOSB "held fast" in H 11 and rallied A and D Coys back to H 11. The KOSB diary then goes on "...they also extended to the right to fill the gaps cause by the retirement of the ESSEX and the ROYAL FUSILIERS..." (KOSB's capitals). Also this confirms the earlier orbat that Essex and R Fus were to the right of the KOSB.....either way it is clear from the Bde diaries that the line fell back. Interestingly the critical pages from the R Fusilier's diary are missing..... The KOSB diary reports "..the whole of H 11 was recaptured. The portion on our right being cleared by bombing parties of the ESSEX"

Regards MG.