Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

The silent seven minutes - The Nek, an alleged myth debunked?


gilly100

Recommended Posts

Hi All

I have learned of a recent lecture/talk given on 10 October 2013 at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne by Graham Wilson, author of 'Bully Beef and Balderdash" (myth de-bunker) and "Dust, Donkeys and Delusions' ( A Simpson legend de-bunker). I was not present, although I have been sent some notes regarding this talk of around one hour, seemingly to challenge the notion that there was no time gap between the ceasing of artillery/naval bombardment on the Turkish trenches on and near the Nek and the actual charge by the 8th and 10th Light Horse on 7 August 1915.

I have a vested interest in this as I co authored a 2011 released unit history on the 10th Light Horse Regt called Gallipoli to Tripoli.

The first things I wish to address are the available unit histories concerning these units and they are -

Westralian Cavalry in the War by Lt Col ACN Olden DSO, first published in 1921

Gallipoli to Tripoli - History of the 10th LH Regt AIF 1914-19 (2011) by Neville Browning and Ian Gill

With the 9th Light Horse in the War first published in 1924 by Maj TH Darley OBE

They Rode into History - The story of the 8th LH Regt AIF 1914-19 (2008) by Max Emery (Slouch Hat Publications)

and the 'unofficial' 8th LH document attributed to Major Tom Austin but believed by some to be majority written by Maj W 'Lauchie' McGrath; this an AWM stored document (reference and dates escape me, apologies there)

This above is just to clarify relevant publication dates for Graham Wilson following his lecture.

The following verbatim comment Graham made during his lecture I also wish to address:

"I make a small side comment here that one of the witnesses the authors of the 10th Light Horse history quote in the matter of the supposed delay, was evacuated from Gallipoli dangerously ill on the 4th July 1915 and he was lying in a hospital bed on Malta on the 7th August, and yet they quote him as a reliable witness; not much of a witness if you ask me"

Now I presume that is a crack at me as I did write the Gallipoli portion of our history, yet I just cannot find who this chap is that I have allegedly quoted, in our book anyways! My only quote came on page 108 regarding a discussion between two 8LH officers that WERE there on that morning. Lt Wilfred Robinson and Major Thomas Redford, the latter of whom was killed that morning. Robinson was wounded in the hand just prior to going over and his place was taken by Sgt CH Lyon, who happened to mention this in a letter to a Mrs Tetley. The book Maygar's Boys by Cameron Simpson has it transcribed on page 280 of his excellent tribute to the 8th LH.

Robinson wrote to Bean on 9 May 1924 regarding the silent seven minutes and can be found in AWM38 3DRL 8042 item 25. I chapter noted this on page 602 at note 34 of our book.

Now, perhaps the alleged witness who was NOT there was the following man -

530 Thomas Sidney Austin, later an officer and the man credited for the 'unofficial' 8th LH manuscript I mentioned earlier. It seems Austin is quoted on page 39 of Max Emery's 8th Light Horse history and describes the charge in some detail, as well as mentioning only a 15 minute bombardment from 4 am. There are no end/chapter notes so I can not expand on the quote's origin. A perusal of Austin's B2455 series service file does certainly show him evacuated in July and admitted to hospital in Malta around 13/14 July 1915. Later commissioned in September, and ironically wounded on 7 August 1916 I think!

So, while I have not listened to the whole lecture available on the Shrine's website on video and podcast etc, I have been given sufficient detail to warrant making some clarification. My internet will not allow the download I am afraid.

I have since gone over my Nek account and remain happy with what I have written, still believing there was a critical gap of some time to allow the Turks to prepare for what everyone knew was coming. I am quite sure there are some others out there that would agree. I could not have written this part of the book (or any of it!) without some terrific people in Australia who willingly gave great help, information and advice and who still know a damn sight more than I ever will.

I have no problem with people challenging history and putting up another view, but it better be good. Some of this recent myth debunking seems a bit ordinary, to me at least.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

While I am still uncertain,.

During my talks with our mate from Melbourne, who has worked in great detail on the 8th LHR at this battle, found that this missing time is still not firm.

He quoted a number of sourse (from the 8th LHR) that both agree with the gap while others make no mention of any time loss?

I can only jugde from my work of the action by the 1st LHR, which mention no time loss as wittness mention the fighting starting after the guns stopped.

From what they saw from Popes was the 8th LHR going out on time, as that help switch a number of Turkish MG's from the 1st LHR on to the 8th LHR from the area of the Cheeseboard.

The 1st LHR also mention some what the 8th LHR suffered as one account mentioned that B Sqn 1st LHR went early because it had run into a Turkish listerning post during it climb up the gully.

That possibly explans why A Sqn was cut up so badly as the Turkish defences was allerted a few minutes before the guns stopped shelling Deadmans Ridge.

But the time gap could also be because the 8th LHR or the 3rd LH Bde never sinced there watch's, but so far no positive sourse have been found to confirm why some belive there was a gap while other don't?

I don't think the myth has been exposed while I agree there is still some dought there if it did?

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve

Robinson and Redford certainly thought there was a gap and it is recorded somewhere (have to find it) that at least at 3 LH Brigade level their watches were checked and synchronised. I also agree there are accounts detailing a time gap or at least less than the half hour of quicker fire, as well as accounts that mention the guns stopping at 4.30 and out the men went. Obviously the effect was always going to be the greatest on those jumping out first, and that was the 8th LH as we all know.

What I found disappointing from what was related to me about the talk is the inaccuracy or lack of research. If one wants to have a crack at someone, at least expose a proper mistake. Happy to take one on the chin if wrong and it corrects the history for all those interested and the wrong information is then not perpetuated.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to it a few days ago Gilly and was unimpressed by Wilson. Having read his previous myth-busting attempt to denigrate Simpson originally published in Sabretache, nothing seems to have changed with his style. I've never had any doubts that the Simpson story is probably overblown and similarly I'm willing to accept there is reasonable debate about this 7 minute delay BUT I do not agree with Wilson's apparent methods of research nor resultant 'self-styled myth-busting' conclusions. Seems more like he's just trying to attract attention. Any kind of advertising is good advertising and no doubt it's also good for sales.

In my opinion Wilson deliberately forms an opinion based on busting myths and then hunts out the sources that support his contention, at the same time conveniently omitting to mention sources that oppose his point of view. Then he first initiates a personal attack on the subject of his myth-busting to colour his audiences perception of the person before outlining his case. With Simpson he basically called him a cowardly deserter who did nothing more than give jaunty rides on donkeys and this time he initiates the talk by taking shots at Bean, later informing the audience that Bean was only a journo looking for a good story............although he offers no facts to support either of these beliefs!!

A large proportion of his talk was quoting a number of sources that don't mention a delay. They don't mention that there wasn't one either (and in fact several can be thought to actually suggest a delay - just depends on how you interpret them) but according to Wilson, not being mentioned means it didn't happen. That's flawed logic and akin to saying that if no one heard a tree falling in the forest, it proves no noise was made when it fell. In my opinion, it's quite possible that a brief delay of only a few minutes was considered hardly noteworthy by witnesses looking on (if even really noticed at all) and by not understanding the consequences of it at the time, simply didn't bother to mention it.

He then reads a lot of quotes from sources giving times of the bombardment and the time the 8th LH attacked. He seems to think that because they all say 4.30am that there couldn't be a delay. What he fails to understand is that everyone's watches probably did say 4.30am but the the question is (and always has been) whether they all said 4.30am 'at the same time'.

With regards to Wilson's quote about the unreliable witness in hospital on Malta - you are quite correct, at 30m:35s of his speech he attributes this witness as being touted as fact in the 10th Light Horse history published in 2011 (presumably referring to you). I can't find it in there either Ian!! Perhaps just an unfortunate accident and Wilson got his histories mixed up but still a poor error that should not be made - particularly when speaking in public!! No wonder you're annoyed. What he should also know but fails to mention that while it's true the supposed witness (Thomas Austin) was in hospital on Malta at the time, there's pretty good evidence to suggest that Maj William 'Lauchie' McGrath actually wrote much of that unofficial 8th LH history - and he was there!

But what really irked me was that after discrediting Bean and thus his account, he uses Bean's original diary entry to support his own case. (he also did this in his Simpson article) You just can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Bean's diary for the day did not mention any delay but his 1924 official history does. Wilson chooses to believe the first but then discredits Bean as just a journo to discount the second. What he fails to mention (until brought to task by Australia's premier 8th LH historian who was in the audience) is that Bean was lying injured in his dugout at the time and did not witness the attack. It's quite conceivable that Bean wrote his diary based on initial second-hand reports provided to him and was unaware of any delay until later when obtaining accounts for his official history. Wilson doesn't even entertain this possibility.

So basically, I considered it just another interesting chat about Wilson's opinion but as a serious piece of historical research, it falls well short of the mark.....again.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/10/2013 at 04:06, Kath said:

And if you follow this link to a post I made some time ago, it will provide a further two links to discussions we had on the GWF about Graeme Wilson's Simpson article in Sabretache:

 

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Tim for the heads up and I basically concur with your views. I have seen references to time delays ranging from a few minutes and up to nine from the top of my head. Of course, as you say, there are numerous accounts that make no mention of any delay. Similarly, I agree on much of your post and personally think there was some fault between Division and Brigade. Certainly it becomes clear that Robinson and Redford viewed a timepiece that morning and seven minutes came into the story via Robinson and Bean in 1924 correspondence. Why would one say so if it did not happen?

Good enough for me, but, each person is entitled to his and her opinion. I cannot properly comment on Wilson's books, having only perused them in a bookshop for half an hour or so.It seems the new era of military history writing is alive and well with smackdown myth busting. All good if the argument is solid and not overly selective on one hand and excluding on the other.

Cheers for the input.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ian

Gary Hayes in Perth has or had an ORIGINAL of the 10 LH War Diary for that period & if memory serves me, there was no mention of a delay in that. Give him a call to verify.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust that the belief that Australians were bludgers and thieves will never be debunked. Myth or not, the very suggestion is part of history "Never put your horse lines anywhere near the Australians" is a quote that I have long enjoyed.

Humorously

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks David

I call it 'resourceful'

humorously also

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian,

As one who attended the lecture by Graham Wilson I am certain that his comments regarding the un-named witness supposedly quoted in the 2011 published 10th Light Horse history was indeed directed at yours, and Neville's, history of the 10th LH, GALLIPOLI TO TRIPOLI. I, like yourself and Tim L, cannot find a candidate for the un-named witness from the pages of your valuable narrative of the 10th Light Horse Regiment.

Wilson's references to the three 3rd LH Brigade Regimental histories in his talk had me somewhat perplexed, all three quoted publishing dates by him seemed to be at odds to the original dates of various publications. Wilson firstly claimed that the 8th Light Horse Regiment history was published in 1928, the same year that Vol II of the Official History first saw the light of day (quote). He then proceeded to quote from page 15 of that history - quote: "This history tells us that at 4.30 am, 7th August the Navy opened a violent bombardment of the enemy trenches immediately to front whilst the first line of the 8th Light Horse made final preparations for their charge, a few minutes later the firing ceased and the first line of the 8th Light Horse rushed to the attack." end quote - the author of that book does get his timings slightly wrong, however he has no problem with the sequence and makes no mention of any delay."

There is one major problem with this statement of Wilson's, the Regimental history of the 8th Light Horse was never published as a book, the only publication being that of Major William "Lauchie" McGrath's history of the regiment in the official organ of the 8th Light Horse (A.I.F.) Regimental Association. More Majorum, Vol 1, No. 1, 1st September 1935.

The same version of that history is held by the AWM Canberra, under the claimed authorship of Captain T. S. Austin, AWM 224. The quoted section of the 8th LH history by Wilson (page 15) cannot be found in either of the original histories, both mentioning the start of the charge at page 29 iv.

The only published book of 8th Light Horse Regiments history did not eventuate until 2009 with the publication of Max Emery's, THEY RODE INTO HISTORY. Wilson's quoted section cannot be found within the pages of this history either. The quoted section has a certain familiarity about it, but at the moment I am at a loss to place just where it is taken from.

The same applies to the 9th Light Horse Regiment history, stated by Wilson to have been published in 2008, I'm sure Major T. H. Darley would be surprised to read that, since he published in 1924, as would Lt Col A.C.N. Olden DSO with his book being published 1919. Such errors by Wilson on just this one point of the unit histories is enough to cast doubt on the rest of his research.

There is a great deal more that needs to be tested from the lecture of Graham Wilson, such as his claim that C.E.W. Bean was the instigator of the missing seven minutes myth. Names, sources, and full details of men quoted by him, and probably a little more by the way of fist hand accounts of men who were there, rather than just three.

Steve is correct with the fact that many men give different times for the charge, many state that the charge took place at 4,30 am, or give no time at all, but there is enough evidence to suggest that something was a stray with 3rd LH Bde time.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jeff for your post and thoughts on the lecture. Perhaps I should try to contact the man in question. Just as an aside, and while I do not have a copy handy here in Bali, I always thought Lt Col Olden's "Westralian Cavalry in the War" was first published by McCubbin in Melbourne in 1921. But I have been wrong before!!!

As far as CEW Bean goes, he was human too and for me, ours and all the future generations to come will recognise how talented he was, with the odd blue here and there taking nothing away from his contribution to Australia's recorded WW1 military history. Where would we be without it?

Looking forward to Gallipoli next year, better start getting fit!!

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the new era of military history writing is alive and well with smackdown myth busting. All good if the argument is solid and not overly selective on one hand and excluding on the other.

Ian

Hi Ian

Says it all. I listened for about half an hour - selective research and style which I find very grating. I found his Simpson book very repetitive and arrogant and no doubt there will be more myths around for him to work on in the same manner.

As an aside, my Westralian Cavalry is the IWM reprint - the introduction by Lieut General Chauvel is dated Melbourne 11th May 1921. Lucky lucky you if you have an original copy!

best regards

Judy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to Wilson's talk once again, I picked up on a few sources he quoted (and twisted) in support of his opinion that in reality would suggest there was a delay. One in particular was from a letter written by Major W.S. Hughes of the 8th LH to Bean. Bean had already received Lt Robinson's account that explained the delay in detail and was asking Hughes to provide his recollection of the matter. Wilson was intimating that it was improbable for Robinson to be so certain of the times and used Hughes response to try and prove his point....

Wilson:

"Hughes wrote back that he couldn't help Bean. He said that front line views are often distorted by a wrong perspective. Hughes went on to say that as far as he remembered, the bombardment may have stopped early, however in his own words, 'At a time when seconds are minutes and minutes seem like hours, he should hardly like to hazard a guess at the length of the period.'"

Wilson again questioned Robinson's ability to be so accurate and said:

"whereas everyone else made the point that in combat time, comprehension is very elastic and very unreliable".

Ok, so Wilson's argued that Robinson's sole detailed account of 7 minutes is questionable because he doesn't believe anyone could be that accurate during a battle. But in providing us with these other accounts to refute Robinson's accuracy hasn't Wilson inadvertently given us information that suggests there actually was a delay (particularly in Hughes) - it's just that these other witnesses weren't prepared to estimate the actual length of time?

And yet Wilson touts this as evidence that there was no delay.........not sure how he twisted that from the information!

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought Lt Col Olden's "Westralian Cavalry in the War" was first published by McCubbin in Melbourne in 1921. But I have been wrong before!!!

I found the listing for a reprint of 'Westralian Cavalry in the War' by the Naval and Military Press in 2009. Perhaps Wilson was using this version as his source and didn't bother to check for earlier editions. Interestingly, if you go to the N&MP listing for their reprint here, http://www.naval-military-press.com/westralian-cavalry-in-the-war.-the-story-of-the-tenth-light-horse-regiment-a.i.f.-in-the-great-war.html they state the original publishing date was 1919 as Jeff mentioned (although the 1921 McCubbin print is the earliest one I can find listed anywhere else).

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems very much to me that he thrives on the attention and the controversy and it is, after all, an income. I expect there will be more myths to debunk...

Judy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is in the way in which the word 'myth' itself is being used by many modern commentators. By labelling something up-front as a 'myth,' you plant the seeds of doubt in many people's minds as to its accuracy even before you start 'de-bunking' it. This of course depends on an individual's interpretation of the word 'myth,' but mine, and that of many others, is that it means, or at the very least imples, something that is not true, almost akin to a fairy story. Others interpret as something more like a rumour, or a disputed fact. In any case, it is used by many people as a pejorative and is, (in my humble opinion), a dishonest tactic, and fairly or unfairly, I suppose, when I see it employed, it immediately raises suspicion about what its originator actually knows, as opposed to what he or she is just inventing. But maybe that's just me. However I believe that, if you start with the premise that you are examining a 'myth' - and that forms the (apparently already-etablished and unquestionable) bedrock of your argument, many people already believe, because of the word you've used, that its substance is not true or probably not true. It's a politician's trick - call something wrong before you even discuss it, and half your battle is won.

I thought the resonses by Gilly, Steve, Tim and Jeff here were detailed and excellent and showed not everyone is taken in by such word-play, but I worry that many with less specialised knowledge would be susceptible to it. If you want to argue honestly, start with a term that does not have the connotation of your own conclusion and stick with it until you 'prove' a myth by debunking the statements / allegations / conjectures / reports that it's based on. If you can't do that, you have not disproved it and therefore it's not (yet) a 'myth.' If you can disprove it, call it a 'myth.'

I read somewhere a long time ago that you don't get a 'name' in the field of history by re-visiting what's already known. The quickest way to get a 'name' is to call into question what's already known. That's fine as long as you know enough and have the evidence to do it, but it's clear that not everyone's so concerned with actually proving what they've called into dispute. In this particular case, again, 'no mention' is not the same thing as someone saying it didn't happen, and taking shots at Bean (especially when, as Tim points out, you then rely on him for other material) is just tiresome when it reveals the critic is unaware of how Bean gathered evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bryn, some very good points and in particular those about Wilson relying on Bean's earlier recordings of the battle.

In fact, if you read Bean's earliest published account that appeared in newspapers on 27th August 1915, he was dreadfully incorrect - even getting the date and time of the attack 12hrs out (he wrote that it took place at dusk, 4.30pm the evening before instead of the following morning at 4.30am). Now although this newspaper account is full of errors and he mentions nothing of any delay between the bombardment ceasing and the attack beginning, I did find this comment interesting, "The bombardment stopped at 4.30, as it was cut short by night". (my underline) I wondered whether this comment might indicate he had an early inkling that the timings had been off, but given the overall erroneous nature of the article, it tends to negate any possibility of lending credence to any of its content.

But what it does show is that Bean gradually pieced together the facts through research and first-hand accounts to improve his understanding of what really happened. His subsequent reports of the battle became increasingly more accurate each time, culminating with his official history version. Thus, for Wilson to accept Bean's initial recordings of the battle (conveniently supporting his own theory) and discount Bean's final version as just journalistic jingoism is without precedent because it's clear Bean was gradually improving his own understanding of the battle and working towards establishing the truth.

The only thing that probably does annoy me a little bit are commentators of the battle who state that 'the artillery and naval bombardment ceased seven minutes early'. Regardless of the debate about the seven minutes, it is unfair and without evidence to suggest that the bombardment stopped 'early' (implying the fault lay with them). It is just as possible that the light horse assault commenced late! I have no doubt that the watches and clocks of both said 4.30am at the applicable times and I believe there is circumstantial evidence to suggest a delay of sorts occurred, but unless specific evidence is uncovered to explain exactly how the delay happened, it's impossible to apportion blame.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, perhaps 'myth debunking' is possibly a myth in itself, if there is no real 'myth' in the first place? Maybe I am confused and just need to get back to Hill 60. Thank goodness no one has found a myth there, at least not yet anyways! Thanks everyone for some excellent input

:w00t:

Ian

PS Judy - I USED to have an original Westralian Cavalry in the War, now just a tatty reprint!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read Wilson's book or listened to the lecture yet - so can't comment on his research abilities...

However, in the case of the publication of Olden's "Westralian Cavalry" - this is one time when we can probably put a little more faith than usual in newspaper reports:

Sunday Times (Perth, WA), Sun 15 Feb 1920 (p.7):

An interesting book is expected from Lieut-Colonel Olden, D.S.O., who has arrived back in Perth. Colonel Olden has been on a visit to Narrogin, and has renewed old friendships with many of the 10th Light Horse who are patients at “The Base.” The Colonel is engaged upon a history of his famous regiment, at the head of which he entered the oldest city in the world, Damascus, to wit.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/4356987?zoomLevel=4&searchTerm

The West Australian (Perth, WA), Fri 20 Feb 1920 (p.5):

Colonel Olden is engaged upon the writing of the first five years of the history of the Tenth Light Horse, and to the completion of his task he proposes almost exclusively to devote the immediate future.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27675814?searchTerm

Sunday Times (Perth, WA), Sun 29 May 1921 (p.6):

Colonel Arthur Olden has returned from the Eastern States. His book dealing with the 10th Light Horse should be making its appearance about July.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58044197?searchTerm

The Daily News (Perth, WA), Wed 10 Aug 1921 (p.3):

“The Westralian Cavalry at the War” is the title of the book written by Lieut-Colonel Olden, D.S.O., of Perth, and shortly to be published by McCubbin of Sydney. ………………………………………………………..

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/81804420?searchTerm

The Mercury (Hobart, Tas), Sat 24 Dec 1921 (p.12):

Book review: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23494238?searchTerm

Sunday Times (Perth, WA), Sun 1 Jan 1922 (p.12):

In “Westralian Cavalry in the War,” published recently, …………

Review by Gullett: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57981394?searchTerm

Cheers, Frev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Frev, I stand corrected, 1921 would appear to be the publishing date. I had searched for the earliest publication date for Lt Col Olden's book with the first reference being the 1919 date.

Since you would appear to be the Trove Guru, what references can you find of the Charge at the Nek between August and December 1915. I have found the two Argus articles of 8th October and 28th September, but I know there are more.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 241 of Australia in arms

" It fell to the 8th and 10th Light Horse Regiments to storm these enemy redoubts. They were to charge at 4.30 in the morning — the morning after the bloody battle of Lone Pine, after, as I heard Colonel Antill,Brigade-Major of that Light Horse Brigade, say, we had gone along the whole of our battle front " ringing a bell." Then, when that had tolled and sounded, were the Light Horse to face their certain death. The story is simply told. It is very brief. The attack was to be made in four lines. The 8th Light Horse (Victorians) were to supply the first two lines, 150 men in each. Besides scaling ladders that had been specially made to enable men to get into the trenches, these Light Horse- men each carried two empty sandbags. They had food supplies, and plenty of ammunition. But they were not to fire a shot. They had to do their work with the cold steel of the bayonet. Following them was a third line of 150 men of the l0th Regiment, and yet another line — the last — ready with picks and shovels and bombs — any quantity of bombs — and reserves of water and ammunition. They were to help to make good the trenches when they were won.

Against the sandbags of our lines thumped the bullets as the Turkish machine guns traversed from end to end of the short line. A hard purring and the whistle of bullets, then a few minutes' pause. Still the bombardment continued furiously, smashing, it was thought, the Turkish trenches to atoms. But while the communication-ways were blocked and heavy casualties were inflicted, the front Turkish trenches remained practically unharmed. In three lines of trenches, their bayonets fixed, standing one above the other to get better shooting, resting on steps or sitting on the parados of the trenches, the Turks waited the coming of the Light Horsemen. The trenches were smothered in a yellow smoke and dust from the bursting lyddite from the ships, that almost obscured from our view the enemy's position. It was a bombardment the intensity of which had never been seen yet on Gallipoli ; the hill was plastered with awful death -dealing shells. Just at 4.25 the bombardment slackened significantly. Immediately there began to pour a sheet of lead from the Turkish trenches. Musketry and machine guns fired incessantly. Could anything live for a minute in it ? At the end of three minutes our guns ceased.

Lieut. -Colonel A. White elected to lead the men he loved. He made a brief farewell to his brother officers. He shook them by the hand and went into the firing-line., He stood waiting with his watch in hand. " Men," he said, " you have ten minutes to live." And those Light Horsemen of his regiment, recruited from the heart of Victoria, knew what he said was true. They waited, listening to the terrible deluge that rained against the parapets of their trenches. " Three minutes, men," and the word came down from the far end of the line, did the order still hold good ? It was a sergeant who sent it, and by the time he had received the reply passed back along the waiting line, the whistle for the charge sounded. With an oath, " him ! " he leaped to the parapet of the trench ; he fell back on his comrade waiting below him — dead.
"

Does anyone know what the logs/diaries of the ships involved in the bombardment say about this episode?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Graham Wilson quoted from the ships log for HMS Endymion and the two destroyers Chelmer and Colne. All three logs confirmed that the ships opened fire on the Nek at 4 am, but only the log of the cruiser Endymion gives the cessation of fire to be 4.30 am.

I have not sighted any of these ships logs, so can only relate the above information as the word of Graham Wilson, until such time as some other person can confirm or refute that as factual.

Wilson makes a great deal of the variance in the writings of C.E.W. Bean from August 1915 up until the publication of volume II of the official history in 1924, that draw attention to there being no time delay between the cessation of the bombardment and the charge of the 8th Light Horse in early reports, and the seven minute delay in the later writing. To attempt to prove this point he draws upon the regimental reports, statements of the surviving commanding officers, three accounts by 8th LH Troopers, the published regimental histories and the writing of Charles Bean himself. Wilson then goes on to raise the issue of press reports, quote: "What about press reports, unfortunately we have to rely entirely, strictly on Charlie Bean here because he was the Australian official correspondent, and it was his dispatches that were published in Australian newspapers." end quote.

All of that can, and does, form a reasonable argument to support his claim, that is until he made the following statement, quote: "It would seem, or it seems to me anyway, that until 1924 when volume II of the official history was first published, the supposed well known fact that there was a deadly seven minute delay between the lifting of the artillery barrage and the launching of the first assault wave at the Nek, was not only well known, but doesn't seem to have been known at all." end quote.

An interesting statement that! Apparently Wilson has not read widely enough to know that there were press articles published by other journalists that covered the charge at the Nek at around the same time as Charles Bean's articles. As to there being no knowledge of a time delay between the lifting of the artillery bombardment and the charge before 1924, the article published by the Melbourne ARGUS special correspondent, Charles Patrick Smith, 8th October, 1915, would dispute that, quote: "But the Turks had proved themselves cunning trench fighters and when 25 minutes past 4 the bombardment ceased with a suddenness that left the ear in suspense." end quote.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...