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

[Auimfo]

Thanks for that Jeff and Mike. So both 'The Age' special correspondent, Philip Schuler, who first published 'Australia In Arms' in 1916, and the 'Argus' special correspondent Charles Smith in 1915, also suggest there was a delay of anything between 2-5 minutes. This is well before CEW Bean published anything about it and therefore certainly questions Wilson's 'blame Bean' theory and also his assertion that it "doesn't seem to have been known at all" prior to 1924.

In addition, I found an article in Perth's 'Daily News' dated 5th Feb 1916. It is a part of a series of personal accounts purportedly written by an officer of the 10th LH and sent to the paper. His description of the battle at The Nek makes for interesting reading. The full article is quite long and includes some excellent hand-drawn maps so here is the link: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/80890291?searchTerm=8th%20light%20horse%20nek&searchLimits=

I have taken an excerpt from this article to post here. It's the relevant part about the pre-attack bombardment.

Quite obviously, this officer was unimpressed by the artillery fire but of most interest is his suggestion that enquiries were made about the bombardment's effectiveness after it had ceased but prior to the attack. This would require a short pause before the LH assault. Admittedly, the officers who made the enquiry with Brigade HQ, Col. Noel Brazier and Maj. Love, were the commanders of the 10th and it could be argued that while they were questioning HQ, the 8th made it's assault. But it also says Brazier and Love were in the front lines with the 8th at the time the enquiry was made. Some people might also think the writer is referring to the appeal to HQ to halt the attack after the 8th had already been decimated, but the writer addresses that separately in the full article. The way I read it, the writer has distinguished two individual appeals to HQ. The first querying the completed artillery bombardment and then shortly afterwards, the pointlessness of continuing the attack. The first of these would account for a brief delay.

In reference to Lt. Robinson's 1924 memory of the delay recounted in his letter to Bean, Wilson also made the aside, "There's your culprit" (or very similar - I couldn't be bothered to find it again) which I took to mean Robinson was the one who placed the idea in Bean's mind. But that is obviously quite wrong. As early as 1919, Bean had already made it publicly known he believed there was a delay, accounts of which were posted in quite a number of newspapers. For example:

16th Aug 1919

So what we now have is three newspaper correspondents; Smith (1915), Schuler (1916) and Bean (1919), and three officers; the unknown 10th LHman (1916), Robinson (1924) and Hughes (1924), all suggesting in some fashion or another, that a delay of sorts occurred - all made before the official history was published. Wilson on the other hand only provides us with quotes from sources that do not directly deny a delay but simply don't mention it either way and expects listeners to accept it as tangible proof that a delay never occurred.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Jeff Pickerd]

Thanks Tim,

We can now stand Frev down with searching Trove for articles, she seems to have gone awol anyway. You have given ample evidence to now dispatch the rhetoric of Graham Wilson to the realm of hyperbole, and made a complete nonsense of his, "doesn't seem to be known at all" conclusion.

I am now somewhat annoyed at having mentioned the NLA Trove, it seems that you have stumbled across the iconic account of the charge at the Nek, something I was hoping to keep under wraps for future use. Now that you have brought the remarkable description to light I had better reveal who the 10th Light Horse Regiment officer was, before the likes of Wilson attribute the article to some other.

This was the fifth narrative published on the recollections of Lieutenant Thomas Anderson Kidd, officer commanding "B" Troop, "B" Squadron, 10th LH, a survivor of the third line of the charge. The reason his account of the charge, and included forming up diagram and adaption of Trench diagram No. 1, are of importance, lies with the fact that Lt Tom Kidd had been appointed the Brigade Intelligence officer prior to the charge. If anyone was competent to comment upon what actually happened that morning, it was Tom Kidd.

Jeff

[Auimfo]

Sorry for letting the cat out of the bag Jeff But don't blame yourself for suggesting Trove - I'd already been hunting there and found Kidd's account before you mentioned it.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[gilly100]

Nice work Tim and Jeff. An interesting account which adds a little more to The Nek story. From everything I found and used from Tom Kidd for our 10LH book, I did find a few inaccuracies which I mentioned in the chapter notes somewhere, although, as Jeff says, as an intelligence officer in August he was well informed on the impending ops. His original diary was lost or stolen and when back in Egypt he re wrote a lot of his recollections. This of course after enduring 3 charges at Gallipoli - Quinn's Post, The Nek and Hill 60! I note in this Daily News account he mentions the 4th line going out and fails to mention some of the troops not getting into position in time to go. He also failed to mention in this account, one troop in the third line not advancing as he had recorded previously, perhaps for the benefit of the readers of the paper back in WA.

I still find Tom Kidd's information compelling, hence why we used so much of it. Of course I am at a loss as to why he had Throssell over on the left after part of the 4th line went out, when his earlier troop layout diagram had him 3rd line extreme right, which is where I placed Throssell in our account. I am only too happy to have anything corrected as any author should, but getting back to the original thread, Wilson still remains far short in the realms of 'depth of research'.

I feel now his talk has been appropriately dealt with. Is there any more that needs to be said, aside from a decent response from Graham Wilson? Nice to turn a negative into a positive by learning some new things from all these posts. Thanks All.

Ian

[gilly100]

HI All

I have had a response from Graham Wilson, and it appears that he seems to expect for his theory to be proven wrong, although I thought it should be the other way around, given he is challenging the generally accepted version of events. He has not yet addressed his comments about the alleged witness we allegedly quoted in our book, although I have made him aware of it word for word.

Having gone through Peter Burness's book on The Nek (more recent version) I have noticed numerous references from Tom Austin. This of course is where William McGrath comes in as having part or majority written the unofficial 8LH manuscript that the AWM credits to Austin. It can only be that, and I am sure Jeff Pickerd may wish to add to this. McGrath WAS at The Nek in a quartermaster's carrying party according to Cameron Simpson's bio on McGrath in Maygar's Boys.

I thoroughly rate Burness's work, as I do Tim Travers' book. The latter covers the Nek events quite well. I hope Graham has these books in his collection. Plenty of references to look up.

Graham Wilson invited me to put up his email response to me here on this forum, although I decline as it is not my job to do his work. Happy to be corrected anytime, but it is Graham that must put up the conclusive evidence.

On to the next myth!

Cheers

Ian

[Bryn]

Right, Ian.

The biggest myth is that if you take something that's already accepted because it's based on firm evidence, and challenge it, others now have to prove you wrong.

As you say, the onus is directly on a challenger to prove his or her conjecture. It's not my job, or anyone else's, to 'disprove' what is, after all, their theory. If they can't make a strong enough case for their own view of events, then it remains conjecture. Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong either, but equally, it's not automatically right just because it's been proposed.

[gilly100]

The biggest myth I grew up with regarding Gallipoli was that it was the Aussies and NZ'ers that did everything, the Brits on the beach drinking tea, and the French, well were they even there?

Now THAT IS a myth and numerous good authors in more recent times have given well rounded accounts on the campaign that I think more Australians should read.I am glad I did.

That is the best myth de bunked I can think of and rightly so. As for the one above and only my opinion - just for arguments sake the men went out straight after the guns ceasing and moving to other targets, I do not believe for one second the assault would have carried. The immediate right was not secured and nor was the left.

Cheers

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Mate, I think the biggest Myth from this action was the often repeated coment that the 3rd LH Bde was sent to its death while the British were sipping tea on the beach (as you mention). and that the attack by the 3rd LH Bde was to suport the British landing.

IN no order pre attack on the 7th Aug was there any mention of this attack being to suport the British landing, all orders refer to suporting the NZ attack.

In fact the failure of the NZ attack was the main reason for the failure of the 3rd LH Bde's attack.

By 0430 it was known that the NZ attack had failed but the LH were still sent over the top, to assit the NZ attack, no mention was ever made about the British landings?

Yet we still see mention about suporting the British, ever the movie mentions this?

Thats my 2 cents worth.

S.B

[gilly100]

Thanks Steve, don't disagree. I think my 2 cent coins on this thread are just about all used up too.

Cheers

Ian

[judy7007]

Right, Ian.

The biggest myth is that if you take something that's already accepted because it's based on firm evidence, and challenge it, others now have to prove you wrong.

As you say, the onus is directly on a challenger to prove his or her conjecture. It's not my job, or anyone else's, to 'disprove' what is, after all, their theory. If they can't make a strong enough case for their own view of events, then it remains conjecture. Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong either, but equally, it's not automatically right just because it's been proposed.

It's proving a good way to make a living and get publicity - pleased that Ian didn't post the email response he received. There will be another myth along soon.

[gilly100]

Oh groan! growing weary of all this. Does it really have to be about making a buck? I am not sure that is what this particular issue is all about, but it IS all about providing a highly credible alternative, without us all running around doing the work! The fact I have not had a direct response to the original query says it all, in my humble opinion. Fine to challenge, but for goodness sake, if you are gonna have a shot across the bows, back the bl...y thing up or at least quote the right book!

Good night, a cold beer is calling.

Cheers

Ian ( amateur, idiot, moron and sometimes keyboard warrior)

[Auimfo]

Without having seen the response from Wilson, the description sounds so very typical of his ilk. His belief is gospel no matter the complete lack of research and evidence - and no one is permitted to question it. Rather a self-inflated opinion of himself it seems. I'm so glad I never wasted my money and forked out for any of his books.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[gilly100]

I have just heard from Graham again and he has admitted he got that part of his talk wrong. I have responded and now the sleeping dog can lie. Doesn't detract from my thoughts on the issue, but at least an admission, and that is good enough for this bloke. Gee whizz, I know a couple of blues I DID make and that wasn't picked. I will post them shortly for those that might be interested, perhaps on this thread if that suits.

Again. Thanks everyone for the input. The cold Bintangs last night soothed the damaged ego (terrible thing that - ego)

Cheers

Ian

[judy7007]

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!!.........

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.

Very well put. He actually says in the talk that he has a bit of reputation as a sceptic and that he receives emails and letters asking him to write about such and such a myth and he doesn't mind as long as the royalties keep coming in. I only listened to (half) his talk as having read as much as I could of Dust Donkeys and Delusions I just wanted to try and form a mental picture of him. Thank you for your excellent input here and elsewhere.

Judy

[Neil Mackenzie]

Guys - I am going to close this thread. I think it has reached a natural conclusion and anything further is unlikely to be productive.

Neil

28/October - changed my mind!

[Peter Bennett]

Without having seen the response from Wilson, the description sounds so very typical of his ilk. His belief is gospel no matter the complete lack of research and evidence - and no one is permitted to question it. Rather a self-inflated opinion of himself it seems. I'm so glad I never wasted my money and forked out for any of his books.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Having studied all the responses on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Wilson is a FIGJAM

[gilly100]

I would be most pleased to hear from Graham on this forum, although, of course he is not obliged. Been rather wonderful trundling back onto Hill 60 anyways!!! Managed to get another page done!

Cheers

Ian

[Auimfo]

Somehow I doubt we'll see him here although I too would like to hear his response.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Jeff Pickerd]

Back at post No. 30 Ian Gill put forward the following: "Having gone through Peter Burness's book on The Nek (more recent version) I have noticed numerous references from Tom Austin. This of course is where William McGrath comes in as having part or majority written the unofficial 8LH manuscript that the AWM credits to Austin. It can only be that, and I am sure Jeff Pickerd may wish to add to this. McGrath WAS at The Nek in a quartermaster's carrying party according to Cameron Simpson's bio on McGrath in Maygar's Boys."

I can see no evidence of this history being the one quoted by Wilson, the Nek narrative starts at page 29, the charge covered from 29c (1).

I shall give the evidence to the 8th Light Horse Regiment history actually being the work of Major William "Lauchie" McGrath MC, but before doing so I would again turn to the quote from Graham Wilson's lecture: "The 8th Light Horse history published in 1924, the same year that Volume II of the Official History was published. Page 15 of this history tells us that at 4.30 am 7th August the Navy opened a violent bombardment of the enemy trenches immediately to our 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"

A search of the known histories of the regiment, three and one biographical history, and other books that deal with the charge at The Nek, including the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914 - 18, Vol II, by C.E.W. Bean, reveal that none have the above quote verbatim, nor any reference to the charge at The Nek at page 15. The majority of publications that cover the charge do not give a description of the action until to well beyond the middle of the narrative. I am still at a loss as to just what the 1924 published history of the regiment quoted by Wilson is, for I know of no such work!

Towards the end of 1918 while still on active service with the 8th Light Horse Regiment the then Captain William "Lauchie" McGrath MC began to write up the regimental history drawing upon the war diaries and reminiscences of fellow officers and men. The hand written journal was typed up by Army around 1924 with a copy eventually going to the War Memorial. A copy, plus his journal, being returned to Major McGrath. How the copy forwarded by Captain T. S. Austin to the AWM came to being is still unknown. It is possible that Tom Austin forwarded it on behalf of the 8th Light Horse (A.I.F.) Regimental Association, being the President, he was also the last Adjutant of the regiment in 1919. Austin never made any claim to actually writing the history, only submitting it.

On the other hand there is overwhelming evidence to McGrath writing it, his hand written journal survives, his typed copy is signed by him and was lodged with the 8th/13th Light Horse Regiment Museum. On the 1st September 1935, Volume 1 No.1 of The Official Organ of the 8th Light Horse (A.I.F.) Regimental Association, MORE MAJORUM, published the first instalment of - "A Narrative of the 8th Light Horse Regiment, A.I.F., by Major W. McGrath MC. The front page of this journal has printed the message :-

GENTLEMEN OF THE LIGHT HORSE.

The object in publishing "More Majorum" is to provide a means whereby members may be kept informed of the activities of the Association and of the present serving Regiment, and furnish a medium through which historical facts may be disseminated.

I feel sure that members will hail with delight Lauchie McGrath's narrative and will approve the idea of publishing a printed list of subscribing members and their addresses. I want you to feel that this is your magazine, and to send along any copy which you think will be of interest to readers.

Look forward to seeing you at Anzac House on Wednesday of Show Week.

I am,

Yours fraternally,

Reg Lampshire

President.

The instalments of the history went on up to the last known copy of the journal, No.13 September 1950, thirteenth instalment, "Beersheba".

There is a very important aspect to the above message to members; that being "the printed list of subscribing members". For one we have T.S. Austin (if he wrote the history seems unlikely that McGrath could claim authorship) Others of importance to the story of the charge at The Nek, Colonel A. Crawford, OC "C" Troop, "A" Sqdn, second line of the charge, Colonel A. V. Deeble, CO "C" Sqdn, OC second line of the charge, Regiment CO after the charge. Around twenty other surviving members of the regiment who participated in the charge, more than enough to challenge if the work was not the hand of McGrath.

The most compelling evidence lies with Volume 1 of the 8th Light Horse Regiment War Diary, this being quoted extensively within the narrative from the regiment formation in September 1914. The AWM do not hold this diary, it lies in the possession of McGrath's descendants.

The AWM Austin version of the History is identical to the McGrath typed version, the only difference being that McGrath has signed his copy. The photograph that accompanies the AWM typed copy, alleged to be that of Tom Austin is actually that of Lauchie McGrath (with MC ribbon).

Way back on this forum under the topic of 'The Nek' Kim Winter posted a number of the original McGrath documents, hopefully they are still available to be viewed.

Jeff

[Auimfo]

Thanks Jeff. Your evidence almost beyond all doubt confirms McGrath to be the writer of the Regiment history and not Tom Austin who has obviously just donated his copy to the AWM. Again, Wilson has ignored the weight of evidence on this point (or to be fair has perhaps not really looked and just relied upon the AWM record) and simply attributed the written account to Austin who was in Malta at the time of the battle.....meaning he can discredit it which suits his point of view.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[gilly100]

Yes and thanks Jeff

I referred to Burness' book regarding Tom Austin references, as one email from Graham Wilson alluded to the fact he may have been referring to his book and not ours. It means little at the end of the day as we all know the truth anyways. Appreciate the full yarn on McGrath though. Perhaps the AWM could be enlightened?

No response to this thread is perhaps response enough me thinks!!! Nuff said

Ian

[Guest]

Jeff - A very nice piece of detective work. Have you by chance informed the AWM of the error in attribution? MG

[Jeff Pickerd]

Tim, Ian & Martin,

Apologies for not addressing your questions before this, but I have had little time until now. With regard to advising the AWM of the McGrath documents, they had been advised as early as late 2004, but I will need to go into that in far greater detail, at a later date, to explain the circumstances and the reaction of other authors, it is an interesting story. No time this evening.

Jeff

[Jeff Pickerd]

It has taken some time to go back over all the relevant material to make further comment, so at the risk of going on & on about the authorship of the 8th Light Horse Regimental history, it is a subject that has occupied my mind for nigh on fourteen years, and is a pertinent issue to the subject of this topic.

I was by no means the first person to recognize or suspect that Major William “Lauchie” McGrath MC was the true author of the 8th Light Horse Regiment history, the archival documentary evidence dating back to the 1930’s reveals that the men of the 8th Light Horse Association were well aware of that fact. Lt Col Doug Hunter, trustee of the VMR Museum, having met Major McGrath was also one who knew the truth. Author Carl Johnson was another who had come to that conclusion, as to, Cameron Simpson.

About mid 1999 I responded to an advertisement placed in the RSL Victorian journal “Mufti” placed by the author Carl Johnson seeking assistance with research on the 5th Infantry Battalion A.I.F. From this contact with Carl I became aware of his interest in the 8th Light Horse Regiment and was for the first time introduced to the typed manuscript of the units’ history by McGrath, sourced from the 8th/13th VMR Museum, Bandiana, and then further enlightened to the existence of the Regimental journal “More Majorum”. It then transpired that the book published by Cameron Simpson in 1998, “Maygar’s Boys - A Biographical History of the 8th Light Horse Regiment AIF 1914-18”, had drawn heavily upon the photographic collection and documents of Carl Johnson, and by extension, the work of Major McGrath. Cameron was privy to the 8th/13th VMR Museum McGrath typed and signed narrative. At that time “Maygar’s Boys” was probably the first unit biographical history to be published in Australia, and still to this day ranks as one of the most outstanding unit reference works, a remarkable achievement by Cameron Simpson considering the depth of research needed to be undertaken back then in reviewing all the service records of every man who passed through the regiment, each record needing to be physically sighted.

It is still somewhat unclear as to just when the typed manuscript of the regiments history recorded as being the work of Captain T. S. Austin was forwarded to the Australian War Museum (Official Record Series. AWM 224. MSS 35. 8th Aust. Light Horse Regiment, History, by Capt T. S. Austin) operating from the Victoria Barracks and the Exhibition Building, Melbourne, Victoria. In correspondence with the AWM records, from memory around 2002, I was informed that the Captain Austin narrative had been forwarded to the Australian War Museum and War Library in 1919 by Captain Tom Austin and had been typed up by the Defence Department. The author Max Emery states that his copy of the AWM Captain T. S. Austin history is dated 9th October 1919, and signed by Austin, my AWM photocopy bears no such date or signature. On the 11th April 1918 the Minister for Defence announced the beginning of the collection for histories, articles, journals and diaries for the War Library, so the 1919 date of the 8th history being forwarded would seem plausible if it were not for the fact that McGrath was still receiving information for the history as late as the 2nd February 1920, as evidenced by the letter sent to him by the brother of Lt Col Archibald McLaurin, CO 8th ALH, 1918, where he wishes McGrath the best of luck with compiling the regiments history. McGrath In his opening address to the first instalment of, “A Narrative of the 8th Light Horse Regiment, A.I.F. (by Major W. McGrath M.C.) MORE MAJORUM 1st September 1935, McGrath states: “I have been asked on hundreds of occasions to write up my memories of the 8th Light Horse Regiment. It may be a surprise to many that a very complete and official narrative of this famous unit was written by me during the time the Regiment was stationed in Egypt in 1918, and whilst doing patrol duty subsequent to the Egyptian disturbance.” If Lauchie McGrath had actually finalized the history by the end of 1918 whilst still on active service, and that document was lodged with the Australian War Museum in Melbourne by Captain Tom Austin, as the Regiments last Adjutant, on the stated 9th October 1919, that would go a long way to explaining how Captain Austin’s name appears on the document as the author. McGrath gave the 8th/13th VMR Museum their copy of the history and other 8th LHR items sometime after 1965.

From here the two identical histories seem to have lain dormant until the publication of McGrath’s history in “More Majorum” on the 1st September 1935, albeit to a very limited reader base. It would also appear that Capt Tom Austin was unaware that the transcript of the history he had forwarded to the Australian War Museum had been accredited to him as the author. As the Association President for many years and active member up until his death in 1961he had made no statement or retraction to being named as the histories author. On the 8th January 1965 the secretary of the 8th Light Horse Association, John Kirk, wrote to McGrath, and from this note two sentences are pertinent: “Received your budget of the history of the 8th L.H., and return herewith a copy of each of the histories.” The second: “I was surprised at your age, you are one of the old Soldiers who never die, your history will live on as a memorial.”, and indeed it should! Another interesting aspect of the acquisition of the 8th LH history by the Australian War Museum and War Library from what could possibly be at least the end of 1919 is the fact that neither Dr C. E. W. Bean or H. S. Gullett reference the work in their respective editions of the Official History, nor acknowledge Major W. McGrath or Captain T. S. Austin in either of the histories index. This more than substantiates that there was no connection between the writing of Charles Bean and the 8th LHR history with regard to the ‘missing seven minutes’.

As mentioned, “Maygar’s Boys” was the first fully published work on the regiment that drew upon the McGrath history back in 1998, and has largely remained so. All other authors who have quoted from the history, reference the work as the ‘Captain Tom Austin history’, (Official Record Series. AWM 224. MSS 35. 8th Aust. Light Horse Regiment, History, by Capt T. S. Austin), and these range from the 1995, “THE NEK The Tragic Charge of the Light Horse at Gallipoli”, by Peter Burness. My good friend John Hamilton’s book, “Goodbye Cobber, God Bless you” published back in September 2004, and the work of Ian Gill in “Gallipoli to Tripoli, History of the 10th Light Horse Regiment AIF 1914 - 1919”, published 2011, along with numerous other works that referenced the charge at the Nek. The only published regimental history, “They Rode Into History, The Story of the 8th Light Horse Regiment, Australian Imperial Force, 1914 – 1919”, published in 2009 by Max Emery has extensively drawn upon the history, although Emery does make the following caveat: “It has to be stated here that Tom Austin’s unpublished history is a controversial document in that it is not quite clear who actually wrote it. Some seem to think that it was written by the unit Adjutant just prior to Austin, Major W L McGrath. However the document held by the AWM bears the date of 9th October 1919.” Such is reasonable and ethically correct, as that is the AWM document they are working from, but the problem lies with using the history as a means of quotes by Tom Austin for the charge at the Nek, they were not his words, nor could he have voiced an appreciation of what took place that morning, because he was not there! To be fair, all of the above authors do cite me as advocating the history as being the work of Major William “Lauchie” McGrath.

To my astonishment and absolute joy the final confirmation to the history being indeed the work of Lauchie McGrath came on the Australian Light Horse Forum on the 3rd December 2004 under the following topic: -

8th L H Lt W McGrath

________________________________________

Kim

Advanced Forum Member

Australia

481 Posts Posted - 03/12/2004 : 7:56:34 PM

I have been lucky enough to have been given the loan of original documents of Lt William McGrath who rose from Trooper in Sept'14 to 1st Lt in March '16. The work contains meticulous records including an alphabetically entered almanac of his own handwriting listing everything an officer needed to know, including what I believe is a list of officers he served with their enlistment details, their awards, some even the schools they attended. There is a very fragile page headed "Extracts from a diary found on a dead Turkish officer (Commanding 1st Battalion 33rd Reg.)" 27.4.15 -30.4.15

A war diary with entries for Anzac, Walkers Top, The Nek including some lists of dead and wounded and missing. This diary has entries until 22.12.16

a Musketry Regulations Book 1910 reprinted with ammendments to 31st Oct 1914, a 1916 Field Almanac, a Guard and sentry duties book, 1913, a field message book with assorted entries.

A Narative of the 8th Liht Horse that records from Broadmeadows camp till after Damascus.

Copies of More Majorum, The Official organ of the 8th Light Horse (AIF) Regimental Association '35, '36, '40.

Political and Economic Intelligence Summaries dated several dates in 1918.

A book which appears to have been written at an officer’s school where he has written all that was taught along with drawings of weapons etc. along with the lecturer's name. Including Bombs, Tents, fodder, transport, new establishment, cavalry school lecture, points for disciplinary procedure, officers guard procedure, courts of inquiry and forms of orders.

I have advised the owner of these works that the works should be transcribed and the originals be treated with great care. She has however given permission that I can use these materials to answer any particular questions that researchers may have from these works.

I have very quickly skimmed through and will need time to fully digest all the material but can try to answer questions.

Kim

Jeff Pickerd

Advanced Forum Member

Australia

374 Posts Posted - 04/12/2004 : 12:22:16 AM

Kim

This is wonderful news. I have sent you an Email with regard to this material.

As I have outlined to you, I believe that Major William "Lauchie" McGrath was the true author of the unofficial history of the 8th Light Horse Regiment. This is the history that is held by the AWM and attributed to Major Tom Austin, who forwarded the narrative on behalf of the 8th LHR in 1919, while serving as the Regiments Adjutant.

The information held in his diary from Gallipoli would be of great interest. As RQMS at the Charge of the Nek, he was in charge of the 30 odd men who made up the carrying party that were to go over as soon as the Turkish positions had been taken. His account of the charge would be that of an eye witness, not actually taking part in the charge itself, and may shed some very important information as to what transpired that morning.

Please thank the lady for making this most important material available for our research, a truly wonderful surprise.

Regards, Jeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon eventually having the privilege to see the vast collection, the documentation it contains proves beyond doubt that the 8th Light Horse Regimental history is the hand of Major McGrath.

As to the AWM, the collections section was advised of the collection within a few months of the announcement of its existence, (Dec 2004) the response was muted to say the least, at which the family decided that the collection would remain with the family. The AWM also indicated that as the units’ history had been attributed to Captain T. S. Austin, as archivists that could not be changed even with conceding that the evidence submitted to substantiate McGrath as the true author had great merit.

Jeff

[gilly100]

Thanks Jeff for your exhaustive response on the unpublished history by McGrath and the copy in AWM as credited to Austin by the AWM.

Having perused our book Gallipoli to Tripoli on 10LH I would make the following point.

In chapter note 9 of our first chapter I wrote verbatim the following - " 8th LH Regt War Diary, (unofficial) by Maj W 'Lauchie' McGrath (unofficial and credited to Maj T Austin by the AWM), courtesy of Mr Jeff Pickerd. Many historians are of the belief that McGrath was the principal diarist, despite Austin's name appearing on the document."

In the Bibliography of our book under 'private papers, diaries and letters' I have only this reference to encapsulate any quotes from 8th LH related stuff (aside from the original official 8th LH war diary AWM4 and reference to McGrath's unofficial war diary in primary sources) - Various diaries, papers and letters of 8th Light Horse officers and men - courtesy of Jeff Pickerd.'

Neville in his part on the ME did not make use of the document in question. I have made it clear that it was the AWM who credits the document to Austin, while I have credited it to McGrath, based on your assistance with our work.

It is probably time the AWM reviewed this situation.

Ian