Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

gilly100

Albert Facey 11Bn AIF

Recommended Posts

gilly100

Your interpretation Tim. I noted a wrist wound and a wound to his thigh. I also noted that 25 April date as from 11Bn records. There for all to see.

What did you think of the description of Facey's alleged involvement in actually writing his book as described by one author as 3 small unintelligible note books, as opposed to what we have discovered via his family? It's a disgrace quite frankly. Facey deserves better than that. And used to prosecute a no mg argument. Good one eh? We both know service files were not always date accurate, whatever our opinions on this topic.

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo

Mate, you’re clutching at straws with that supposed wrist wound.  His statement of service says he received a GSW R Thigh on 11/5 but strangely hospitalised two days later for a GSW Wrist (usually they’d note L or R).  Seems a bit odd until you look at the way his wound has been recorded on the B103 where it becomes obvious that whoever was transcribing misread the way ‘GSW Right’ was typed and they’ve seen it as ‘G S WRist’.

 

But if you need further confirmation, check the hospital admission reports.  He was admitted for a GSW R Thigh but not a mention of a wrist wound anywhere.

 

As I said earlier, there’s no record in this file that states STEEVE received a particular wound on 25/4 and another on 11/5.  That’s because he only received one - to the right thigh on 11/5. 

 

I have no problem with Facey regardless.  Yes, I’ve always felt he used some poetic licence throughout the book (not just with the Gallipoli landing) but expect that from most autobiographers.  We all like to talk ourselves up a bit 😁.  Although I found the ‘how good am i’ theme throughout the book annoying when I read it, I never considered him to be a liar or a fake for doing it and still believe the story goes a long way to describing life in Australia in those times.

 

Cheers,

Tim.

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Well I dunno Tim. It's all there in black and white as far as I can see on several pages. Speculate, explain away, whatever. 25 April is written and attributed to 11Bn records from what i can see. I have looked at tons of these. Some conflict. Others have incorrect dates of death. Others have correct dates of death where CWGC dates of death are wrong in the odd instance. Some have conflicting sickness dates. The list goes on.

I think Facey was there on 25 April. A lot of original 11Bn boys got put back into Reos just days before the Landing and this is when 2nd and 3rd Reos made up the Landing numbers, including ones that ended up with the TOS date 7 May annotated in their service file.

I would be interested if anyone has researched to this depth on the other 3rd Brigade units and if this occurred with them. I bet it did but buggered if I'm going to do it!

Cheers

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo

Ok let’s just say that I’m finding a way to speculate that Steeve wasn’t at the landing.   Let’s even assume that his record confirms he was there.  If you do the same and don’t speculate about the records to find a way to say others were there, how many of the 3rd Reos do the records confirm landed on 25/4?   I believe just the one - Steeve.

 

You can’t use the excuse that the records were regularly inaccurate to support your claim that any number of the 3rd Reos landed but then criticise me for using the same tactic to claim that just one man likely wasn’t.   

 

There is just not one single shred of supportable evidence to your theory that Facey landed on 25/4.  And up until now you haven’t been able to address the question why not a single 3rd Reo was wounded or died prior to 7/5. (Excepting Steeve who is questionable at best).  Let’s face it, if a number of them were there between 25/4 and 7/5, the likelihood of none being even wounded is so minuscule we might as well call it impossible.

 

Nope. Facey and Steeve landed with the other 3rd Reos on 7/5 and despite both our efforts to trawl the records, we’ve located nothing anywhere that can change that fact.  

 

Cheers,

Tim.

 

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Pfft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo

Personally, it makes no difference to me whether Facey was or wasn’t at the landing, making me completely objective to the outcome of this debate.  I’d be just as happy for it to be proved that he was there.   Nor do I think the result particularly detracts from his book - it’s one man’s autobiography with some poetic licence, not an encyclopaedia of gospel truth.

 

Maybe that’s because I’m not currently participating in a discussion about the way A Fortunate Life has been used by other writers nor hold an opinion in that same debate using Facey’s accuracy as supporting evidence.  😎

Cheers,

Tim.

 

 

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Well I certainly enjoyed meeting the Facey family and getting to the bottom of Albert's true role and depth of participation in writing his book and totally smashing the rubbish that was put up by others. Piss poor judgement denigrating his writing efforts without due research diligence. Bloody well enjoyed reading his book and researching the foibles of interpreting WW1 personnel files. 

A lot more on 25 April Landing at Anzac yet to be written, both naval and military.

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryn

Gilly,

I've long noted in my own research that the 11Bn had possibly the worst record-keeping regarding dates of death etc. of any Australian unit at the Landing. 35 soldiers are recorded as having been killed on 2 May, when the battalion was not engaged in any fighting. Almost all, if not all, of these were certainly killed between 25 and 28-29 April, with evidence for many. 

My point being that anyone who blindly trusts an 11Bn document at the time of landing at Gallipoli...

Regards 

Bryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Hello Bryn 

All the best for 2019. Looking forward to carrying on uncovering more info on the Landing. Still plenty not written yet! On 11Bn records in some instances being sparse over the first week. I am not surprised. That's why we look up the mens accounts,  and we know what they say!

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo

Happy New Year chaps. 🍾

As I’ve said, show me a few 3rd Reinforcements who were confirmed to be either wounded or killed prior to 7/5 and you might sway me a bit.  But there are none.  This is not just an anomaly nor due to suspect records - not one of them is wounded prior to that date.  Trying to prove something by blaming faulty records for not showing any evidence whatsoever isn’t what I’d call the basis for a winning argument.  

Tim.

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevebecker

Mates,

 

Sorry to digress, but this reminds me of our discussioned on the LH Assoc webb site about the Idress account of the Battle of Beersheba.

 

There he goes into the charge of the 4 LH Bde and gives the impression he was there to see it?

 

While his Regt (and Bde) was covering the Nablus road, well away from the charge area, and could never have seen the charge?

 

While Idress was at that battle, unlike Facey who can not show he was at the landing, other then an fictional account in his book?

 

It appears some writers like to place themselves in some actions, to add more to the story, while facey surly does not need to do that with nthe life he had.

 

S.B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryn

The FACT remains that 11Bn records were faulty yet CWGC dates of death, for one, are still based on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madmeg
On 01/01/2019 at 00:19, Bryn said:

Gilly,

I've long noted in my own research that the 11Bn had possibly the worst record-keeping regarding dates of death etc. of any Australian unit at the Landing. 35 soldiers are recorded as having been killed on 2 May, when the battalion was not engaged in any fighting. Almost all, if not all, of these were certainly killed between 25 and 28-29 April, with evidence for many. 

My point being that anyone who blindly trusts an 11Bn document at the time of landing at Gallipoli...

Regards 

Bryn

My reading of the records in the war diary are that there is a gap between the 1/5 and 4/5 - nothing for the 2nd that I can see!

Reinforcements are noted on the 15th May- unless we are looking at different War diaries ?

Hardly surprising if the record keeping was not wonderful - it is obviously very clear that they were under almost continuous fire and haemorraging soldiers- the 1st of March shows embarkation of 23 officers and 898 OR, the 1st of May "about" 450 men occupied the trenches.

The reports on the fighting look pretty detailed to me- confusion in the dates is understandable under the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo

I’m not saying there weren’t any inaccuracies in the records as there surely was.  But what I’m saying is that expecting to prove something by basing your theory on the fact that mass errors exist in records that would supposedly have otherwise proved your point, is rather a long bow to draw.  

Even allowing for considerable errors, I cannot accept that a number of 3rd Rein men arrived on Gallipoli at the landing and yet not a single one of them is recorded as either wounded or killed or even mentioned between that date and their official arrival date on 7/5/15.   Any argument trying to make that case is untenable and falls well short of any standard of proof.

Consequently I stand by my contention (supported by the records) that none of the 3rd Reinforcements were at the landing and Facey’s recounting of the event is based on what he heard about the event in the days following and has been used with a measure of poetic licence for his book.

 

Having just been doing some hunting around the records of 3rd reinforcements for both the 2nd and 13th Bns on another matter, I’ve discovered that these groups didn’t even leave Egypt until early May, only stopping at Lemnos for a couple of days before arriving at Gallipoli on the 7th.  There’s no way that any of these men could have been at the landing - they were still in Egypt!

 

Cheers,

Tim.

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Oh dear. Now 2nd and 13Bn? Really?

Find any bullshit artists there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryn

"But what I’m saying is that expecting to prove something by basing your theory on the fact that mass errors exist in records that would supposedly have otherwise proved your point, is rather a long bow to draw."

 

As is often the case, a simple statement of fact has been pounced on and claimed - by the respondent, NOT the poster of said fact - to be an attempt to prove something the respondent has a problem with. Nobody but you, Tim, has extrapolated the simple statement that 11Bn records were not very accurate into anything else. 

 

It's called adding information to a debate. It's something neither you nor many others did not know previously.

Edited by Bryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryn
On 07/01/2019 at 17:04, Madmeg said:

My reading of the records in the war diary are that there is a gap between the 1/5 and 4/5 - nothing for the 2nd that I can see!

Reinforcements are noted on the 15th May- unless we are looking at different War diaries ?

Hardly surprising if the record keeping was not wonderful - it is obviously very clear that they were under almost continuous fire and haemorraging soldiers- the 1st of March shows embarkation of 23 officers and 898 OR, the 1st of May "about" 450 men occupied the trenches.

The reports on the fighting look pretty detailed to me- confusion in the dates is understandable under the circumstances.

 

Nobody's saying that errors are not understandable. I, for example, am saying - *only* -  that they are inaccurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madmeg
32 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

Nobody's saying that errors are not understandable. I, for example, am saying - *only* -  that they are inaccurate. 

Fair enuff.

 Personally I don't care one way or the other- but it seems to me that the documents in the case do not support the memoirs presumably written some considerable time after the facts AND (from what is said above) at different time periods. 

I could see the service records missing off the odd thing and being out by a day or so but to say that he was sent home for medical reasons and entirely fail to note injuries seems highly improbable to me, not to mention the fact that given the huge attrition rate noted in the war diaries (fairly obviously written whenever there was enough of a lull in the firing to be able to catch up) does not affect the 3rd reinforcements is a big black mark against a man in the 3rd reinforcements having been at the initial landings. The memoirs are not a primary source, the war diaries and service records are.

"Believing" he was there is not the same as "proof" that he was there. Unless new primary evidence can show him there I'm agreeing with those that say he wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo
16 hours ago, gilly100 said:

Oh dear. Now 2nd and 13Bn? Really?

Find any bullshit artists there?

 

Actually Gilly, the research I was doing was for something else entirely but just happened to be about the movements of these Bn’s 3rd Reinforcements prior to arrival at Gallipoli.  The relevance only struck me when I happened to be reading some of the latest posts here and thought it’d be worth mentioning.  But of course if you’d rather I retract this fact because it may not suit your point of view, just let me know.  But then again, maybe you might find records of 3rd Rein men from these battalions actually landing on 25/4 which might help to support your belief.  

 

And let’s be fair, I’ve never referred to Facey as a bullshit artist.  I only ever suggested that like any number of other autobiographers, he’d simply used some poetic licence for his book.  If you want to put words into my mouth, at least be decent enough to put one’s I’ve actually used.

 

Cheers,

Tim.

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo
15 hours ago, Bryn said:

"But what I’m saying is that expecting to prove something by basing your theory on the fact that mass errors exist in records that would supposedly have otherwise proved your point, is rather a long bow to draw."

 

As is often the case, a simple statement of fact has been pounced on and claimed - by the respondent, NOT the poster of said fact - to be an attempt to prove something the respondent has a problem with. Nobody but you, Tim, has extrapolated the simple statement that 11Bn records were not very accurate into anything else. 

 

It's called adding information to a debate. It's something neither you nor many others did not know previously.

 

It seems you think my comment was solely directed to you and your recent post Bryn, but you’d be wrong.  I suggest you go back further and read through the previous posts to see that inaccurate records have been mentioned several times and relied upon, sometimes from both perspectives, as a reason to discount the facts they currently reflect.   It’s not something only just introduced to the debate by you that I’ve just POUNCED on and extrapolated.

 

So maybe you can offer me an explanation as to how not a single 3rd Rein is recorded as either wounded, missing or anything else between 25/4/15 - 7/515, if a number of them had supposedly landed on the first day?   No one else has really managed to address this highly unlikely occurrence.  

 

Do the facts I mentioned about the locations and movements of 3rd Reinforcement groups prior to their arrival at Gallipoli count as ‘adding information to a debate’?  It means that any decision to attach any of them to the main landing force must have been reached between late March when the 11th Bn, 3rd reinforcement arrived in Egypt on the Itonus and the 5th April when the main landing force left Egypt for Lemnos.  A considerably small window of time.

 

And yes, we’re all well aware that the records contain inaccuracies both considerable at times and minor at others.  But thanks for letting us know. 👍🏻

 

Cheers,

Tim.

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Poetic licence. Polite for bullshit artist me thinks. Totally agree to disagree moving forward. What say you on the description by one highly regarded author that Facey's input to his book was 3 unintelligible notebooks? Up to answering that? Poetic licence? Glad I went that extra yard and met Facey family .

Gilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteStarLine
On 06/01/2019 at 23:02, Auimfo said:

Happy New Year chaps. 🍾

As I’ve said, show me a few 3rd Reinforcements who were confirmed to be either wounded or killed prior to 7/5 and you might sway me a bit.  But there are none.  This is not just an anomaly nor due to suspect records - not one of them is wounded prior to that date.  Trying to prove something by blaming faulty records for not showing any evidence whatsoever isn’t what I’d call the basis for a winning argument.  

Tim.

 

Tim, thanks for sharing your detailed research from primary sources.  It is appreciated and is always a good, logical approach to prove / disprove a conjecture.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo
10 hours ago, gilly100 said:

Poetic licence. Polite for bullshit artist me thinks. Totally agree to disagree moving forward. What say you on the description by one highly regarded author that Facey's input to his book was 3 unintelligible notebooks? Up to answering that? Poetic licence? Glad I went that extra yard and met Facey family .

Gilly

 

Sorry Gilly but that’s your interpretation, not mine.  It’s true that I wasn’t a big fan of Facey’s book but I have continually said that I had no problems if he’d made a few embellishments to add colour to the story.  Whether or not he took part in the landing, at the very least he probably obtained the detail and descriptions first hand from participants a short time afterwards so I believe his telling of it is likely to be a reasonably accurate reflection from that perspective.  

 

As for the reference to Facey’s notebooks being ‘unintelligible’, I can’t fairly comment because I’ve never seen the originals.  I can only surmise that it may be a case of individual interpretation.  What one person viewed as unintelligible, someone else might find somewhat more understandable.  I’d be fascinated to see them regardless.  I note from your original post, the description of the three manuscripts.  From my understanding, they’re recollections rather than diaries written contemporary with the events and show the progression of his developing story - is this correct?

 

From my point of view, there are three key issues that need to be addressed before I could accept there my be some truth to this.....

1.  An explanation/evidence that 3rd Rein men were attached to the main landing force between late March when the reinforcement group first arrived in Egypt and when the main battalion landing force sailed from Egypt to Lemnos on 5th April (a period of about 1.5 weeks).  It’s important to note here that the 3rd Reins didn’t then leave Egypt until well after the landing.  

2. An explanation as to the unlikely occurrence that not a single 3rd Rein soldier is recorded or noted to be wounded/killed/ill or anything else at Gallipoli prior to 7/5/15 if you believe some of them were there.  

3.  Is there confirmation that Facey’s notebooks, as recollections for a developing autobiography rather than primary source diaries, are completely factual or is it possible that he’s included ideas to colour the story a bit.

 

Cheers,

Tim.

Edited by Auimfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Yeah nah. There were no mgs either! This Gallipoli stuff is hilarious.

Love to see your review of the TOH Gallipoli. That's a rollicking yarn too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auimfo

Seems like you’re having difficulty separating one debate from another mate.  

 

It’s a good thing you don’t own the bat and ball. 😫

 

Cheers,

Tim.

 

 

Edited by Auimfo
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...