Australians only at Fromelles

[nigelcave]

Morning, Scott:

The problem with 'lots' of ceremonies is the sheer amount of admin hassle involved in setting them up: it is an expensive process for both the governments (ie country 'x' and France or Belgium, usually) involved and, given the nature of many of these locations, it causes considerable inconvenience to the local population. The latter would not, I am sure, be a great problem if it happened once or maybe twice in the year in a particular area. It is better if the sites comprise a large chunk of real estate; but, there again, the larger the area the bigger the ceremony tends to get. The situation is exacerbated by the current terrorist threat; the mind boggles at the cost of all the security for these various events. For example, one can only imagine the considerable dent in usual training etc activities for the French army with the present deployment of so many troops on guard duty (and I do not imagine that their accommodation is all that wonderful either, on a slightly mundane note). Given the involvement of the UK, Canada and Australia in current operations in the Middle East, it would be irresponsible if such security arrangements at ceremonies were not of the highest standards.

I am sure there will be something at Bullecourt (there is every year at the moment, though it is on Anzac Day), but it will likely be, it would seem, low key; probably no bad thing if people want to be there rather than go through all the hassle of getting tickets and so forth. They'll need to be careful with Polygon Wood: just about everyone was in there at some stage from the BEF (bar the Canadians and Newfoundlanders) and of course it has the NZ memorial to the 'locally' missing (the others in the Salient being at Tyne Cot).

Writing personally, I would prefer less money spent on ceremonies, which in truth, to put it bluntly, are here today and gone tomorrow and are most 'felt' for any long term impact by the relatively small number physically present. I would be more interested in appropriate sums of money spent on imaginative legacy projects (ideally ones that will not cost a small fortune to maintain).

[trajan]

Whatever point of view people take on this, only Tim L and Nigel have reminded us that, ahem, Germans were certainly intimately involved in this and other episodes in the Great War. I can just about countenance a non-British participation in a specifically Australian-oriented ceremony - but no Germans? (Happy to be corrected but in the meantime crouching down to receive incoming!)

Trajan

[stiletto_33853]

Sorry but I disagree. Nearly 25% of the Australians killed at Fromelles were British I believe, in that they had been born here. Many others whose parents came from the UK regarded Britain as home.

I think this whole situation has been very badly handled indeed.

What about the relatives from the British Division involved in a 2 Division attack??? not Battle. I know there is a lot of anger behind the scenes regarding this matter and I do not think that a small allowance for German and British relatives would have been hard to cater for and find this stance regarding Australian Passport holders only sad, unfortunate and arrogant.

Andy

[PhilH]

ahem, Germans were certainly intimately involved

Totally agree with that, Trajan. Had been thinking it but didn't have the balls to post it......

[Auimfo]

Andy, nothing has been badly handled at all. These services were planned and organised by all the participating countries months ago and no one thought this was a problem then. It's all been recently created by the British press spin doctors, drumming up unnecessary indignation looking for headlines. Australian passport holders aren't included on the invitation list for the Thiepval commemoration because it's a primarily British service but I don't see the press saying that Australians are 'banned' and that it's been badly planned.

What I find arrogant is the expectation of some that they automatically be included in everyone else's national commemoration services. Like the poster earlier who was upset because the letter he received didn't specifically single out 'British' but only referred to 'other countries'. Really? I mean...REALLY?

And before someone chimes in with the line 'but there are no Australians memorialised at Thiepval', who's to say there's no Australians buried among the unknown in the Anglo-French cemetery. Similarly, there are no known British buried at Pheasant Wood Cemetery although it's possible there's a couple among the unknowns.

And for those who say "but the British also fought at Fromelles", yes that's quite true - but Australians also died on 1st July 1916.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[SiegeGunner]

I don't think that drawing a parallel with Thiepval is valid in the case of Fromelles, which is the commemoration of one single action, lasting about 17 hours and involving British and Australian troops attacking side by side. Many of those Australians were British-born and most were of British descent. Tim will know the details, but I think I'm right in saying that some of the men now buried with honour under named headstones in the new Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Cemetery were identified by DNA given by British-based descendants. On that basis alone, I think that provision should have been made for non-Australian passport holders with a connection to Fromelles to apply for tickets for the commemorative event on 19 July 2016.

But then also, as Tim again knows, there is an extended 'family' of non-Australians who worked on the Fromelles project in various capacities (historians, researchers, archaeologists, forensic scientists, technical specialists, etc), some of them (including myself, as translator of all the German archive material assembled for the historical research project commissioned by the Australian Army History Unit) for many years. Plus the loyal band of mainly British people who sustained remembrance at Fromelles and fostered friendly relations with the local community before the discovery of the burial pits, largely based on their forebears' participation in the fighting on that ground in 1914, at the Battle of Aubers Ridge in May 1915 and with the 61st Division on 19/20 July 1916. All these are also 'stakeholders' in the Fromelles story and should have the opportunity to be present on 19 July 2016. Given the intimacy of the battlefield and the shared heritage of Australian and non-Australian stakeholders, I don't believe that the Australian experience can be or should be surgically separated and commemorated on the basis of modern-day citizenship.

I've just had a total hip replacement, so I'm not going anywhere for a while, but I hope to be fully mobile again by the summer, and if Fromelles is inaccessible on 19 July, I shall make my way in the early evening to the cemetery behind the church at Beaucamps, where the dead of Bavarian RIR 21 are buried.

Mick

[nigelcave]

Andy, nothing has been badly handled at all. These services were planned and organised by all the participating countries months ago and no one thought this was a problem then.

Hi Tim:

To be fair, it was identified as a problem (not Fromelles specifically, of course) from the get go, so I am told; and a fair amount of time was spent on the issue. That's why everyone ran around in circles to get the St Symphorien ceremony in August 1914 [Edit: Oops, 2014] invitation list as extensive as regards nations as possible and why there were the 'add ons' (to put it simply) for Thiepval.

[egbert]

Whatever point of view people take on this, only Tim L and Nigel have reminded us that, ahem, Germans were certainly intimately involved in this and other episodes in the Great War. I can just about countenance a non-British participation in a specifically Australian-oriented ceremony - but no Germans? (Happy to be corrected but in the meantime crouching down to receive incoming!)

Trajan

What about the relatives from the British Division involved in a 2 Division attack??? not Battle. I know there is a lot of anger behind the scenes regarding this matter and I do not think that a small allowance for German and British relatives would have been hard to cater for and find this stance regarding Australian Passport holders only sad, unfortunate and arrogant.

Andy

.....if Fromelles is inaccessible on 19 July, I shall make my way in the early evening to the cemetery behind the church at Beaucamps, where the dead of Bavarian RIR 21 are buried.

Mick

Thank you all for reminding that other nations were killed in Fromelles as well. Just to remember one exclusive combatant nation and exclude all other nations involved is a shame and does show a lack of sensitivity, blunt national egoism and also hints to the fact that some nationals from remote parts of this world still live in the 1918 era chauvinism pattern.

[stevem49]

I will be rather pleased when 1919 dawns

[Auimfo]

Just because a nation wants to have a ceremony for its own people to remember their country's service does not equate to 'excluding' or 'banning' anyone. It doesn't make them egotistical or chauvinistic and it certainly doesn't equate to ignoring the service of other nations or whitewashing history. It's simply a people with a sense of national pride paying their respects specifically to their countrymen. Of course they have a greater interest in their own country's participation, umm that would be normal - but it doesn't mean they have no understanding that other nations also served and suffered equally if not more.

I still don't understand the argument that British not being invited to the Fromelles service cannot be compared to Australians not being invited to the Thiepval service. However it attempts to be rationalized, it still boils down to the same result.

However (as I've said before), I do agree that consideration should have been given to British descendants of Australian soldiers who served at Fromelles.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Snowcat19591]

Happy to be corrected on that Nigel - although everywhere I read says it was only open to British, Irish and French - but can anyone tell us how many positions for the Australian public (not representatives) have been allocated at Thiepval?

In addition, the Fromelles service can only accomodate 3,500 attendees while the Thiepval service is for at least 16,000. That equates 40 Canadians (they're not official reps are they?) to 0.25% of the invited public.

Simply put, people have to realise and accept that the Australian service is at Fromelles and the British one at Thiepval and stop making media mountains out of molehills.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Can I just point out very politely to all that my great great uncle Sam Farlow was killed at Fromelles. He died as an Australian solider, having emigrated there a few months earlier. However, I am a British passport owner and as such, as his great great neice, would be excluded from attending. As it happens home commitments would most likely mean I cannot attend Fromelles July 2016 but I am appalled the Aussies would exclude me at all!! Very poor of them. I am so glad Sam's epitaph makes it quite plain he was essentially English...not Australian

[Auimfo]

Can I just point out very politely to all that my great great uncle Sam Farlow was killed at Fromelles. He died as an Australian solider, having emigrated there a few months earlier. However, I am a British passport owner and as such, as his great great neice, would be excluded from attending. As it happens home commitments would most likely mean I cannot attend Fromelles July 2016 but I am appalled the Aussies would exclude me at all!! Very poor of them. I am so glad Sam's epitaph makes it quite plain he was essentially English...not Australian

I absolutely agree with you about that. You'll see that I've said that a few times about the place, most recently in the post above yours.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Seadog]

I must say that this is a somewhat unfortunate topic given that soldiers of both sides died in this particular battle as they died throughout the western front. Frankly I see it as undignified and pointless to "debate" this as apparently the arrangements are in place for the ceremony and nothing is likely to change that let alone postings to this forum. I suggest that those who feel strongly enough direct their concerns to the authorities responsible. Perhaps it would be good to put this in perspective, 100 years on, 365 days in a year and this is just one day I am sure we can all live with this..

Norman

[Victoria Burbidge]

Is it my turn?

Tim, I'm grateful for your support for the families of our British-born AIF men and I don't want to over-egg the pudding, but I do need to add my own comments. I'm sure you understand.

Looking back over the last couple of years or so at events in Fromelles, I think it unsurprising that it has come to this – the "You pay for yours and we'll pay for ours" approach. These commemorations were always going to be difficult to arrange "diplomatically" and it simply isn't possible to please everybody. I do wonder, however, if in future we should perhaps insist that the officials who arrange these commemorative events do so only after having received a pertinent history lesson.

Each nation is doing its own thing. Yes, Thiepval 1^st July is a ticketed event for UK passport holders, but as Nigel has already pointed out, with some allocation to other nations. I do know that during the joint centenary discussions, Australia was not interested in being represented as such at Thiepval as it considered that its priorities were Fromelles and Pozières. As it said, there were no Australian divisions on the Somme on 1^st July 1916 because, as we all know, its first real engagement with the enemy on the Western Front was at Fromelles on 19^th July 1916 (I'm sure I'd heard that before somewhere ……..).

Fromelles 1916 is a funny old thing, is it not? I don't need to bang on about it being a joint Australian / British attack; I don't need to bang on about the number of casualties, British and Australian; and I'm sure I don't need to bang on about just how British the AIF actually was.

I started researching the Fromelles fatalities of the 5^th Division AIF about fifteen years ago, so when I was handed the Red Cross lists, it was a real labour of love to be working with names which were so familiar to me. To go into the Pheasant Wood Cemetery for the first time and see some of those names on headstones, when the last time I'd seen them was on German lists, was one of the most emotional experiences. Impossible to describe. How must it have felt, and continue to feel, for the families of these men?

The British government came under huge pressure (and I mean huge) to agree to the recovery of the Pheasant Wood men and the subsequent DNA testing and identification, but agree it did and the whole process was jointly funded by both governments. How many times in the lead-up to this decision being made did I hear Australian voices insisting that it was a joint Australian / British attack? You only need to look through some of the threads on this Forum to find a reasonable answer.

Identification has meant closure for the families of some of the British-born AIF men, but that closure will still leave those families somewhere on the outside on the 19^th July, looking in on the cemetery where their relative lies beneath a named headstone. And what of the families of the men lost with the 61^st (South Midland) Division who not only make the journey to Fromelles each July, but who were invited to be a big part of that incredibly emotional service at Fromelles on 19^th July 2010? Well, basically, there was a place for them in Fromelles in July 2010, but not in July 2016.

Nobody has been banned from Fromelles (although I may be by the time I've finished), but they have been excluded. To limit this particular service completely to Australian passport holders does not only exclude the families of the men killed fighting with the British Division, but it also excludes the families of some of the men whom the Australian government tells us it will be honouring - its own British-born men of the 5^th Division AIF. It's an oversight, albeit a whopping great staggeringly diplomatic one! The only insult comes in trying to justify that oversight.

We do not expect Australia to fund our commemorations. We can do that ourselves. In order to do so, however, we expect to be allowed into Fromelles on the hundredth anniversary of the death of our men. To add insult to injury, with the whole area around Fromelles in "lock-down" before, during and after 19^th July, the service which I had planned to jointly commemorate the British, Australian and German men is unlikely to take place. "It's nothing to do with us" our French colleagues insist, "It's the Australians. There's nothing we can do". Well, somebody needs to do something – and quick.

V.

[SiegeGunner]

Fromelles and Pozières are not equivalent to the (mainly) British event at Thiepval. That would be an exclusively Australian event at the Australian National Memorial at Villers-Bretonneux, to which no-one else either could or would object. Neither Fromelles nor Pozières was an entirely Australian battle, and by monopolising the key sites and 'locking down' the surrounding areas for at least a day either side of key dates, Australia is effectively shutting out anyone else who wishes to commemorate the centenary of those battles 'on the ground' and does not meet the qualifying criteria to attend the Australian-organised events. I find it particularly ironic and galling that a select gathering of Australian VIPs and invitees will attend a ceremony at VC Corner, where a good proportion of the entirely unidentified dead gathered up from the battlefield at the end of the war are almost certainly non-Australian casualties of the fighting over that ground in 1914 and in particular 1915.

Mick

[nigelcave]

It does not seem to be the policy of the Canadians - no restrictions, so far as I know, at Beaumont Hamel on 1st July (OK, the Dominion of Newfoundland in 1917, but you get the drift) and unlikely to be any at Vimy in April 2017; the problem of tickets for that event I think would be security driven rather than anything else, if one considers that it was open to all (IIRC) at the rededication of the Memorial several years ago, which was carried out by the Queen.

[nigelcave]

Happy to be corrected on that Nigel - although everywhere I read says it was only open to British, Irish and French - but can anyone tell us how many positions for the Australian public (not representatives) have been allocated at Thiepval?

I'm not sure how that was handled. As I understand it, numbers were allocated to the relevant interested nations and how they were actually allocated (presumably over and above the 'VIPs' who would already have been on the list, so to speak), was left to those nations to sort out on an individual basis. If a rough ball park figure would be fifty for a large dominion (and I do not think that that is too off the scale) then Australia would have been 'allocated' a similar number, I suspect.

When one goes back to the Thiepval event when the Centre was opened, the driving force behind the project, Frank Sanderson, was very keen to ensure German participation (as well as the Brits and the French) - thus, amongst others, the then (current?) Duke of Wurttenburg (sp??, apologies if wrong) was invited as a Guest of Honour but was unable to attend at the last moment because his helicopter (lucky him) was fog bound (and thus the limitations of aerial transportation exposed). Similarly, he tried to get a German example of a family whose ancestor had fought there through to the present day, so that a great grandchild from GB, France and Germany actually did the cutting of the ribbon: alas, this failed, for whatever reason.

Personally I would be happier if rather more focus was given on the Germans who were engaged in the various areas where commemorations are held; and the French, as appropriate. Not that it should be numerically over the top, but at least more than a mere nod indicated by the presence of a minister, ambassador or military representative. For the Somme, (though unfortunately outside the Departement) a place for quiet reflection might be Rossignol Wood CWGC Cemetery, where the Germans outnumber the Commonwealth dead and is positioned (just about) on the Gommecourt battlefield on 1st July.

[Auimfo]

Just in case people were not aware, provision has been made for non-ticket holders of any nationality to attend the Fromelles service. This is from the official Australian Government WW1 Centenary website: http://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/news/2016-fromelles-and-pozi%C3%A8res-commemorative-service-arrangements

"For those who do not receive an Attendance Pass to the Pheasant Wood service there will be a field opened, adjacent to the Pheasant Wood Cemetery, where they can watch the services live on large video screens."

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Victoria Burbidge]

Thank you, Tim. I think that most of the families affected by this decision are aware of this option, but hopefully others with less of a connection with the 1916 Attack will be happy to make use of it. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will be of much consolation to the families who have a man buried at Pheasant Wood and it doesn’t help me gain access to the Fromelles area on the day in order to hold a service of remembrance, but thank you again for posting the link.

Do you hope to be in Fromelles on 19^th July?

V.

[Auimfo]

Sadly V, I am not able to attend. Personally I believe that even though the anniversaries etc. are important to remember, it's not necessary to actually be there on the day (although I'd be glad to attend). Making the trip to pay your respects on any day of the year means just as much and in many ways enables a more private reflection in the peace and quiet of the CWGC cemeteries.

I plan to come back again soon but unfortunately it won't be this year.

Cheers,

Tim L.

P.S. I understand and respect your point of view on this. I agree it would be preferable if the ceremony had been 'joint' but I find the media driven 'witch-hunt' to be unreasonable and the resultant howls of indignation from some to be lacking in objectivity.

[Ken Lees]

"... the resultant howls of indignation from some to be lacking in objectivity."

Exactly.

I'm sure some people just love to be offended on behalf of anyone else who just might be offended themselves, but probably aren't.

Has anyone considered that the security operations for these events are hugely difficult and very expensive? If the organisers only permit their own nationals to attend then security is much easier because they have access to passport information and all of the national security intelligence that is available in-house. Allowing a large proportion of other nationalities to attend adds another, hugely expensive and bureaucratic, layer to the security operation.

You can't cut corners planning security operations, either you do it or you don't.

This was probably an important consideration when the plans were being made.

Still, it gives the complainers something to do. It doesn't bother me one bit that the Australians have reserved a site for their commemoration service, despite the fact that I have a relative who was killed at Fromelles in July, 1916.

Some British people can't get to Thiepval on 1st July. How very dare they BAN them?

[SiegeGunner]

But, re security, it appears that all and sundry will be allowed access to the second-best paddock adjacent to the cemetery, seemingly without registration, to watch the service on video screens. I presume that will be the field just beyond the cemetery, on the opposite side of the road, with Pheasant Wood and the original site of the burial pits behind it.

[David Filsell]

Since Fromelles has been raised on this thread, this review of a worthwhile new book might be of interest - the academic Ashgate price is - of course ridiculous!

-

British Battle Planning in 1916 and the Battle of Fromelles: A Case Study of an Evolving Skill

£70.00 Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, Surrey. £70.00 229pp, figures 5, maps 154 maps, 5 tables, bibliog., index, ISBN 978-1-4724-4995-6 THE

How do you evaluate a battle? You could say, “Let me count the ways”. battles. Roger Lee, barely mentions troops in action at all. Instead he concentrates on command and control. . The two day division strong ‘Australian battle’ is ever contentious, generally viewed as wasteful tragedy - almost the Gallipoli of the Western Front. It cost some 5,000 casualties, almost 2,000 officers and men were killed in action or died of wounds.

British Battle Planning in 1916 and the Battle of Fromelles - apparently the fifth book in the Ashgate Studies in First World War History - is edited by the estimable John Bourne. In that the book started as a PhD thesis, it is reminiscent of the relatively new series of histories published (under Steven Badsey’s editorship) by Helion on behalf of Wolverhampton University which I have unreservedly praised. It is reminiscent in all but thing; the book's outrageous price.

I know I bang on about academic book prices, but whilst Wolverhampton can publish essentially academic books at sensible prices, why have Ashgate have priced this work out of any sensible market with £70.00 tag. (The cheapest copy I could find, Amazon, was £55.00) Is this “Case Study of an Evolving Skill” worth its price? Sadly few will even ask after collapsing at the till

Nevertheless the book is the most impressive result of a fifteen year long writing and research effort by Roger Lees, Head of the Australian Army History Unit. There is of course no shortage of Australian writing about Fromelles, much of it critical of the usual antipodeans’ suspects; inept British Generalship and lack of insight. Roger Lee’s approach is freshly different; he puts the planning of the battle under the microscope; evaluates and dissects it in clinical detail using remaining records and highlights the errors and ineptitudes at all levels; strategic, tactical and operational.

Without even offering an outline of a Fromelles battle narrative – for that you must read work by authors whose work Lee frequently questions – the book builds skilfully to conclusions which are bound to prove unpopular with those who regularly react instinctively to Fromelles by blackguarding British Command at virtually every level.

Despite recording, examining and theorizing on weaknesses in command and control at virtually every level the author concludes:

“British battle planning in 1916 arguably had reached the lowest point on a pendulum swing between the skilled but small-scale actions characteristic of an imperial police force and the conduct of operations in an industrial scale war.”

However, he firmly reports that objective of Fromelles was to pin the enemy down, to prevent German troops to be transferred to support their comrade in the ongoing battles on the Somme. In that it was a success and his judgement is clear:

“The conclusion to be drawn from surviving analysis is that Fromelles was not the planning disaster frequently alleged and indeed not a complete failure in any sense, yet this is far from the popular view”. He adds clearly: “... the attack can only be regarded as having met its objectives”, underlining that “... capture of ground was not in this battle, the strategic objective and operational intent.”

Whilst Lee is frequently highly, and effectively, critical of all aspects of the Fromelles planning, his compelling view will no doubt be contested by aficionados of the butchers and bunglers school. That all said, a number of key points emerge. Not least that Haking was forced - through the British Army’s operational habit of rotating divisions through Corps with inefficient regularity – and to deploy inadequately trained divisions posted to his Corps far too close to the start of the battle. (Not least, the - effectively - green 5^th Australian Division which had only recently arrived in France from Egypt. Many of its officers and men were without any experience of war and ordered into offensive battle against experienced German defenders.)

It is extremely sad that, because of its outrageous price, few will add this work with its valuable overview of command and control in 1916 to their bookshelves.

[Liz in Eastbourne]

...

Some British people can't get to Thiepval on 1st July. How very dare they BAN them?

Don't follow you.

[Khaki]

I don't like speeches or crowds, I am always more than happy to be the sole person at a historic location.

khaki