Edmonds official war

[armourersergeant]

Simple question hard answer.

How valid is the comments made by General Edmonds in his official works of the first world war and other comments he made regarding personalities. Was he accurate in his commetns or did he have his own biased views to meet his own ends.

The reason i am asking is i see alot attributed to this man in my research and i am wondering if his view is worth the weight?

Arm.

[Terry_Reeves]

Arm

There is a good analysis in an article published in the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute entitled "Official but not History"? Sir James Edmonds and the Official History of the Great War by Dr David French.

E mail me your address and I will send you a copy.

Terry Reeves

[Andrew P]

I recall reading a comment by Edmonds in correspondence to the Australian historian C.E.W Bean in regard to what Bean had written about certain British officers involved at Fromelles.

'What good does it do writing about it even if it is true'

This quote was in Robin Corfield's book on Fromelles

[Jonathan Saunders]

[Was he accurate in his commetns or did he have his own biased views to meet his own ends]

I read somewhere that Edmonds wrote what was expected from an establishment point of view and was happy to do so although this was often in conflict with his personal views. It bears out Andrew's quote from Corfield.

[Charles Fair]

There is a good analysis in an article published in the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute entitled "Official but not History"? Sir James Edmonds and the Official History of the Great War by Dr David French.

Arm

French has a later version of this paper "Sir James Edmonds and the Official History: France and Belgium" in the excellent book 'The First World War and British Military History' ed Brian Bond (1991)

Also 'The Writing of Official Military History' (Contributions in Military Studies No 171) ed Robin Higham

pub Greenwood Press 1999 has a paper by John Hussey "John Fortescue, James Edmonds, and the History of the Great War: A Case of Ritual Murder". I havent read this one but would like to - being a Greenwood Press book it is way outside my budget.

[Charles Fair]

How valid is the comments made by General Edmonds in his official works of the first world war and other comments he made regarding personalities. Was he accurate in his commetns or did he have his own biased views to meet his own ends.

Good question too. Personally I doubt that any Official History could ever be free of bias, simply because of who is paying for it. Like anything else, read it with care, and ideally alongside modern analyses e.g. the Somme volume alongside Prior & Wilson's book on Rawlinson.

I don't have a problem with straightforward facts e.g. the 11th Blankshires attacked at 0730 as when I have compared these with War Diaries and other sources it is correct. (Perhaps this is not surprising in view of the number of people who reviewed the various drafts of each chapter - there is some great correspondence from reviewers in the PRO in classes CAB 44 and 45.) Consensus from above references is that he can be suspect when he ventures into opinion/interpretation for the reasons you mention. May need some salt.

A good example is 1917 Vol 2 (Third Ypres) which is the most contentious and wasn't published until 1948. One of the OH team, Capt Wynne "insisted in 1946 that his name should be removed from the title page of the vol because he believed that Edmonds was deliberately twisting the truth to protect the reputation of Sir Douglas Haig". (quote from D French in Bond 1991)

For me this is certainly the most disappointing volume - It is almost the slimmest one, surprising in view of the scale and length of the battle, with no map case or appendices volumes. 1917 comes off worst compared with any other year for the BEF on the W Front in terms of number of vols in relation to size of engagement.

Having said that, the OH is still an essential source which I'm sure few of us could do without.

[Jock Bruce]

Arm

A cheap and accessible source of information on aspects of the writing of the OH is Travers 'The Killing Ground', recently published in pb by (I think) Cassells.

Jock

[ianw]

I seem to recall reading that Edmonds presided over the destruction of enormous amounts of source material after the various volumes were published. The author whose name escapes me was suggesting that this was deliberately done to make difficult future revisions but I suppose it could well have been a necessary action given the vast amounts of paperwork concerned. That said, surely no historian should be sanguine about such actions.

[David_Blanchard]

A valuable source of information with regard to looking at how the Official History was compiled are the CAB 45 (PRO) documents. This is a collection of correspondance that Edmonds had with the various officers during the 1920s and 30s when he was putting together the OH from draft. Drafts were sent out asking for comments.

The letters back to Edmonds mak fascinating reading. You can see what Edmonds considered contentious, and what then was left out.

I think only Tim Travers has really made use of this archive in his research, but I maybe wrong! If any other historian please let me know.

[Charles Fair]

... Edmonds presided over the destruction of enormous amounts of source material after the various volumes were published. The author whose name escapes me was suggesting that this was deliberately done to make difficult future revisions ....

could be Denis Winter in Haig's Command?

[Charles Fair]

A valuable source of information with regard to looking at how the Official History was compiled are the CAB 45 (PRO) documents.

....

I think only Tim Travers has really made use of this archive in his research, but I maybe wrong!

Agree it is a fantastic source - I have been looking at 47 Div in the March retreat, and there are a lot of godd unpublished accounts. Also two letters from my grandfather (acting CO 1/19th Londons) to Edmonds re the Bns experiences on the Somme in 1916!

This is one class which could do with a decent index of author, rank/appointment, unit, division etc

I also dont know of anyone other than Travers who has used it to any great extent.

[Guest stevebec]

I think your right about all Offical History writers at that time.

I found that in Bean's History, he will mention in the passage something that does not seem right. But this will draw you to the bottom of the page where there is a further insight into it.

If you can read the words you will find he has shown there was a mistake or problem but can not say it in so many words who or what did it. He lets the reader find out for them selves what he is aluding to.

I believe his is how he showed that many AIF commanders were less then the best they could be and reported to be. Likewise it also shows the same for British commanders, but this is the writers view.

S.B

[David Filsell]

CAB 45 is fascinating not merely for what it contains - but what it does not. I have found some fascinating 1st Ypres material - letters and etc sent to Edmonds in response to "review" sections sent out. But clearly it is far from complete and it seems impossible to work out the criteria which were used when this stuff was retained when much else was clearly scrapped.

As for Edmonds, who liked to be known as Archimedes, he was clearly a great disembler and (I believe) had some kind of breakdown or incapacity whilst serving with the BEF. Like many others writing after the war he had his own agenda. But the fact remains that analysis of actions and movements are on the whole accurate in my experience of studying 1st Ypres. Some of his judgements now seem less than fully accurate but were based on both what he was told by those who he he and his team used - and they too frequently had their own agendas. I think his task was amazingly well performed under the circumstances

[armourersergeant]

General Snow when commander of 4th Division in 1914 thought Edmonds top notch 'the brains to his ginger' i think he was quoted as saying. He has also said that Edmonds was not the strongest of men and was wont to get tired easily. I should think the fact that he only rose to Brigadier General yet was a Colonel in 1914 must allow that something was either wrong with him physically or with Snows accessment.

Arm.