Farrar Hockley and Somme

[Desmond7]

A very kind forum member - Tintin - sent me FH's book on 'The Battle of the Somme'. he asked for my opinions when I'd been through it. Here it is. Remember this purely a personal view. If I jump to conclusions or make errors, they are my errors. I'm quite happy to be corrected or have a different view expressed.

I well remember FH being on TV when I was but young lad - he was always being drafted in to give his robust military opinion on various issues. Whenever the BEEB needed a military spokesman, he was in the hotseat.

The man had a fine record as a soldier at virtually every level of command and he exuded an authority and gave answers with precision and clarity.

Sadly, I have to say that clarity is not a strength of his book on the Somme. It is most definitely NOT for the casual reader.

The writing style, in my opinion, should have been subjected to a thorough review by his editors. At times it is infuriatingly complex and at other times just clumsy.

But amongst the barbed wire entanglements of impenetrable paragraphs FH produces some superb pieces of commentary!

I would single out a particularly good section on pre-battle logistics. No reams of facts and figures .. just a nice piece of prose setting this aspect of WW1 military capability into context.

When it comes to 'Day One' , I do have to say that I found his dry, 'strictly military' style rather tedious. Then again, I'd say that anyone who has read Middlebrook would come to the same conclusion! Perhaps his aim, as a military man, was to write this book for 'military people' and not civilian history buffs?

On the plus side (and I say this with my parochial hat on) I was delighted to see the role played by the 1st Inniskillings of the 29th Division being given due prominence.

With regard to the role of the Ulster Division - which you will know is my pet subject - I see that FH adhered to the standard line of 'the Ulster Division moved too fast and ran into their own bombardment'.

Since most writers at that time believed this to be the case, I can hardly fault him. However, recent research by the likes of RJ Whitehead and other 'German' specialists has argued that the fire which actually stopped the advancing Ulster patrols was actually directed on them by the Germans.

To sum up the 'first day' section of the book .. while describing unit actions adequately, he (FH) failed to paint the picture of slaughter which I think this horrible day deserves.

More to follow ...

Any observations please?

[stevem49]

A very kind forum member - Tintin - sent me FH's book on 'The Battle of the Somme'. he asked for my opinions when I'd been through it. Here it is. Remember this purely a personal view. If I jump to conclusions or make errors, they are my errors. I'm quite happy to be corrected or have a different view expressed.

I well remember FH being on TV when I was but young lad - he was always being drafted in to give his robust military opinion on various issues. Whenever the BEEB needed a military spokesman, he was in the hotseat.

The man had a fine record as a soldier at virtually every level of command and he exuded an authority and gave answers with precision and clarity.

Sadly, I have to say that clarity is not a strength of his book on the Somme. It is most definitely NOT for the casual reader.

The writing style, in my opinion, should have been subjected to a thorough review by his editors. At times it is infuriatingly complex and at other times just clumsy.

But amongst the barbed wire entanglements of impenetrable paragraphs FH produces some superb pieces of commentary!

I would single out a particularly good section on pre-battle logistics. No reams of facts and figures .. just a nice piece of prose setting this aspect of WW1 military capability into context.

When it comes to 'Day One' , I do have to say that I found his dry, 'strictly military' style rather tedious. Then again, I'd say that anyone who has read Middlebrook would come to the same conclusion! Perhaps his aim, as a military man, was to write this book for 'military people' and not civilian history buffs?

On the plus side (and I say this with my parochial hat on) I was delighted to see the role played by the 1st Inniskillings of the 29th Division being given due prominence.

With regard to the role of the Ulster Division - which you will know is my pet subject - I see that FH adhered to the standard line of 'the Ulster Division moved too fast and ran into their own bombardment'.

Since most writers at that time believed this to be the case, I can hardly fault him. However, recent research by the likes of RJ Whitehead and other 'German' specialists has argued that the fire which actually stopped the advancing Ulster patrols was actually directed on them by the Germans.

To sum up the 'first day' section of the book .. while describing unit actions adequately, he (FH) failed to paint the picture of slaughter which I think this horrible day deserves.

More to follow ...

Any observations please?

I have had it in my 'Library' for a few years but not the best written on the subject. FH presented me with my 'Best Driver' award in our training party many years ago. For some reason he wanted his photo taken with me I have my copy and I hope he treasured his. He did write the book in the 60s though and my reprint is 1983.

stevem

[PBI]

Deviating Slightly off Subject,a good read is THE EDGE OF THE SWORD By FH,it is His own Personal Story about His personal Military Service in Korea,and subsequent capture and maltreatment at the Hands of the Chinese Peoples Army,also covered are His Escape Attempts.I thought that it was a very worthwhile Read.

[Steven Broomfield]

Des, bearing in mind how long ago the book was written, and that it was written, not by an historian but by a soldier, I think it stands up pretty well as an entry-level book. Yes, the style can be difficult, but I reckon it gives a good 'feel' for the battle, with some nice side-commentaries (I remember one about Australians' attitude to Gough).

Overall, I'd say it's a book which should be read, if only to give a taste before you move on to the modern books, written by historians with access to a lot more research.

[squirrel]

I would tend to agree with Mr Bloomfield on this - I enjoyed reading the book when I first read it many years ago and again when I read it recently.

[Chris Best]

Agree with last 2 contibuters. It's a book which continues to be cited by historians (er, I think )

Chris

[Desmond7]

AS I said folks - lots of re-reading this book.

FH is, as you say, unafraid to defend people when he feels justified and to criticise when he feels opinionated enough to do so.

Therefore any views of his opinions on the actions/or lack of in regard to Congreve and Horne?

I refer to what I read as inability to grasp tactical initiative in a sector where FH implies much more could have been done after a relatively successful start?

This is I MAINTAIN a book for soldiers rather than readers. Thus I found myself having to backtrack on occasions to get a contextual 'feel' for his writing. However, it is challenging because the 'odd line' is thrown in there to make one think?

Anyone else have the same experience with this book?