tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post4674178502842398189..comments2024-02-27T02:19:19.667-08:00Comments on rethinking history: The deployment of Allied land forces in 1942Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-22996918640504256472011-04-02T22:14:47.685-07:002011-04-02T22:14:47.685-07:00stimulate debate? - more like push your own unrefe...stimulate debate? - more like push your own unreferenced ideas, I'd say.<br />I agree with your point on secondary sources, but surely you must agree that no matter what source you use, you must reference it.<br />You initially quoted ACM Brooke-Popham's dispatches as the source for planned reinforcements to reach the Far East by April 1942. His dispatch is readily available on line (at the London Gazette) and it does not support your statement. Then you said it was from a UK CoS Appreciation, but you could not give a reference. Now you say that it's readily available, but still no reference.<br />The closest I can find is a UK Defence Committee appreciation on 23 Dec 41, following the invasion and losses in Malaya. There is little but hope in this appreciation, certainly no plans for anything on the scale you claim. You can find this appreciation at the NAA (Series A954 CS 571/4). If reinforcements were due by April, surely the Defence Committee would have been aware of them by 23 December?<br />Neither of these sources are secondary - not sure where you get that idea from. But the claim you make on reinforcements due to the Far East by April (in the context of saving Singapore, as you have done) is a significant claim. You need to provide a reference.<br />Would you pass a student who fails to attribute sources, but instead says 'go look it up yourself'?<br />I don't expect anything to be handed to me on a silver platter, but like anyone else I do expect claims of historical fact to be attributed. Unsubstantiated claims can only be considered fiction, not history. You wrote it - you reference it, writing history 101.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-56616186466462404172011-04-02T15:07:24.274-07:002011-04-02T15:07:24.274-07:00Where do I start…
Research 101 ( a beginners guid...Where do I start…<br /><br />Research 101 ( a beginners guide)<br /><br />Secondary sources are not actually the best, even if you think they sound 'authoratitive'. <br /><br />Sources that 'only you've ever sighted' are called 'original sources', and are what good research is supposed to be based on. The problem with original sources is that they only become available in bits and pieces over decades as 50 year rules expire, and as people die and their diaries become available to cross reference. When they do, you find many things they didn't write in the original reports. (If you want a fun example get a copy of the original publication of Alan Brooke's Diaries published by Arthur Bryant fifty years ago, and compare it to the complete diaries only published five years ago, and note the incredible range of 'edits' in the original.)<br /><br />If you want to check my original materials, get your arse on a plane and fly to Canberra and go to the War Memorial and the Defence Forces Academy and the Army Archives (though you need to apply for security clearance for that).<br /><br />If you don't want to look at the original sources, then you are stuck with trying to analyse the figures using secondary sources. But I am afraid that takes actual 'time to verify it'.<br /><br />Fortunately the one you appear to have particular problems with is not only available in Canberra. The microfilm collection of the Combined Chiefs of Staff was sent to many universities and institutions in the 80's (I could have bought a complete set for $1800 Australian at that time), so there will still be one in a country/city near you… if you can be bothered to find it, and if you will go and look at it.<br /><br />I will give you the standard line I used when failing lazy undergrads. "If you aren't willing to cross reference the sources you are comfortable with, you should be studying politics".<br /><br />The information is out there. Even checking on Wikipedia will get you most of it. You doubt 7 Battleships and 3 aircraft carriers, go and look at names and discover deployments. You doubt which divisions were assigned, go and look at the army listings or individual histories for the 130 odd Commonwealth divisions in 1942 and see which were listed for deployment where (and what changed, and when, and why).<br /><br />My point is that most secondary references are incomplete or misleading (and the older they are the more incomplete… official histories included). <br /><br />Keep looking for information, but don't expect to be handed it on a silver platter.<br /><br />My blog is to stimulate debate, and I like to encourage that. But I am not going to try to 'prove' anything to anyone. If you have doubts, I hope you get stimulated enough to do some actual research beyond your comfort levels.Nigel Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-3850083954610925082011-03-24T18:53:30.709-07:002011-03-24T18:53:30.709-07:00I don't have a problem with your Persian order...I don't have a problem with your Persian order of battle 1942 (or at least I don't have the time to verify it), but your original blog identified extensive reinorcements due in the Far East by April 1942. These are the one's I've queried in your December blog, and again above. But you are yet to identfy your source, other than a vague reference to something apparently only you've sighted.<br />You are playing a misleading game with this extensive list. Get back to the original point and identify the authoriative source for these reinforcements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-19907132203740606122011-03-24T17:16:38.984-07:002011-03-24T17:16:38.984-07:00You will never find things if you don't look.
...You will never find things if you don't look.<br /><br />The major histories are not nearly detailed enough (which is why I give the example of documents released after the 50 years rule).<br /><br />I specifically listed the names of the armies so that anyone could have a look for details. A few minutes on the internet will get you the following taken straight from Wikipedia for 10th Army, and you will note that every Corps and Division has its own history link explaining in more or less detail when they were where.<br /><br />Order of Battle - Persia and Iraq Command 1942<br /><br />General Officer Commanding - General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson<br />General Reserve troops[13]<br />5th Indian Infantry Division - Major-General H. Rawdon Briggs<br />9th Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier W.H. Langran<br />161st Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier D.F.W. Warren<br />Polish 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division - Major-General Stanisław Kopański<br />British 7th Armoured Brigade - Brigadier John Anstice<br />Tenth Army[14] - Lieutenant-General Sir Edward Quinan<br />Army troops[14]<br />6th Indian Infantry Division - Major-General J.N. Thomson<br />27th Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier A.R. Barker<br />6th Duke of Connaught's Own Lancers<br />31st Indian Armoured Division - Major-General Robert Wordsworth<br />3rd Indian Motor Brigade - Brigadier A.A.E. Filoze<br />252nd Indian Armoured Brigade - Brigadier G. Carr-White<br />10th Indian Motor Brigade - Brigadier Harold Redman<br />III Corps - Lieutenant-General Sir Desmond Anderson<br />5th Infantry Division - Major-General Horatio Berney-Ficklin<br />13th Infantry Brigade - Brigadier V.C. Russell<br />15th Infantry Brigade - Brigadier H.R.N. Greenfield<br />17th Infantry Brigade - Brigadier G.W.B. Tarleton<br />5th Reconnaissance Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps<br />56th (London) Infantry Division - Major-General Eric Miles<br />167th (London) Infantry Brigade - Brigadier J.C.A. Birch<br />168th (London) Infantry Brigade - Brigadier K.C. Davidson<br />169th (London) Infantry Brigade - Brigadier L.O. Lynne<br />Indian XXI Corps - Lieutenant-General Sir Mosley Mayne<br />8th Indian Infantry Division - Major-General Charles Harvey<br />17th Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier F.A.M.B. Jenkins<br />19th Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier C.W.W. Ford<br />10th Indian Infantry Division - Major-General Alan Blaxland<br />20th Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier L.E. MacGregor<br />25th Indian Infantry Brigade - Brigadier A.E. Arderne<br />In addition, lines of communication headquarters, either designed Lines of Communications Areas or Sub-Areas or under deception titles such as 2nd Indian Infantry Division, were also ultimately responsible to the command.<br /><br />Again, this is not exactly comprehensive. Few of these divisions have their own published histories. This information is often collated from lots of other sources (follow links to see references). <br /><br />None of these units ever fought the Germans in Persia/Iraq, so most of the histories are sketchy, and mainly list the fighting against the locals. The only one of the easily available major campaign histories or memoirs that provide any greater information on this force is Slim's 'Defeat into Victory', where he details the operations of his own division - the 10th Indian - before being transferred to Burma Corps.<br /><br />And a point on Middle Eastern Oil. There were half a dozen major oil producing areas, of which the US was the most important. But if you study the naval campaigns, you will find that the biggest single shortage for the Allies was tankers. Rumanian oil was under Axis control. Netherlands East Indies oil was under Axis control. The Caucasian oilfields were under threat of German occupation. That leaves the Middle East to supply not just the armies in the Middle East and India, but also all Indian Ocean shipping, much of East and Southern Africa, the Burmese and even Chinese campaigns, and much of Australian oil.Nigel Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-63065225856340214962011-03-22T01:42:32.526-07:002011-03-22T01:42:32.526-07:00until you produce an authoriative source, I'm ...until you produce an authoriative source, I'm sticking with published accounts of intended locations of major units. Citing a record seen by yourself some 20 years back, albeit in a place of repute, but no longer accessible, is not good enough for history.<br /><br />Every published historian I've read agrees that Churchill had a global view - that's obvious isn't it?<br />I'm not sure about others' thoughts, but I certainly don't discount your forces as fantasy, just your sources for their intended use.<br />Middle Eastern oil? Today, yes but in 1942? The US was the world's major oil producer then, and the NEI second. The Suez was closed and, other than a southern front, what exactly was achieved there?<br />There are many other points you raise that could be queried - read Erickson or Hastings on what the Russians thought of their old British Hurricanes - but they are best let go in search of your primary source document released in the 1990s outlining intended disposition of forces.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com