rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 1:11 pm

This was mentioned in a previous topic and I wondered, if such a document was unsigned and the contents of which not agreed upon, why would it be kept ?

I'm not sure why something written regarding specific matters within the military, due to it being unsigned, literally meant nothing, but at the same time was (I assume) kept in the records/archives.

If this document was unimportant, why wasn't it put in the bin, but rather retained, which I consider still makes it an official document.

Why would it be written in the first place expressing concerns or matters within the military, if not considered important ? Confused

Coll

Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 1:50 pm

Coll

It is the act of signature which makes a document valid. That is why somebody who knows perfectly well who you are, and could just as readily type your name on a document (your bank manager say) as in, 'I Coll agree to this' nonetheless insists on having a handwritten signature beneath anything that has been typed.

An important official military or government document is seldom composed by the person who will in due course sign it. It may go through several drafts by that persons' staff officers or assistants, before the big boss is happy with it and content to sign. Each time a 'draft' has been created - such documents have no official standing as they are unsigned. Of course a fourth draft will look very similar to the final (signed) document, whereas a first draft may be completely different and may even express a contrary opinion to the one actually held by the boss.

In a historical context, and in the particular case in point, (Peter's posting refers), it is particularly important to know who originated a document which expresses an opinion. Everybody has one after all. Otherwise we might be basing our view on the great matters of history on the ill-informed ramblings of a clerk or other such functionary. Just because a document is in an old file doesn't make any opinions it expresses true - no matter how much one wants it to be. Peter is in any case misinterpreting the document which refers to fatal errors of position in the context of the siting of the camp, not in the context of anything Pulleine did. This is obvious - Pulleine didn't select any positions in advance of Durnford's arrival. The reference is a dig at Lord Chelmsford not at Colonel P as Peter tries to suggest.

And if we are trying to establish what the official War Office opinion was then we don't have to rely on single sentence references from unsigned documents. We have Sir Charles Ellice's directed letter of Aug 79 to Chelmsford telling him it was his fault. (Ellice was the Adjutant General and it is a directed letter because he has been told to write it by the C-in-C. A directed letter is the most formal kind of military correspondence and is often used to express disapprobation. The text is quoted p 225-227 of Like Wolves on the Fold.

This letter is important because it blows talk of cover-ups out of the water. The War Office wrote to Lord Chelmsford and said in essence - HAVING HAD A GOOD LONG THINK ABOUT IT - IT WAS YOUR FAULT. Kind of makes the dreadful BBC Timewatch programme look a bit silly, don't you think?

It does not wholly address the issues I have raised in my books around culpability at different levels of command - tactical and operational. As you know I have sifted the issues into tactical level ones (where I sense you are a tad uncomfortable with my findings Very Happy

!!) and operational level ones.

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 4:03 pm

Mike,
Here we go again. It is you who are ' misinterpreting' the document, not me. My previous post outlined the reasons; again, a matter of different conclusions.
I take it your reference to pages 225-227 LWOTF, ( a copy soon to reach me) referrs to Ellice's letter dated 11 August 1879, and is the same as that published in 2001 Zulu Victory pages 280/281.
It is absolutely, in my view, incorrect of you to draw the conclusion that the talk of cover-up is blown ' out of the water.' The WO letter does nothing of the sort . It correctly blames Chelmsford but you are ignoring the attempted cover-up by the likes of Crealock and Clery. That is the cover-up referred to in the title of ZV, nothing more, nothing less.
You may argue that Crealock had, in a time of stress, forgotten ( within a fortnight or so!) what he had written to Durnford. That argument holds little water and can be discounted. In a matter of such paramount importance, and having such a direct bearing on the command of the camp, I will state, without ambiguity, that Crealock lied. (Hope his relatives are around to consider potential litigation.)
Clery did not, in my view, tell the truth when he catagorically stated that he had issued WRITTEN orders to Pulleine. ( Pages 243-245 ZV) I will not go into the details that have been extensively detailed before on this forum, save to say he ' was mistaken.' We disagree on this issue. I would not go so far as to say Clery lied, but grave doubt exists as to his motives.
So yes, there was a cover-up attempted, not by Chelmsford, not by the War Office, but at the level of Crealock and Clery. Can one imagine what the consequences would have been if Crealock's note was not miraculously recovered in May? Open and shut case, Durnford guilty of wilful disobedience. The smirk on Crealock's face would no doubt have widened as he added the contents of his version of the note to the list of 'mistaken dispatches.' too kindly described by Sir Garnet. Crealock must have been dumfounded that the document was discovered and one must ask the crisp question, why was it not made public immediately?
Instead, it was handed back quietly to Crealock to hide away in his files, until, eventually pressed a couple of years later, made public at a time when it was in no one's interest to resurrect the memory of the defeat.
THAT was the attempted cover-up, not what the Duke thought, or the WO thought, or your interpretation of the WO letter.
But full backing for your view on the dreadful BBC Timewatch programme.
Ron and I were interviewd telephonically from UK, each interview lasting for thirty minutes each, based on Zulu Victory. The bottom line was that interest was shown only in the Zulu deaths and British 'atrocities' committed at RD. The book was about Isandlwana, but they were looking for sensation, and this was sensational journalism at its worst.
As ever
Peter

Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:34 pm

Gentlemen, many of us are finding your debate quite interesting and, for me at least, take all the many views into consideration while continuing my reading on the subject. After all, without dissenting opinions, this campaign would have long ago faded into the recesses of history!

Having said that... Chelmsford did have the Queen and the Horse Guards in his corner. Upon his return home we have on the one hand Disraeli refusing to receive him, a "Directed Letter" from the War Office (which somehow seems to me somewhat less onerous than an official "Letter of Censure") which may or may not have received wide public exposure and what seems to have been a fairly wide-ranging but relatively short-lived negative editorial campaign from the newspapers. While on the other hand we have his 'Local Rank' confirmed, the KGC bestowed, appointmrnt to Lieutenant of the Tower, his eventual promotion to full general, Col. of the Sherwood Foresters and then the 2nd Life Guards and after his retirement, appointment as Gold Stick in Court and a GVCO (most of the above honours being beyond my ken!). Not too shabby, all things considered. Of course he never again received an active command but after his experiences in South Africa I'm left with the impression that this eventuality did not rest uneasy upon him! None of which should be seen as a cover-up of events but more as perhaps a glossing-over and letting bygone be bygones sort of thing by people that realized he was simply the wrong man in the wrong place who hadn't acted out of malice or ignorance but was perhaps a victim of circumstances after a fashion. (I'm working on a position here that once I finish Gon's "The Road to Isandlwana", Laband's "Lord Chelmsford's Zululand Campaign", Damian's "The Zulu and the Raj" and Keith's "General Orders" books I plan to make my case. Of course 'when' has alot to do with overseas parcel delivery as I have plenty of free time to catch up on my reading now!)

As for the 'cover-up', I'm tending toward the idea that it was less a consciously planned conspiracy between Crealock and Clery as it may have been more of a reactionary 'damage control' response that filtered a goodly way down the ranks and could have taken on a life of it's own. I'll need a fair amount more source material under my belt before I can present that case though! (Wasn't the original scape-goating aimed at Lt.Col. Glyn?)

Best

Michael

Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 8:15 pm

I must say that I am unconvinced by charges of a cover up - but I haven't read Ron's book, so I speak warily. However, I have been in all sorts of War Office, Colonial Office etc etc files and I have to say that the level of cross-referencing that goes on would make it very difficult to effect a cover up in any meaningful sense. Take for example the absolutely top secret Carnarvon Commission reports; the incoming Gladstone and Kimberley government did their absolute damndest to keep these secret - only about half a dozen were printed - yet within a year or so, they were spoken of at discussions in the Royal United Services Institute and formed the basis for W.T.Stead's 'Truth about the Navy' articles after Carnarvon himself, Reggie Brett and Jackie fisher leaked 'em. The reality is that the War Office and Colonial Offices leaked like seives and any attempt to cover anything up would probably never have crossed their minds as a practical proposition. Furthermore, we should not be tempted to read anything into sinister into the involvement of the War Office Intelligence Branch in this issue - the IB was by no means secret; you could write a letter to the Head of British Military Intelligence well into the Edwardian era by simply addressing it by name to Captain Ardagh, Colonel Home or whoever, The Intelligence Branch, War Office, Whitehall. Watergate and Whitehall don't really match up!

However, I stand prepared to be corrected!
Damian

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:15 am

Peter

I thought that would draw you into the open!!

Of course I remain adamant as you remain adamant. Perhaps when you see a fuller exposition of my ideas in LWOTF you will be won over!!

Then again perhaps not! I have tried to put Chelmsford's fate into context - people struggle to grasp that a man who has been 'showered with honours' as they see it, might actually have been humiliated as a professional soldier.

Because a man has been thrashed by a brave African tribe, doesn't debar him from being a perfectly splendid regimental Colonel. It does debar him from commanding troops in the field ever again, which as we know Lord C did not.

Michael

That's precisely the point - Ellice's letter IS a letter of censure. (A directed letter is merely a category of letter for the purpose of style and layout).

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:58 am

Mike,

I have a feeling that although Sir Charles Ellice, Adjutant General was commissioned Coldstream Guards - he was the son of General Robert Ellice - sometime Colonel of 24th. Perhaps someone has the detail to check this. So Charles Ellice had more than a passing interest in the fate of the 24th.

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:34 am

Michael

I like your use of 'glossing over'. That sounds about right to me and I wouldn't demur from that at all.

And yes, some post disaster WO correspondence was forwarded to Glyn for comment by Crealock, which RG dismissed with weary contempt and had Clery return to the army commander's staff for action. They wouldn't touch it with a barge pole - quite the right response by the way. There's a recorded remark to the effect of - odd him (the GOC) asking me (No 3 Col Comd) about matters he knows more of himself - something like that.

If you've read my stuff you will know that I believe Glyn and Clery were in a real huff after the despatch of the Mangeni expedition and effectively washed their hands of any notion that they were in command of anything. Or more accurately Glyn did. He was senior enough to have a huff. Clery would have continued thrusting - hence we have him giving orders to Pulleine without any reference to Glyn.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 12:59 pm

Mike,
I should have realised that the bait was dangled. But fear not, on this particular topic, I will always be on stand by.
Perhaps I have not made the definition of ' cover-up' clear. It does not refer to anything other than a staff attempt, at 3 Column level, to adroitly, swiftly and purposefully, make statements that were neither honest nor true, the sole object of which was to throw doubt on whether or not Durnford had obeyed instructions.
We are not discussing cover-up at WO level or D of C level. Purely and instinctively, a deliberate and mischievious attempt by Crealock to twist the truth---proven by the discovery of what he ACTUALLY wrote as opposed to what he SAID he wrote. One might add the unspoken. namely that Chelmsford knew that he had not ordered Durnford up to take command of the camp. Yet why did he not query Crealock's supplimentary faulty statement instead of quietly going 'with the flow.?' A point to ponder.
Nothing will convince me that Clery handed written instructions to Pulleine. It is contrary to the critical primary source statement of Cochrane. The latter says "verbal" and verbal it remains. This in itself casts doubt on Clery. If he can be a tad short of the truth in this matter, can one trust anything he says?
Coincidentally, both Crealock and Clery's statements pointed the finger at Durnford, and the irony is that Chelmsford KNEW that he had left no instructions whatsoever with Pulleine. At RD the following morning, he admitted as much. Only then does the gallant Clery mount his rescue operation. Far too much of a coincident in view of the fact that Clery spent most of the 22nd in close proximaty to Chelmsford and at no stage admitted giving Pulleine any instructions, let alone written instructions.
To use legal jargon, the balance of probability is that individually, both Crealock and Clery attempted to take the heat off their commander by lies and half-truths.
The Duke of course saw through this and correctly placed the blame on Chelmsford. This does in no way detracts from the cover-up attempts made by C&C. Summarised, their reports indicated that had Durnford obeyed instructions, the defeat would not have taken place.
The reality was that Durnford neither had orders to take command of the camp nor inherited any written instructions from Pulleine. Why? Because they did not exixt.
I know that if you really get down to ZV1 again, Mike, you MAY convince yourself that doubt has been thrown on the conduct of Clery. That's all I'm asking, the realisation and acceptance of doubt.
As ever,
Peter

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 2:34 pm

Peter

You are getting hung up on Cochrane's passing use of the word verbal. Just because two officers have a discussion about the orders one of them has received, in front of a witness, it does not preclude the separate existence of a written set of orders. Clery said he wrote orders and even recounts the story of sending his batman across with them in the first instance. That drips with authenticity. Its exactly what I would do if I'd been stumbling about in the dark for a bit trying to put a flying column together, and still had to wash and shave, and load my horse ready for the off and was pushed for time. Absolutely vivid and real. If it was all a wicked lie, he wouldn't need to involve his batman in a made up story at all. He could have said that 'I rode across to Pulleine just before we left, chatted things through with him and dropped off some written orders I had prepared in my tent earlier.' Wherein lies any need to include his batman in the tale?? He appears because it's true.

And as I have pointed out before, Regimental Records of the 24th contains the reference to written orders being produced. I think this shows that the conscientious Symons asked questions of Cochrane to confirm specifically whether or not he had seen any paper being waved about. And he had. (Or Symons might just as an outside possibily have got it from Brickhill who was very close by at the time). If you can produce anything from Cochrane which is dated after publication of RR of the 24 and which makes no mention of a note then I'll concede you have a point. But you won't find it.

Clery did leave orders. He said he did. You are accusing him of an out and out lie and must therefore have evidence. And crucially why would he tell fibs - he was not aligned with the Chelmsford/Crealock axis - he played the major role in dobbing them in to his mates at the War Office and therefore in precipitating the letter of censure. Clery was establishing clear blue water between him and the army level brass. (You are perfectly at liberty to call him a sneak - or in today's money a 'whistle blower'!!) Clery also stuck up for Glyn when the deadly duo tried to shift a bit of blame in his direction. It just doesn't make sense to bracket Clery with Crealock and the general in a so-called cover up. He was the last man to cover up for them.

Come on - there's another crippling broadside into your gun-deck. You're sinking. Admit it and I won't board but let you strike your colours in quiet dignity!! Laughing

Regards
Mike

Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 5:32 pm

Mike,
Written orders indeed? Pray where were they? Tucked away in Pulleine's field desk? Or perhaps in his pocket? Derelection of duty not to hand them over? Now there is a broadside for you. But of course Pulleine did not neglect his duty; he had nothing to hand over.
Let's now tackle the Regimental Records of the 24th. You are using secondary source material from officer/officers who were not present. For example, Captain W.P.Symons in his excellent and detailed report states:
" To support this view all available evidence came to show that Colonel Pulleine was prepared to act on his WRITTEN instructions." Symons was not present and does not substantiate his source. It can only be Clery.So yes, the records are following the beat of the drum. ALL source material relating to written orders starts and finishes with Clery. But it is Cochrane who should be believed. He was present and reported exactly what he heard.
And if you want to believe Symons, how about this statement on page 9 of his report:
" .... and the retreating body of men [ Zulus] were simply decoys to entice us away from the camp."
However,I digress. Just an example of what to believe or not to believe on the 'decoy' theory!
Drips with authenticity?' far from it. Clery's batman/orderly/ servant was killed. He was not there to corroborate a statement that Clery knew could not be corroborated. By involving his batman, it added to his supposed authenticity. Penny to a pound had his batman lived Clery would have a different tale. I am saying that Clery DID leave verbal orders; Cochrane present said so. But he did not leave written orders, hence a question mark on his reliability as a witness.
There is no suggestion of collusion between Crealock and Clery. That I have made clear in ZV1. It was an independent knee jerk reaction to stray from reality and to firmly nail Durnford to the mast.
They need not have bothered really, as you have now achieved that for them! ( smile symbol but I cannot seem to move it)
Finally, just to make you rudderless, here is a quote from Inspector Mansil, Natal Mounted Police(out with Chelmsford) dated November 23 rd 1879, in a letter to Durnford's brother.
" Of course I also know that a dead set was made against your brother. Lord Chelmsford and STAFF, especially Col. Crealock tried in every way to shift the responsibility of the disaster FROM THEIR SHOULDERS on to those of your brother."
Now how exactly would the staff atempt to 'shift' responsibility other than to lie.
Cover-Up. Amen.

Your Mainmast is now riddled but, as you know, Gurkhas do not take prisoners. The Kukri will patiently, for the time being, remain sheathed.
As ever,
Peter

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:18 am

[Another foray from the ill-armed volunteer militia.]

Am I wrong in my impression that Lord Chelmsford set out that morning with the idea of returning to camp that day? If that were in fact the case would written orders for Lt.Col. Pulleine have been deemed necessary and if not wouldn't written orders have been deemed essential (more than just SOP defensive instructions)? No one was expecting a Zulu attack on anybody and I tend to think that Chelmsford was operating on the assumption that he was simply heading off to give the Zulus a good pasting, watch them fade away into the hills (his prior experience in the last CFW would have shown him the fallacy of attempted infantry pursuit) and return to camp victorious from yet another small skirmish. Otherwise wouldn't he have at least had the reserve ammo issued to his troops and made firm arrangements for food and supplies to be brought up before he left, rather than just his instruction that the ammo wagon be held ready in case he needed it?

By the same token was his intent for Col. Durnford's coming up to have him (an independant column commander) dissolve his column and incorporate it with the 3rd column thus assuming command of the camp for the few hours that he would be away? Or perhaps Chelmsford's intention was to have Durnford's horsemen stand ready to demonstrate against what Chelmsford believed would be the retreating 'two Matayanas' impi? The lack of any orders (written or verbal) left for Durnford lead me to believe that the latter was the case and that Chelmsford intended to relay specific instructions for Durnford once he had made contact with the Zulus if necessary and if not to set his men on recce. In the event, with no substantial Zulu contact he instead decided to cut his losses and at least move camp up to the Mangeni area seeing that half of them were already there. Knowing that Durnford would by this time be in camp why was the order to break camp sent to Pulleine if Chelmsford had intended Durnford to take command of the camp?

Like us I think both Clery and Crealock (glorified 'dog robbers' in my impudant opinion) had much better hindsight than foresight and instinctively scrambled to cover their respective bosses suddenly exposed posteriors once the tragic result of everyone's 'picnic excursion' mind-set became clear. Given the apparent hostility between Clery and Crealock I wouldn't be surprised that they would communicate through batmen but I would think that using orderly officers would be more professional.

Best

Michael

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:55 am

Michael,
From your posting, the volunteer militia seem to have been updated in weaponary!
You are absolutely right in saying that when Chelmsford set out, he intended to return the same day. So why indeed should he have ordered Durnford to take command? He didn't, but Crealock mischieviously did.
The intended role for Durnford (in the advance to contact) was only to commence in the Isipezi/Mangeni Falls area, where a semi-permanent base was to be established. Dartnell's message to Glynn accelerated Durnford's call to the camp, otherwise Durnford would probably only have got the call a day or two later.
The very reasons you expound in your first paragraph add to the improbability of Clery (who, together with all staff bar none, perceived no danger whatsoever to the camp) issuing written instructions to Pulleine, especially as Chelmsford intended to return the same day.
And then, having left the camp, Chelmsford asked his staff if anyone had left any orders for Pulleine. No one replied and, one has to ask, where was Clery? Out of earshot? I think not.
And when doubt existed as to whether the camp was under attack, does Clery clarify to Chelmsford the 'written' instructions that he had left? Not a damn.
That night, camped on the saddle, does Clery tell Chelmsford of the orders left for Pulleine, given on his own inititive? Not a peep.
ONLY when Chelmsford, fearful that it is he who is at fault, raises the issue at RD, the following day no less, does Clery's amnesia cloud lift.
Too late, say I. The balance of probability evidence is overwhelming.
And, by stating 'written' instructions were issued to Pulleine, which orders Pulleine would be duty bound to hand to Durnford, the latter's fate was sealed.
I call that a mischievious cover-up.

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:43 pm

This debate has really been very interesting some 127 years on.
I was just puzzled on one thing mentioned.
Is it really true Peter that you can be sued for implying that Crealock LIED about the orders? I mean isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on that in a historical sense? I'd think it would be a serious impediment to those who write and investigate history.

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:42 pm

Rich,
It is an assumption on my part, but the legal fraternity would confirm that there is indeed a time limitation.
In any event in Crealock's case I think I would win hands down with costs!
And I don't that it would be necessary to call Sir Garnet or Durnford to the witness stand.
Shades of the Court of Inquiry re-enactment mooted elswhere in this forum.