Talk:Beauman Division

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

More detail to come... Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of formation of Beauman Division?[edit]

Beauman's autobiography states that "The official order that brought in into being was dated May 27th. The actual troops from which it was constituted were for the most part already under my command...." This is at variance with 29th May - as stated in this article. Is there any other source for this date?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't have access to the source that I used for the 29 May date (I think it was a library book, but which library I found it in eludes me). The official history, THE WAR IN FRANCE AND FLANDERS: 1939-1940 by Major L. F. Ellis (Chapter XVII) says; "These troops included the improvised forces collected by General Beauman — Beauforce, Vicforce and 'Digforce'. The latter had been formed from reservists serving in the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps. On 31st May these forces were formed into an improved Beauman Division." (p.263). So it seems there is no consensus. Perhaps there is a disparity between the order being given and the division being actually formed, or perhaps the histories are based on recollections rather than documented facts. If you have a page number for the Beauman autobiography, we could add it to the article, which perhaps should reflect the fact that there is no agreed start date for the formation. Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This date seems to be a it of a moving target!! I've just located my copy of
Lynch, Tim. Dunkirk 1940 'Whereabouts Unknown': How Untrained Troops of the Labour Divisions Were Sacrificed to Save an Army. publ: Spellmount, The History Press . ISBN 0752454900
(That's got to be one of the longest book titles I've ever seen.) This source says (pg 158 )"The divisional structure for the Beauman Division had been put in place by 28 May and orders formally raising it were issued by the War Office on the 31st". So, between us all, we have 27th, 28th, 29th and 31st. I wonder what they were doing on the 30th, or is that date in another book?
However, when faced with apparently mutually exclusive pieces of information, it often turns out that they can all be correct. Beauman's own words suggest that the start of the whole process was the order dated 27th May - the divisional structure follows on the 28th - not sure about the 29th - but I'd guess there is a formal order with a date stamp for the 31st (which I note was a Friday - a good day for the avid administrator to get everything formally completed and filed).
I don't know if there would be anything definitive in the National Archives - that's a resource I have yet to tackle. I suppose the article could state a few of these dates, perhaps thereby giving some insight into the confusion and bureaucratic inefficiency that existed at the time.
Incidentally, Lynch lists a somewhat different composition of "A" Brigade : 4th Buffs, 2/6th East Surreys, 4th Borders, and 1/5th Sherwood Foresters. I can confirm that the 2/6th East Surreys became part of Beauforce on 18th May (as did 4th Buffs) at Le Manoir from the East Surrey's war diary. However, the diary does not mention becoming part of the Beauman Division - but they were the front line of the BEF at the time (and these were soldiers who were essentially untrained - they'd done a little drill and had emergency instruction on getting in and out of lorries - yes, the army teaches everything - some of them never actually got to fire their rifles, even in training). The 2/6th East Surreys ended up in St Valery with the 51st (they were ambushed by tanks on the way there and had to abandon their lorries and march in small parties through the night) - but there is no war diary for this period, it would have been burnt before capture. On a personal note, my father was the company clerk who actually typed up the war diary - his initials are on the front cover and I know that he had a clerical job in the 2/6th East Surreys (followed by 5 years as a POW).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, the page number in Beauman's autobiography is 140 for the date 27th May. If you ever get your hands on a copy of this book, I found in charmingly readable for a military memoir. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; I'll see what I can do. I have spent a pleasant afternoon writing an article on Archibald Bentley Beauman which I hope you will cast a critical eye over for me. I have a similar family interest in this campaign as my father was a Royal Engineer in a Railway Workshop Company who (more luckily than your father) was evacuated from St Nazaire on 18 June 1940, the morning after the Lancastria went down. With a dim memory of failing to convince my history teacher that the whole BEF wasn't evacuated at Dunkirk, I have made it my mission to improve Wikipedea's coverage of the British Army in France in June 1940, and in so doing, have discovered little-known stories like that of Beauman Division. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your problems with a history teacher, I think many writers on the BEF post-Dunkirk miss the point that Beauman Division, the 51st (when they arrived from the Saar at the end of May) and the crumbling French army put up enough resistance to allow some of the huge amount of military stores that had been stockpiled around Rouen to be shipped back to Britain, where they were vitally needed. Beauman says this in a roundabout way in his autobiography, but I have not found an independent writer who has really grasped this point. The BEF had spent from September 1939 to May 1940 shipping material over to France, and it was all stored in dumps in these rear areas. What is amazing is that so much of it was sent back in the latter half of May and the first part of June. (Sadly, much was also needlessly destroyed.) Beauman should get the credit for, in the last 10 days of May, encouraging his brigade commanders to aggressively patrol right up to the German bridgeheads across the Somme to give an impression of a stronger force to back up these patrols. It's possible that the Germans might have paused in their advance regardless of this ruse, but if not, Le Havre could have been taken quickly and easily. I'll have a proper look at your article on Beauman tomorrow.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

Added trimmings to the article and put the OOB in a collapsing frame, added details and citations, linked to Op Cycle.Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beauman Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OOB[edit]

Added more detail from Karslake but not all of the details are citable from that source. Looking for more. Keith-264 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In using Karslake as a source, it might help to have in the back of your mind that Karslake (senior) did not get on with Beauman and others (I think Alan Brooke had some difficulties with Karslake - worth checking Brooke's diaries for that) and probably had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about who had what responsibility in the later stages of the Battle of France. Certainly Karslake did not have hands on command of a great deal - so understandable if his information may not have been totally accurate.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since his son wrote the book I treat the text with caution but the OOB seems less likely to be biased. I'll have another look in the OH tomorrow. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, the first thing that Brooke did on arriving in France was to tell Karslake that his services were no longer required, and was surprised to find that Karslake already had an aircraft standing-by to take him home. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brooke's diary, 13 June "...At Le Mans found de Fonblanque and Karslake and Swayne [British representative with Georges]. Told Karslake he could go home." to which is added the note written when the diaries were prepared for print "After greeting Karslake I informed him that he need not wait any longer than he wanted. He told me he had a plane standing by and was off at once!" Brooke states that Karslake did not get on with de Fonblanque, who was his boss. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor old Philip de Fonblanque died as soon as he got home, but at least Churchill gave him some credit for getting so much kit away. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of "base depot"[edit]

A few of us (User:Keith-264 and User:Rodw) have had a go at linking "base depot" in the Lines of Communication section. I wish I had a good reference to address this, but my understanding is that a "base depot", in BEF terminology, is an establishment that borrows something from the concept of a Regimental depot. This means it is somewhere that, among other things, provides accommodation (and possibly training) for men waiting for assignment to a front line unit. In WW1, there were base depots located close to some channel ports. In the part of WW2 covered by the article, there was a large personnel depot at Rouvray-Catillon (page 116 of Then a Soldier, Beauman's autobiography). "Base depot" is the term used in the cited source (Ellis) and he appears to differentiate it from supply and ammunition depots – and I infer that he particularly means the Rouvray-Catillon camp. (The article Supply depot is completely unreferenced so is not a lot of use to us.) I don't think there is a useful article to link to in Wikipedia to cover the term "base depot". I don't think linking to a French version of the word really assists, as "depot" is well established in British military English.
Of course, if anyone has a good reference on what a military historian means as a "base depot", I would be interested to hear it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was working my way through several articles which link to Depot (remianing issues are listed here). Several relate to railways etc but there may be some military ones left. If there really is nothing suitable perhaps we need a new article.— Rod talk 21:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but that presupposes that my understanding of "base depot" is correct. I would have a go at an article if I had a reference. The best I have for confirming my understanding (so far) is the Oxford English Dictionary "c. A station where recruits are assembled and drilled, and where soldiers who cannot join their regiments remain." Not really enough for an article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible source: [1]
Unfortunately, this appears to be the segment of military history that is not the first choice for a historian's next book. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it to mean depot, which has had "base" added to it by someone who doesn't know what depot means, like "immediate aftermath" (if it isn't immediate it isn't an aftermath) or safe haven (Anyone ever heard of a dangerous one?) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking at military English here, as used by people such as the subject of the article. I think they add "base" to "depot" to differentiate it from any other type of military depot – Regimental depot being one example. This is just like having a "broom cupboard", a "kitchen cupboard", an "airing cupboard". "Cupboard" on its own has a clear meaning, whilst the modifier gives it a more precise meaning. I don't think there is anything defective in the use of English. Even if there was, this is a technical term used by an RS.
Incidentally, "immediate aftermath" is often cited as tautology – which it may be when used carelessly. However, fire may be the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, in that it becomes apparent immediately after the first shaking has stopped. Disease (caused by loss of clean drinking water, sanitation, etc.) would take a few days to develop, but still be classed as an aftermath of the quake. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't aftermath it's a consequence of the aftermath. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: English usage[edit]

Seeing comment by User:Keith-264, I checked some sources on English usage.

Garner's Modern English Usage (p. 125) we find "immediate aftermath" being used without comment in a sentence where Garner is explaining the difference between "breach" and "broach": “Less than three months ago—in the immediate aftermath of the breaching of the Berlin Wall—the Chancellor's closest aides were predicting that five to eight years might still be needed before unity became a reality.” I suggest it is unlikely for Garner to have picked a sentence to illustrate correct usage of one word if it displayed another error in English usage.

One of the various illustrations of the use of "aftermath" in Fowler (Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4 ed.), publ. OUP) is a sentence that says: "Depression is sometimes an immediate aftermath of completing a piece of work". The only criticism he provides is (a) over-use of "aftermath", particularly by journalists and (b) using the word to describe the after effects of something that is not "unpleasant or unwelcome". This is perhaps a lesson for Wikipedia military history editors, as one should not talk about the aftermath of a victory, though it would perhaps be permissible to refer to the aftermath of a defeat.

Given the etymology of aftermath (it was originally an agricultural term) there is no firm implication of immediacy. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usage and accuracy aren't always the same. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beauman_Division&oldid=1214210864"