Auchinleck biographies

Hi all,

I’m reading John Connnell’s and Philip Warner’s Auchinleck biographies at the moment and am finding them a little disappointing as, in my opinion, they are heavily influenced by a desire by many of the Auk’s supporters to dispel what they see as Montgomery’s unfair disparagement of his period in command of 8th Army.

There are a couple more out there (one by Roger Parkinson and one by one of the Auk’s ADC’s) which I am looking to get 2nd hand but I was really wondering if anyone knows of a more up-to-date biography which uses primary sources rather than being over-reliant on the recollections of Dorman-Smith and other dismissed generals. I’ve got Liddell Hart’s The Tanks Vol 2 and Barnett’s The Desert Generals which strongly reflect the Dorman-Smith school and indicate the influence he had on their interpretation of Auk’s command.

Any recommendations greatly appreciated.

Regards

Tom

 

Tom,

Read Warner's book long ago, hardly remember if it had value.

Charley highlighted in 2022:

From: Checkmate at Ruweisat: Auchinleck's Finest Hour

In a 2021 post:

From: Crisis between King and Cabinet?

 

My only advice is that Auchinleck, the Lonely Soldier is not especially good.

I can copy any section you are interested in sampling.

Parkinson's book got weak reviews at the time of publication, but I haven't read it.

Greenwood's book (the ADC you mention) got some very poor reviews. The only fact I have retained about the author is that he was one of Walker Walter's 'lieutenants' who helped run his 'Civil Assistance' group in the late-70s:

 

I’ve seen a review of Warner's Lonely Soldier by Brian Bond which wasn’t enormously positive either about the content or the structure of Bond's book. He claims to have used a whole range of primary sources (giving a long list of National Archives file references in the bibliography) but states that "In a biography such as this there seemed little virtue in breaking up the flow of the narrative by annotating the sources". I was particularly unimpressed by statements such as:

"p.84. [...] But there are some who feel that he might have handled the 1944 battle in Europe more skilfully than Montgomery and that, if he had been there, the war would have been over sooner. As it was, his potential was never fully tested, not least because he fell foul of politics in general and Churchill in particular."

Provided without any analysis supporting that argument and no clue as to who the "some" might be!

Regards

Tom

 

Thanks,

I am increasingly agreeing with that view!

Thanks.

I ordered Parkinson's book last night (under £10 so in my bracket!) and will provide a review when I've read it.

In a final chapter, Warner does provide "Some Assessments" and includes a quote from Roger Parkinson that the 'purpose' of his biography was to ensure that Auchinleck was 'given full credit for his achievements' which doesn't fill me with confidence that it provides an objective study.

In the same chapter, Warner writes that Greenwood wrote to Mountbatten in 1977 to suggest that Auchinleck deserved further recognition. Mountbatten replied that as the Auk had refused the peerage that Mountbatten had offered him after stepping down as Viceroy of India he didn't really see what he could do. So, unless a very cheap copy offers itself, I'll probably give Greenwood's book a miss as likely to be another "puff-piece".

Regards

Tom

 

So: are there actually any good biographies of Auchinleck?

 

Another (more recent) one for the mix?

Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck (paperback 10 April 2024) by Evan McGilvray.

Hardback published 2020. Does the later paperback have any updated/changed content?

Veracity? Quality? No idea!

Kind regards, autobiography anyone? Always,

Jim.

 

I'd forgotten that one.

I didn't buy it owing to this review:

Field Marshal Claude AUCHINLECK

Evan McGILVRAY
Barnsley, Pen & Sword Military, 2020
255 pp ISBN 978-1-52671-610-1 (hbk)

Sometimes I find reviews difficult to write, and this was one of those cases. I have a couple of other books from this author about the Polish forces in the Second World War, and I rate them very highly, so I was looking forward to this biography on Claude AUCHINLECK. There is another biography on AUCHINLECK by Philip WARNER dating from 1981, so it was inevitable that I made comparisons between the two. In addition, there is the biography by GREENWOOD that was reprinted in 1990.

It appears this author relied heavily on these two biographies for the three early chapters on AUCHINLECK’s life. There are some misunderstandings on some aspects of the military, such as the Brevet rank, and the author misses out AUCHINLECK’s promotion the rank of Major General and the two years he spent as Deputy Chief of the General Staff and Director of Staff Duties.

From the fourth chapter onwards, the focus is on AUCHINLECK’s wartime career, for which the author refers frequently to the Auchinleck Papers held at the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester. It is good to see primary sources utilised in this manner, and they do provide some interesting issues, in particular, the dynamics and personalities of some of the senior officers of the British Army during the Second World War. Chapters six to eight inclusive cover the war in the Middle East, and I believe that the author gives a sympathetic analysis of the situation, and the demands placed on AUCHINLECK.

The last two chapters feature what to many was the pinnacle of AUCHINLECK’s career, as C.-in-C. of the Army in India, when he had the steer the Indian Army through the trauma of partition. His position has to be seen in the context of the politics of British India from the 1930’s, through the Second World War, to independence on 15 August 1947. Once again, the author covers this well, and makes sensible conclusions from the evidence available.

My concerns about the book is that sometimes the narrative can be difficult to follow, and even having read it twice, I still found confusing. The other issue which I feel lets down the standard of the book are comments originating from the author which I feel are ill-informed and unjustified. One example are comments made about CHAMBERLAIN on page 34 and 55, which I feel are unnecessary. In my opinion, these detract from the overall content of the book.

There are eight pages of photographs in the centre of the book, all of which are attributed to the National Army Museum. Most do not have any direct relevance to the content of the book, and they are poorly captioned. There is an error in naming the Jat Regiment in one caption. The photographs add little to the book in my view.

In conclusion, this book is not of the same standard as the previous books by this author, and personally I prefer the other two biographies on AUCHINLECK. The author is to be congratulated, however, on choosing AUCHINLECK as the subject of his book, as his service in the British Indian Army is fascinating, and worthy of a higher profile. Generally, the author provides a meaningful and well-researched biography, and I feel generally he reaches objective conclusions. I am left with the view that AUCHINLECK has suffered in the historiography of the Second World War because of the acerbic and unwarranted criticism from MONTGOMERY, who for his own reasons, felt it necessary to comment upon and denigrate other officers of this period. This book provides some balance to this aspect of the Second World War, and I do recommend it to readers to broaden their understanding on AUCHINLECK and his place in history.

Archived Link (page not loading):
Latest News

 

It doesn't seem that there are any good biographies of Auchinleck although there are plenty which are written with the belief that his reputation needs rescuing from (to quote from the review that Charley posted up):

To be honest, I'm personally not so interested in his full biography more his period as C-in-C Middle East and particularly the last month or so which he spent as an ad hoc army commander. Niall Barr covered that period but only as one section of his book Pendulum of War which covered the whole of the fighting at Alamein (i.e. 1 Jul to early Nov 42). Obviously, his early experience within the Indian Army (and without the British Army) had its impact on his military "philosophy" and his opinion of his subordinates (both officers and men).

I can see much more value in a study of how 8th Army actually functioned under Auchinleck's field command; whether he and his supporters were justified in blaming his subordinates (poor staff work, incompetent corps commanders, "bring back the death penalty", uppity Dominion commanders who wouldn't agree to all of 8th Army's many ideas, etc) and why, in that case, he planned to promote several of his subordinates (Gott, Corbett, etc).

Of course, Monty's input to the historical record hasn't helped the process of historians making an impartial assessment but I can't help thinking that someone who went on to become C-in-C India and a Field Marshall must have had a very thin skin if they were truly worried about Montgomery's opinion. It wasn't as if Auchinleck was the only general that Montgomery disparaged!

Regards

Tom

 

All the best

Andreas

 

I hate to add to Andreas' pain, but this was another section of Warner's biography that made me cringe:

"p.54
[…]
The CO of the 2st Scots Guards, Lt-Col Thomas Trappes-Lomax, had already achieved miracles with a force which had arrived in Norway short of the equipment necessary for that terrain; in any case, unlike the dispersed ‘special’ 5th Battalion, it was quite untrained to use it. […] On 25 May, however, when Auchinleck heard that the Krokstrand position had been abandoned, contrary to his orders, he recalled and replaced Trappes-Lomax.

It has been suggested that subsequently Auchinleck felt that he had been too harsh with Trappes-Lomax, and that this feeling made him a little too tolerant in his later dealings with other, less deserving, subordinate commanders. […]

p.55
[…] and Auchinleck undoubtedly would have realised later that the affair was unlikely to have occurred if he himself had known the state of the ground. The characteristic of all his later battles is that he knew the ground as well, if not better, that the subordinate commanders who fought on it. He was always well up forward with his troops, enduring the discomfort and dangers they underwent, and that too is perhaps related to his experience of the Norway campaign."

Is there any evidence that Auchinleck felt he had been to harsh in his treatment of Trappes-Lomax. What evidence is there that Auchinleck thought he should have know the state of the ground where the Scots Guards were operating? How did setting up your Tac HQ on the eastern edge of Ruweisat ridge help fight the battle of 1st Alamein?

Regards

Tom

 

It's all the Scots' fault. Trappes-Lomax, Ritchie. I knew it. Direct line between the two.

All the best

Andreas

 

Regards

Tom

 

Andreas! Haggis to you!!

What an ofal comment, "it's all the Scot's fault".

May your Burn's night super forever be reekie neeps and tatties

Kind regards, auld lang syne, always,

Jim.