A study in the limitations of command: General Sir William Birdwood and the A.I.F.,l914-1918 Prepared and submitted by JOHN DERMOT MILLAR for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of New South Wales 31 January 1993 I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of advanced learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis. John Dermot Millar 31 January 1993 ABSTRACT Military command is the single most important factor in the conduct of warfare. To understand war and military success and failure, historians need to explore command structures and the relationships between commanders. In World War I, a new level of higher command had emerged: the corps commander. Between 1914 and 1918, the role of corps commanders and the demands placed upon them constantly changed as experience brought illumination and insight. Yet the men who occupied these positions were sometimes unable to cope with the changing circumstances and the many significant limitations which were imposed upon them. Of the World War I corps commanders, William Bird wood was one of the longest serving. From the time of his appointment in December 1914 until May 1918, Bird wood acquired an experience of corps command which was perhaps more diverse than his contemporaries during this time. He is, then, an ideal subject for a prolonged assessment of this level of command. This thesis has two principal objectives. The first is to identify and assess those factors which limited Birdwood's capacity and ability to command. The second is to explore the institutional constraints placed on corps commanders during the 1914-1918 war. Surprisingly, this is a comparatively barren area of research. Because very few officers spent much time as corps commanders on their way to higher command appointments and because the role of the corps commanders in military planning and in the conduct of operations was not immediately apparent, their role has been practically ignored. Historians have tended to concentrate on the Army and divisional levels creating a deficient view of higher military command in World War I. However, corps commanders could and did play an important part in planning operations and in military affairs generally. Bird wood's experiences at Gallipoli and in France reflect some of the changes to command structures that were prompted by the successes and failures of operations directed at the corps level. In as much as these two theatres of war were vastly different and Birdwood was confronted with dissimilar problems, it is possible to draw some general conclusions about the evolution of higher military command after 1914. Using a wide range of primary and secondary sources located in Australian and British archives, this thesis traces Birdwood's career as a corps commander at Gallipoli and on the Western Front. It also examines his tenure as G.O.C. of the A.I.F. CONTENFS ,Acknowledgements Abbreviations Introduction 1 Chapter One 11 Chapter Two 45 Chapter Three 68 Chapter Four 81 Chapter Five 92 Chapter Six 98 Chapter Seven 119 Chapter Eight 140 Chapter Nine 165 Chapter Ten 175 Epilogue 193 Conclusion 197 Bibliography 204 ACKJ\JOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the Australian War Memorial which awarded me grants in 1990 and 1991 enabling me to undertake research at archives in the United Kingdom. In particular, my thanks to Peter Stanley, Head of the Historical Research Section at the AWM for his continued interest in the project, and Ian Smith, Curator of Information Services for his help with research materials. My thanks to Lady Derham, daughter of General Sir C.B.B.White, who allowed me access to her father's papers; Warren Perry, MBE; Sir Robert Rhodes James; Dr Tom Frame; Professor Peter Dennis and Elizabeth Greenhalgh; my wife, Christine; and Professor Trevor Wilson of the University of Adelaide who read and commented on .the manuscript in its entirety. I am particularly grateful to my thesis supervisor, Dr Robin Prior of the University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, who has been a source of valuable and trenchant criticism. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ADC Aide-de-Camp AIF Australian Imperial Force ANZAC Australian and New Zealand Army Corps AWM Australian War Memorial BEF British Expeditionary Force BGGS Brigadier-General, General Staff CGS Chief of the General Staff CIGS Chief of the Imperial General Staff C-in-C Commander-in-Chief co Commanding Officer CRA Commander, Royal Artillery CRE Commander, Royal Engineers cso Chief Staff Officer DMO Director Military Operations DMS Director of Medical Services GHQ General Headquarters GOC General Officer Commanding HE High Explosive HQ Headquarters HMS His Majesty's Ship MEF Mediterranean Expeditionary Force MGGS Major-General, General Staff NCO Non-commissioned officer NZEF New Zealand Expeditionary Force PRO Public Record Office RA Royal Artillery RE Royal Engineers RN Royal Navy vc Victoria Cross wo War Office INTRODUCTION I Of all the things that William Riddell Birdwood was and the many things that he achieved in his life he will be remembered and judged chiefly for his performance as a corps commander between December 1914 and May 1918. In attributing to Birdwood his proper place in military history, it is first necessary to determine those factors which limited his capacity to discharge his duties. At times, these limitations severely constrained Birdwood's freedom of action, circumscribed his authority and stifled his abundant initiative. Their nature is diverse. Birdwood was limited by command administrative structures, by social mores and customs, and by his own background and experiences as an Indian Army officer. Their cumulative effect on his performance was profound. Birdwood was a man of his time who carried with him a colonial background that hampered more than it helped in his later military career. He was born in India on 13 September 1865 at Kirkee, Poena, the son of Herbert Birdwood, then Under-Secretary to the Government of Bombay, and Edith, daughter of Surgeon-Major E.H.Impey of the Bombay Horse Artillery and also Postmaster-General of Bombay.l He left India for England at an early age to undertake his education at a public school, Clifton College, Bristol. This was also the alma mater of Douglas Haig, Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in France from December 1915 until the war ended, and of Charles Bean, the Australian official historian of World War 1. By his own admission, Birdwood was a poor student keeping "a steady place near the bottom" of his form.2 He was, however, an enthusiastic sportsman and a keen member of the school cadet corps which led him to a commission as a lieutenant in the Prince Regent's Royal Ayr and Wigtown Militia, later the 4th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers. During his service with the Militia from 1883 to 1884, it "occurred" to Birdwood to sit for the Sandhurst entrance examination. He passed although "very low down in the list".3 A Sandhurst contemporary was Douglas Haig, four years older than Birdwood and the oldest cadet, while Birdwood was one of the youngest. 1 W.R.Birdwood, Khaki and Gown (London: Ward, Lock & Co., 1941), 25. 2 Ibid., 27. 3 fh;~ ')Q 2 In 1885, a Russian war scare with the Afghans led the War Office to issue orders for the first fifty of the Sandhurst 'junior' cadets to be commissioned and posted to a regiment. Accordingly, Birdwood was commissioned and gazetted to the XII Lancers and ordered to embark for India to join his regiment at Bangalore. The following year he was posted to the XI Bengal Lancers stationed in Central India. Promoted to the rank of captain in 1893, Birdwood was made adjutant of the Viceroy's Body Guard. At this time, he married Jenny Bromhead, daughter of Colonel Sir Benjamin Bromhead. While on leave in England in 1899, war was declared on the Boers in South Africa. Birdwood was selected for service in Natal with Lord Dundonald's Mounted Brigade as a Staff Officer. The following year, Lord Kitchener succeeded to the command of the British Army in South Africa. Selected as Kitchener's Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General, Birdwood was to serve with him for the next nine years. He was later to describe Kitchener as the "greatest influence on my life".4 At war's end in South Africa, Kitchener was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army. Birdwood was appointed his Assistant Military Secretary and Persian Interpreter. In 1905, he was appointed to the position of Military Secretary, a position he held until 1909 when Kitchener left India. He spent the following years as the commander of the Kohat Independent Brigade in Northern India until April 1912 ·when he was promoted to the rank of Major-General and appointed Quartermaster-General in India. There was a deep affection between Birdwood and Kitchener. Birdwood noted in his diary, on hearing of Kitchener's death in June 1916, that "... I think he was fonder of me than almost anyone".s He told Senator George Pearce, the Australian Minister for Defence, that he felt he had "lost the best friend I had in the world ... ".6 Travers notes that in the 1890s and early 1900s, it was essential for the career of a young officer to have a senior protector who would look after the interests of his protege.7 Kitchener filled this role for Birdwood. There is nothing sinister in this.