Alex Kessler

10/11/2014
Sigel-HST 298
Historical Documents Examination
Military Documents: 8th Division, 25th Brigade, British Army
The interesting thing that can be gained from using official government
documents as historical source versus the oral of visual image sources that we have
been working with previously is that in many ways it removes the emotional weight
that the aforementioned sources can carry. While a subject presenting an oral
source may have lapses in memory, or a certain aspect of an image could fog the
perception of the viewer, an official document will outline only what was considered
important by the parties involved.
This brings me to the official documents provided for the homework., Judging
by the cover page and stamps and titles on subsequent pages, these documents
appear to be related to the 8th Division, 25th Brigade of the British Army. One of the
first steps to take when analyzing historical documents is to take notes of the dates
and times to try and build a timelinethese documents are mostly dated form the
September 17-September 30, 1916, although they are not chronologically ordered.
This is a clue that the documents are in some way related to the same event or
series of events. The header at the top of the second page says SECRETthese
documents were clearly not meant for anyone to see but the officers in charge. By
using these documents as a source, we are getting a behind-the-scenes glimpse of
the inner workings of the British military during WWI, a vantage point that may not
have been accessible to the troops on the ground.

Due to the fact that these are original documents, we can see all of the
original date stamps, signatures, and notes written between the margins of the
different letters and telegrams. If these were transcribed, many of these important
details may be missing. By noting the nature of these markings, it becomes clear that
many of these military messages passed through a number of hands, either upwards
or downwards through the ranks. I ascertained that the documents were British by
taking into consideration the method of dating (day/month/year) and the labeling
on the envelopes (On His Majestys Service.)
The content of the documents pertain to a number of failed military
offensives from mid to late September; the attempts of the commanding officers to
explain them to their superiors, and responses from division headquarters. For
example, on page 9 of the PDF document, a letter was sent by the office of the
Brigade Major (again, due to the nature of original documents, we can see that this
was sent by a general staffer and with a stamp of approval by the Brigade Major)
noting that the raid on the 24th of September was not more successful due to the
fortune of war and not to any fault of the troops A similar letter on page 6 of the
PDF, sent by the Lieutenant Colonel for the 25th Brigade, describes a different
unsuccessful offensive attempt on September 19th, this time due to malfunctioning
explosives. The Lieutenant Colonel notes, The different parties and individuals of
these parties were well trained.
These admissions of failed military operations along with a memorandum
issued on the 18th of September pressing officers have a sense of urgency when
submitting their raid reports and also to show caution in identifying themselves as

officers during the raids (No identification discs, badges, etc., should be worn by
raiding parties.) seem to describe a series of failures by this particular division in
September of 1916. The letters being sent are dry and without emotion, which
allows the reader, for better or worse, to create their own scenarios in which the
documents were being exchanged. While a first hand account of one of these failed
raids might show how it affected the individuals involved, this military
documentation allows insight into how it affected the greater war effort
surrounding themthe measures being taken by those in charge to correct the
errors.
As with all historical sources, there are questions to be asked when analyzing
government documents such as these. The officers writing and receiving these
messages almost definitely have personal motivationsafter failing to execute a
successful military operation it would certainly be within the best interests of the
commanding officers to justify the failure to their superiors, and questions arise as
to whether they are willing to listen. It also raises questions as to how exactly events
transpired; since the commanding officers of the operations will want to prove the
missions were botched due to circumstances out of their control, they may omit
certain events that occurred from their official reportsin some ways easier to do
with the formulaic language used in these military reports. There is not much room
for embellishment or explanation, so simply leaving out details might not be called
into question.
It is important to determine the purpose of the documents, both why they
were made and how they serve historians. Military documents like these are

important to determine strategy, personnel efficiency, troop effectiveness, etc.. In

this way the documents can also help historians understand the chain of command
of the British military during WWI, the rationale behind strategies, and how the
British army functioned internally.
When building a historical argument, government documents offer a
perspective that might not exist with other sourcesan oral source will not have to
follow the same guidelines or forms required by the offices or people for whom
official documents are created, and a visual source is open to interpretation. But the
very nature of government documents creates a map to follow through their
emotionless and mechanical language.