by Peter Rees
See AWM38 3DRL 606/116 diary entry, 4 September 1918, for Bean’s comments about Monash’s attitude to the men; 6 September 1918 for Monash’s Ashmead-Bartlett comment; 18 September 1918 for the Dyson story; and 3 September 1918 for the visit of the newspaper editors.
The reference by Bean to Monash, battles and engineering was drawn from Official History, Volume VI, p. 209.
Regarding criticism of the action at Montbrehain, see Peter Pedersen, Monash as Military Commander, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1985, pp. 290–292. Pedersen also comments that ‘Ruthlessness and bullying during a battle were familiar characteristics of Monash’s . . .’ This was hardly likely to find favour with Bean.
The Liddell Hart quote regarding Monash was drawn from Ellis, C.E.W. Bean, p. 87.
For White’s comments on Monash’s appointment, see AWM38 3DRL 606/276/1; folder 1928–1937.
Bean discussed his own role in the matter in Official History, Volume VI, pp. 197, 198.
For Bean’s ‘confidential and personal’ note to himself, see AWM38 3DRL 606/274B/1, folder 1918–1939; also, Two Men I Knew, p. 173.
For Bean’s comments about Monash and commands, see Official History, Volume II, p. 588; and for Monash’s brilliance, Official History, Volume VI, p. 205.
The ‘dug-out King’ reference was sourced from Ellis, C.E.W. Bean, p. 85.
Bean’s letter to Gavin Long is quoted in McCarthy, Gallipoli to the Somme, p. 282.
For Gellibrand’s assessment of Monash, see A.W. Bazley, AWM 3DRL/3520 1/143.
For Serle’s assessment of the conduct of Bean and Murdoch, see John Monash, p. 328.
38—And so it is peace
See AWM38 3DRL 606/116 diary entry, 1 October 1918, for the story of the so-called ‘corpse factory’; for Bean’s trip to Cannes see entries for 15, 16, 17, 24 and 29 October 1918.
For Donald Horne’s comments on Federation, see his book In Search of Billy Hughes, Macmillan Australia, Melbourne, 1979, pp. 42–43.
Regarding Bean and the theory that war was the supreme test of a nation’s efficiency and the sternest school of a nation’s character, Ellis, C.E.W. Bean, p. 97, refers to The Times History of the War in South Africa, Volume I, 1900.
See AWM38 3DRL 606/116 diary entries, 12–14 November 1918, for Bean’s reaction to the end of the war.
The George Long Bean referred to was the father of the World War II official correspondent, Gavin Long, and after the war was headmaster at Bean’s old school, All Saints’ College, Bathurst.
For quotes from Bean’s In Your Hands, Australians, Cassell, London, 1919; in order of pages quoted from, see pp. 92, 41, 33–6, 21–4, 53–4, 16, 30, 60.
Part Three
After the nightmare
39—The bush backwater
The account of Bean’s move to Tuggeranong homestead was drawn from Bazley, Canberra Collection, p. 238.
The account of Bean’s return to Gallipoli was drawn from his book Gallipoli Mission, AWM, Canberra, 1948; in order of pages quoted from, see pp. 32, 126, 128, 49, 55 and 70–2.
For W.A. Holman’s speech, see The SMH, 11 July 1919.
For Bean’s letter to Pearce, March 1918, see AWM 93 12/12/1 Part 1.
For Bean’s estimate of the timeframe, see Bean, memorandum, ‘Histories of the War’, 14 August 1919, MP525/1, file 5/6/48, Australian Archives, Melbourne.
See Bean memo to Secretary for Defence, 9 October 1919; AWM38 3 DRL 7953/10 part 1, for correspondence around the censorship issue.
See Bazley, Canberra Collection, p. 242 regarding the staff at Tuggeranong.
Additional material for the description of life at Tuggeranong for Bean and his staff came from Minders of Tuggeranong Homestead members Jenny Horsfield and Rebecca Lamb.
40—The Nipper
The words ‘mastoid problem’ are written on the back of the original photograph, held by Edward Bean Le Couteur and Anne Marie Carroll, of Charles Bean and Effie Young sitting on the steps of Queanbeyan Hospital.
Bean’s letter to his parents about Effie in June 1920 was sourced from AWM38 3DRL 7447/9 to 10.
Bean presented a paper to the Royal Australian Historical Society, 22 February 1938, on ‘The Writing of the Australian Official History of the Great War—Sources, Methods and some Conclusions,’ that was reproduced in the society’s journal, Vol. XXIV, 1938, Part 2.
Bazley’s analysis was sourced from Canberra Collection, pp. 242, 243.
Bean’s letters to his mother about Effie on 23 September 1920 and 4 October 1920 were sourced from AWM38 3DRL 7447/9 to 10. Other letters quoted in this chapter from the same file were dated 2 November 1920, 30 October 1920, 17 December 1920.
Effie’s background and references were sourced from Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, AWM PR00283 Series 2/3 Folio 3.
Arthur Bazley’s comments about Bean’s romance with Effie Young, and those about Erskine Crawford later in this chapter, were drawn from his diary, 8 August 1920, privately held by the Bazley family. After Bazley’s death in 1972, his family presented Effie with a copy of his diary covering the Tuggeranong years. Out of respect for her feelings, all references to Erskine Crawford’s unhappy reaction to her marriage to Bean were deleted.
Bean’s letter to Effie professing his love was dated 12 December 1920, and sourced from Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, AWM, PR00283 Series 2/2 Folio 2. See also letter, 19 October 1920, this file.
Effie’s letter about her doubts, 19 November 1920, was sourced from Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, AWM PR00283 Series 2/2 Folio 2. Also, see Bean’s letter to Effie about the release of Volume I of the Official History was dated 20 December 1920; also quoted is his letter of 15 December 1920.
For details of Edwin Bean’s tutoring of Effie, see letter, Lucy Bean to Effie Bean, 25 April 1923; AWM38 3DRL 7447/26.
See letter, 19 November 1920, AWM PR00283, Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, Series 2/2 Folio 2, regarding the appointment of a new sister.
Conan Doyle’s comments about Effie were sourced from a letter, 28 November 1920, AWM38 3DRL 7447/9 to 10; and Jack Bean’s from a letter, 26 October 1920, AWM PR00283 Series 3, wallet 7.
Bean’s desire for a wedding date was sourced from a letter, 23 December 1920, AWM PR00283, Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, Series 2/2 Folio 2.
Monty Bean’s account of the wedding was given in a letter, 27 January 1921, AWM38 3DRL 7447/9 to 10; also see Charles Bean’s own account in a letter, 24 January 1921.
Further details of Bean’s romance with Effie, and the falling out with Erskine Crawford, were drawn from the letter by his cousin Joan Butler in the Worth family papers, Mitchell Library, MSS 6980.
41—Bluff and double bluff
For background to this chapter, see Anthony Barker, ‘Words at War’, Weekend Australian Magazine 20–21 April 1996; and Martin Ball, ‘Re-reading Bean’s Last Paragraph’, Australian Historical Studies, 122, 2003.
Robertson’s critique to Bean, see letter, 1 July 1920, Robertson–Bean Correspondence, Mitchell Library.
Tucker’s comments about the origin of Bean’s problems were in a letter to George Robertson, 9 May 1921; quoted Ball, p. 7; also Barker, Weekend Australian Magazine, 20–21 April 1996.
For Robertson’s threat about withdrawing the volume, see letter, 19 May 1921, quoted Weekend Australian Magazine.
For Hamilton’s comments, see Daily Telegraph, 28 October 1921; Observer, quoted in The Herald, Melbourne, 13 February 1922; and Hamilton in The Manchester Guardian, 20 February 1922.
The reference to the exchange between Bean and Wilfred Kent Hughes was drawn from Peter Burness’s book, The Nek: A Gallipoli Tragedy, Exisle Publishing, Wollombi NSW, 1996; p. 150.
For Bean on Gellibrand, see Official History, Volume I, p. 81. Gellibrand complained to Bean on 4 November 1921. As Bean had not met Gellibrand until divisional headquarters embarked on 21 November 1914, Gellibrand’s biographer Peter Sadler suggests that the information was provided by Brudenell White in an attempt to play down Gel
librand’s value. See Peter S. Sadler, The Paladin, pp. 55–56.
42—Censorship, tragedy and farce
For Gullett’s comments on Tucker, see Gullett–Bean correspondence, 1 June 1921, AWM38, 3DRL 7953.
As regards Gullett agreeing to work with Jose, see Anthony Barker, George Robertson: A Publishing Life in Letters, Brisbane, University of Queensland Press, 1993, pp. 140–2.
For Gullett’s rejection of Bean’s line, see Gullett to Bean, March 1921, AWM38 3DRL 7953/8 Part 1.
For story of Surafend, see Peter Rees, Desert Boys, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2011, pp. 285–90.
For correspondence around Gullett’s stand on Surafend, see letter, Gullett to Bean, 6 December 1922, AWM38 3DRL 7953/8 Part 1; Bean to Gullett, 3 December 1922, Bean to White, 7 December 1922, White to Bean 11 December 1922.
For H.M. Green’s comments, see A History of Australian Literature, Volume 1, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1961, pp. 753–62.
For Macandie’s comment on Jose, see letter, 19 November 1919, quoted in Stephen Ellis, Historical Studies, vol. 20, no. 80, 1983, p. 370.
Bean’s letter to Treacy was dated 13 June 1921; AWM38 3DRL 7953/10, Part 2 Publication of Official History, Volume IX, The Royal Australian Navy, 1914–1918.
For background to the publication of Volume IX, see Ross Lamont, Introduction to Official History, Volume IX, University of Queensland Press,1984.
For Bean’s letter to Pearce rebutting the Naval Board, see Bean to Pearce, 15 August 1921; quoted Ellis, p. 375.
Regarding the ban on Jose showing the draft to Bean, see Ellis, Historical Studies pp. 373, 374.
For Bean’s inner caution, see Bean to Jose, November 1923; quoted Ellis, p. 380, and for Jose’s response, 3 December 1923; quoted Ellis, p. 381.
Bean’s letter to Seaforth Mackenzie was dated 15 March 1922, AWM38 3DRL 7953/13 Part 1; see also letter Mackenzie to Trumble, 10 May 1922; W.A. Newman to Mackenzie, 16 May 1922; Bean to Mackenzie, 28 October 1925; Bean to Newman, 19 July 1926.
For the Heney saga, see Bean to Heney, 25 June 1920, AWM38 3 DRL 7953/15 part 1; Bean to Heney, 9 July 1920; Bean to W.A. Newman, 8 July 1920; Heney to Bean, 17 July 1920.
For Tucker to Bean, 11 July 1921; Angus & Robertson Ltd to Bean, 11 July 1921; Tucker to Bean, 25 August 1921; AWM 3 DRL 7953/15. For Bean’s rejection of the Heney manuscript, see Bean to Heney, 11 June 1925, and Bean memorandum to Defence, August 1925; for White’s comments on Heney, see letter to Bean, 21 July 1927.
For Bean’s thoughts to Scott on the volume’s aims see letter, 9 November 1928, AWM38 3DRL 7953/16; for Bean’s explanation to Scott, see Bean to Scott, 12 February 1933; also, see Bean to Garran 10 April 1934, AWM38 3DRL 7953/16 Part 2; Bean to Scott, 13 April 1934; Scott to Bean, 15 May 1933, AWM38 3DRL 7953/16; and for the Hughes matter, see letter, F. Strahan, secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department, to Bean, 4 August 1936, AWM38 3DRL 7953/15.
43—In his own hands
For the story of Arthur Bazley’s injuries from the explosion, see Bazley, Canberra Collection, P.A. Selth (ed.), Lowden, Kilmore, Victoria, 1976, p. 240.
Background to life at Tuggeranong homestead came from Rebecca Lamb and Jenny Horsfield, of Minders of Tuggeranong Homestead.
Fred Cutlack’s comment about Professor Tucker was drawn from Bazley, Canberra Collection, p. 246.
Bean commented in his private diary on the government’s decision to pay his passage to England.
For the shared diary, in which Charles Bean did most of the writing, see AWM PR00283, Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, Series 1, Wallet 2.
For Tas Heyes’ letter to Bean, 3 September 1925, on the conditions for accessing British documents from the war, see AWM38 3DRL 7953/4 part 1.
For Bean’s comment about the difficulty of Fromelles, see AWM38 3 DRL 7953/4 part 1.
See T.H.E. Travers, ‘From Surafend to Gough: Charles Bean, James Edmonds, and the making of the Australian Official History’, Journal of the Australian War Memorial, 27 October 1995, p. 15, on dealings between Bean and Edmonds.
For the Bean–Edmonds correspondence, see Peter Pedersen’s introduction to Official History Volume III, University of Queensland Press, 1982.
Brudenell White’s comments to Bean were written on 19 September 1927. AWM 3 DRL 7953/4 pt 2.
Bean’s late niece Phyllis Bauer provided information about Sundays at Lindfield in a private interview.
Bean’s comment about Effie’s tennis was sourced from his private diary.
Effie’s letters to Bean were dated 13 January 1935 and 17 December 1939; his to her, 9 January 1939. Papers of Charles and Ethel Bean, AWM PROO283, Series 2/1, Folio 1.
For reference to the Bean–Griffin tree inspection tour, see The SMH, 12 September 1933.
See Peggy James, Cosmopolitan Conservationists, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, 2013, pp. 79–84, for background to Bean’s urban planning activities.
See also, Roe, Nine Australian Progressives, p. 70.
For background on recruitment in city and country Australia in the first AIF, see L.L. Robson, The First AIF: a study of its recruitment 1914–1918, Melbourne University Press, 1970.
44—The ghastly spectre
For Bean memo to Cabinet, see National Archives of Australia, item number 580-2-4630.
The Defence Department wrote to Bean on 27 June 1930 to advise him that the Official History was safe.
For Bean’s expanded concept of the Australian War Memorial, see National Archives of Australia, item number 580-2-4630; also letter from Bean to Fred Cutlack, 25 April 1923, AWM38 3DRL 7953/9, part 1.
Regarding Griffin’s approval, see Peter Harrison, Walter Burley Griffin: Landscape Architect, National Library of Australia, Canberra, 1995, p. 72.
For Bean’s comment about reverence, see memorandum, April 1919, AWM 93, 2/5/7.
Bean made his reference to Sancta Sophia to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. See report together with Minutes of Evidence Relating to the Proposed Australian War Memorial, Canberra, Government Printer, 1928.
Information regarding dealings with George Lambert was drawn from letters from Bean to Gullet, 28 February 1923, and Bean to Treloar, 7 March 1923. AWM 38 3DRL 6673/302. See also Michael McKernan, Here Is Their Spirit, p. 79, and pp. 451–464.
For Bean’s views about the need for an inscription, see letter, Bean to Treloar, 6 February 1929, AWM 315 234/002/025. For the letter on the Honour Roll, see Bean to Treloar, 28 February 1928, AWM 93 746/1/2, part 1.
The suspension announcement was made by Arthur Blakeley, Minister for Home Affairs, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, Representatives, volume 122, 29 November 1929, p. 501.
For Treloar’s acceptance of a delay, see McKernan, Here Is Their Spirit, p. 147.
For Bean’s dealings with Monash over Eric Baume’s articles, see Bean to Monash, 21 May 1930; AWM38 3DRL 606/277/1.
For Tucker’s comments to Bean, see letter, 28 February 1930, and Bean to Tucker, 7 March 1930; McCarthy papers, NLA MS 7777.
For Edmonds–Bean correspondence re Official History Volume IV, see letters, 2 September 1932, 11 October 1932, and 14 November 1932, AWM38 3DRL, 7953/34, part 2.
For Bean’s comments on ‘a good war’, see letter, The SMH, 8 March 1930; for his response to General Lloyd, see letter, The SMH, 13 November 1930; for Bean’s comments on a breach of faith, see letter, The SMH, 11 April 1936; for Bean’s comments about the demagogue leading Germany, see letter, The SMH, 21 April 1933; for Bean’s comments about trusting Germany, see letter, The SMH, 13 April 1936.
Bean’s League of Nations Union article was republished in Reveille (Sydney), 1 July 1932.
For Bean’s comments on German expansionism, see letter, The SMH, 16 March 1938; for Bean’s letter recanting his position on Germany, see The SMH, 21 March 1939, and his letter warning against ‘stumbling over the precipice’ on 28 May 1936; and for his letter warning about no nation going blindly to war again, see The SMH, 7 September 1936.
&nb
sp; 45—The straight line
For Bean’s Ingleburn account, see The SMH, 15 December 1939; and for his hopes that the Germans would rise up against Hitler, The SMH, 28 September 1939.
For Serle’s analysis, see Official History Volume VI, University of Queensland Press 1983, pp. 1074–6; for the story of the last paragraph, see p. 1096.
Bean’s interview with The SMH appeared on 30 August 1941.
The Bulletin story was published on 27 May 1942.
For quotes from Bean’s War Aims of a Plain Australian, see pp. 3, 37, 38, 53, 84–5 and 159.
For Bean’s reference to ‘progressive ideals’, see AWM38 3DRL 6673/571 33/3.
For Bean’s Straight Line jottings, see AWM38 3DRL 6673/572, part 1, part 2, part 3.
See Bean’s book, Here, My Son, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1950, pp. 130, 143–4.
46—About turn
For Bean’s account of the Canberra air disaster and the deaths of Gullett and White, see his book, Two Men I Knew, pp. 221–2.
For Bean’s advice on the new official history, see AWM PRO 1618 Folder 1 of 1.
For Treloar’s concerns about Slessor, see letter, 19 September 1941; AWM PRO 1618 Folder 1 of 1; also, letter, 4 December 1941; see letter, 18 November 1941, for Bean’s support for Long.
For background to the Wilmot–Blamey story, see Chester Wilmot: War Reporter, ABC; http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2009/04/24/2551705.htm
For Bean’s misgivings about Blamey, see Two Men I Knew, p. 207.
Bean recorded the remarks from Evatt in his private diary.
For Wilmot’s criticism of Long’s volumes, see letter to Bean, 14 August 1953, AWM38 3DRL 6673/495.
For Bean’s letter to Treloar, see 18 November 1941, AWM PRO 1618 Folder 1 of 1.
See Bean letters, The SMH, 27 March 1942 and 31 March 1942, for his anger at the propaganda.
The Queensland Digger article was published on 1 May 1942.
See The SMH, 17 November 1947, for Bean’s stand against the dislocation of families; and The SMH, 22 March 1949, for his advocacy of a quota system; Flagships Three, p. 210, for his earlier position; and The SMH, 27 August 1949, on the Australian experience.