Fromelles 1916

by Paul Cobb

At Fromelles in July 1916 two divisions - one British and one Australian - within a few weeks of arriving in France - went into action for the first time. Their task was to prevent the Germans from moving troops to the Somme where a major British offensive was in progress, but the attack on 19/20 July was a disaster with nearly 7,000 casualties in a few hours. This account explores this battle which for many epitomises the futility of the Great War. In those few hours many heroic deeds were done but the battle caused a souring of Anglo-Australian relationships and truly was a baptism of fire for these British and Australian troops. This is their history. In a new section, Paul Cobb explores the recent discovery in 2008/09 of a mass war grave on the battlefield and includes details of the findings of the archaeological dig, the recovery of 250 bodies and the creation of a new military cemetery.

Genres: Military History

256 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2007

Reviews

[Tegan Tiller · Rating 1 out of 5]

A tediously dull and desiccated telling of a battle better covered by other authors such as Michael Senior, Patrick Lindsay, Peter Barton and Peter Fitzsimons. It at least evokes in the reader the feeling of trudging through Flanders mud as one wades laboriously knee-deep in the bland statistics that the author seems to find so much comfort in (probably a keen train spotter) accompanied by a weak and flat narrative. The author has no concept of the arc of storytelling and indulges in his own petty minute by minute sterile regurgitation of historically well established events at the expense of human story or evocation of atmosphere. There’s a reason why writing is best left to professionals and this sadly exemplifies that. I don’t expect subsequent commissions will be forthcoming and sense the tragically narcissistic world of self-publishing awaits. Dull. Dull. Dull.

[Claire Baxter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was interesting however it was a pretty dry treatment of the subject and lacked the human element that, for example, Paul Ham's treatment of Sandakan had. In addition there were a lot of military abbreviations and company/battalion numbers which for someone without that background made it hard to follow.

[Niall Slynn · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author patently lacks a university education and the writing is mired in a purile and pompous minor grammar school aesthetic that’s unbearable. “Well researched” would suggest something previously inaccessible, whereas “tediously compiled” is more appropriate.

This wasn’t enjoyable and is wholly amateurish.

[Mark Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book , well researched

[Lechlade Reader · Rating 1 out of 5]

Where to begin!?

This sort of conceited typically self-published claptrap is never going to amount to a quality read but when the author can’t even avoid basic spelling mistakes when describing their own grandfather’s war record you know you’ve hit the bottom of the quality barrel. It actually made me laugh out loud:- About the Author Page 24 “one [grandfather] was omissioned in the Dorest Regt.”

I think you ‘omissioned’ to use the spellchecker or pay for a copy editor Paul Cobb.

As a reader I can’t take seriously anything written by an amateur author who can’t even be bothered to exercise the most basic writing diligence but expects the reader to indulge the writer with their time and attention: that’s just offensive to the reader.