The Relief Of Tobruk

Press, Volume C, Issue 29620, 16 September 1961, Page 3

The Relief Of Tobruk

[The following letter has been received from Mr W. E. Murphy, author of the New Zealand war history volume, •The Belief of Tobruk.”] "As a warm admirer of your book reviews I was looking forward to your verdict on my own work, ‘The Relief of Tobruk,’ and was pleased to see your generous allotment of space to it on July 22. When I read the review, however, I was most disappointed. The greater part, by far, related to works other than my own, mostly unacknowledged; there are many misstatements of fact (again from other than my work); and many opinions I do not hold are attributed to me either directly or by inference, so that the reader must be misled.

"The first two paragraphs are the views of the late J. L. Scoullar (not specified), mostly in his words. The third suggests that the capture of Tripolrtania was an object of Crusader campaign. The fourth is hopelessly mixed up about the numbers and attributes of British tanks. The fifth paraphrases 'The Sidi Rezeg Battles,’ by the South African historians, Agar-Hamilton and Turner, without pointing out that I do not entirely endorse their views. Then ’Agar and Hamilton’ (and later ‘they’) are quoted at length; and in the seventh the reader is told I concur, which is not quite true. Then there is another misquoted bit about ‘Rollende Saerge’s,’ misspelt from Agar-Hamilton and Turner and ludicrously attributed as a German comment on British tanks, when it was about ITALIAN tanks. Had the reviewer reed my book be would know that the Germans had much respect for many British tanks, particularly the Matildas. "To continue the dreary tale, Freyberg in the next chapter is credited with views before the campaign, some of which he did not hold until afterwards. In the ninth Carver is quoted with approval and the reader is not to know that I do not quote him and do not endorse his wiki exaggerations about the way the campaign was fought. The next four paragraphs are taken, mainly and

carelessly, from Agar-Hamil-ton and Turner, so far as 1 can judge, without attribution. Jock columns were certainly not an innovation. Th®

reader might well take it that all the views except the few attributed to someone else are mine and that the errors are mine—the numbers of aircraft, for example. “Finally, I am supposed to have pulled punches. I deny this. Pulling punches must be a conscious act. I have nowhere shrunk from adverse criticism where I thought it was deserved. Your reviewer might say, if he liked, that criticism he thinks is merited in places is not given—not at all the same thing. And he must be aware that with the facilities at my command it is at least possible that in those cases I might have information which puts a different complexion on matters.

“Well-founded and perceptive criticism of my work, however unfriendly, would have been most welcome. But I repent having views presented in such a way that the reader might think they were mine when in fact they are denied in my work, as well as facts given as if from my work when they are from some other work and are wrong in any case.

"I am left with the feeling that your reviewer did not bother to read my book at all and that he is thoroughly careless in quoting even those works he has read. Most of ail I am aggrieved that such a poor effort should appear in a page I so greatly esteemed.”

Our reviewer writes: I am disappointed at Mr Murphy's rejection of the review of his book since, although I disagreed with some of his conclusions, I admired his obvious industry and application in its preparation. To answer his points briefly, the quotation from J. L. Scoullar was*inadvertently not acknowledged. which I regret, more especially since I have the utmost admiration for the late Mr Scoullar’s ability as a journalist and historian; Rollende sarge (with an umlaut) was Afrika Korps slang applied to all enemy tanks and at times, no doubt, to their own. The aircraft figures given are Mr Churchill’s in “The Grand Alliance.” Mr Murphy should realise the responsibility of a reviewer is primarily to the reading public, not the author.

A book titled “Optics: An Introduction for Ophthalmologists" has just been published by Thomas in Springfield, Illinois. It was written by Dr. Kenneth Ogle.