The history of 3NZ Division is linked inextricably with that of its principal commander,1 Major General Harold Eric Barrowclough. This chapter assesses his contribution to the Division’s development, addresses his relationship with Army Headquarters in Wellington, compares and contrasts his situation with that of General Freyberg, commander of 2NZ Division, and examines his role in 3NZ Division’s combat operations.
Superficially Barrowclough appears an unlikely choice to command a division tasked with offensive operations. Wartime photographs show him immaculately dressed, bespectacled, somewhat intense, with an intellectual air.2 Yet those photos do not show the battle-hardened warrior,3 whose military career spanned two world wars and saw him rise from Private to Major General, no mean feat for a 'citizen soldier'. Born in Masterton in 1894, he joined the Territorials while a law student in Dunedin. In 1915 he enlisted and served in France,4 rising to command a battalion of the New Zealand Rifle Brigade in 1918 at the age of 24. He distinguished himself at Le Quesnoy,5 conducting a personal reconnaissance and leading from the front. He received the D.S.O., Military Cross and Croix de Guerre and gained a reputation as an outstanding combat commander.6 In peacetime Barrowclough remained in the Territorials and was Colonel of the Third Infantry Brigade in 1931 when he resigned his commission to move to Auckland. Barrowclough was deeply concerned at the interwar decline in New
1
Major General Owen Mead had briefly commanded 3NZ Division before his death on 25 July, 1942; Prior to him, Major General Cunningham had commanded the two Brigade Groups in Fiji informally referred to as 3NZ Division before being invalided home in March 1942.
2
Geoffrey Cox described Barrowclough on the eve of Crusader as being 'deceptively slight, bespectacled, precise, making it difficult to envisage him as the young platoon commander who at the age of twenty- one had won the MC in ugly trench fighting'. Geoffrey Cox, A Tale of Two Battles, London: William Kimber & Co, 1987, p.159.
3
W.E. Murphy described him as 'a high minded and fearless leader.... ready to attack Germans wherever and whenever he found them on the battlefield'. W.E. Murphy, The Relief of Tobruk, Wellington: War History Branch, 1961, p.72.
4
Glyn Harper, Spring Offensive, Auckland: Harper Collins, 2003, p.123. Harper describes how Captain Barrowclough carried out a 'brilliant minor operation' which took ground at little cost in 1918 on the Somme.
5
Col. H Stewart, The New Zealand Division 1916 – 1919, Uckfield, East Sussex: The Naval and Military Press, Reprint of 1920 Edition, pp.586-613.
6
Personnel File H.E. Barrowclough, NZ Army Base Records, Trentham. Also John Crawford, ‘Major General Sir Harold Barrowclough: Leadership and Command in Two World Wars’ in Glyn Harper and Joel Hayward (eds), Born To Lead? , Auckland: Exisle Publishing Limited, 2003, pp.144 – 63.
Zealand's defence capabilities. He resurrected the defunct7 Defence League of New Zealand because he foresaw another war in Europe and 'as a loyal supporter of the Empire I wished New Zealand to be ready to assist the Mother Country when the need arose'.8 This conflicted with the anti-militarism of the New Zealand Labour Government elected in 1935,9 and showed a willingness to take unpopular positions.10 His legal partner was one of the four Colonels in the Territorials dismissed in 1938 for protesting publicly at the Government's downsizing of the Territorial Force.11 Barrowclough was viewed by some as the 'Fifth Colonel', which earned him few friends within the establishment.
On the outbreak of war Barrowclough was commissioned as a Brigadier.12 He possibly hoped to command 2NZ Division13 and along with other Territorial officers, apparently thought Freyberg was not the sort of 'real' New Zealander to whom the job should be given.14 Barrowclough clearly desired divisional command,15 but instead commanded 6 Infantry Brigade, 2NZ Division between May 1940 and February 1942. He closely supervised the training of units,16 and these efforts bore fruit in Greece in 1941, where the Brigade had to retreat under constant pressure, particularly aerial attack, but was successfully evacuated to Egypt.17 In November 1941 the Brigade suffered severe losses during Operation Crusader, the 8th Army offensive aimed at relieving Tobruk,
7
The original Defence League had called for the introduction of compulsory military training and had disbanded when this had been achieved in 1909. Barrowclough's Defence League failed because his message was unpopular. The League was eventually taken over by the RSA.
8
J.T. Henderson, Interview with H.E. Barrowclough, November 1969, unpublished manuscript, p.4.
9
'Some Labour party supporters were so suspicious of what they felt was a fascist body they urged the annual Party Conference to pass a remit for the suppression of the League'. W. David McIntyre, New Zealand Prepares for War – Defence Policy 1919-39, Christchurch: Caxton Press, 1988, p.231.
10
In 1939 General Duigan, annoyed by Barrowclough's continued activities on behalf of the Defence League, sent him a letter which Barrowclough regarded as 'my virtual dismissal'. R.J.C. Stone, The Making of Russell McVeagh, Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1991, p.132.
11
Laurie Barber, 'The New Zealand Colonels' Revolt', The New Zealand Law Journal, December 1977, pp.496-502.
12
Barrowclough's perception was that there was 'a strong and bitter campaign on the part of certain senior officers of the Staff Corps to prevent both he and the four Colonels being reinstated’. Stone, p.133.
13
J.T. Henderson, Interview with Major General W. G. Stevens, 6 and 9 June 1969, unpublished manuscript, p.11. Stevens was secretary to the Organisation for National Security and later Chief Administrative Officer of 2NZEF. Stevens believed this, but acknowledged he had no proof.
14
Henderson, Barrowclough Interview, p.19.
15
Two things would have made this unlikely. Barrowclough's command experience had been limited to that of a Colonel in World War I and he had not undertaken the specialist staff officers training in Britain or India.
16
Crawford, p.150.
17
W.G. McClymont, To Greece, Wellington: Historical Publications Branch, 1959. Referring to the initial retreat – 'the march was performed in magnificent style fully justifying the attention the Brigadier had given to long route marches during the training period in Egypt', p.183.
but it fought tenaciously.18 Barrowclough sealed his reputation as a superb combat commander,19 able to think clearly under great stress, inspiring confidence in those around him.20
When consulted on a commander for 3NZ Division,21 Freyberg had no hesitation in recommending Barrowclough.22 Barrowclough was reluctant to leave because he considered himself Freyberg’s likely successor if the latter was promoted and appreciated that it was unlikely that New Zealand could sustain two divisions.23 However, he obeyed orders and returned to New Zealand, only to find that command of 3NZ Division had been given to Major General Mead.24 He was extremely angry and initially considered demanding to be returned to North Africa. He rejected command of the South Island Home Defence Division in favour of his home area of Northland. This was the most likely area of Japanese invasion and he characteristically threw his energies into forming units, training and welding them into an effective fighting force.25 He then surveyed the defences and submitted a plan to Wellington. He noted that '... I did not receive a reply or even an acknowledgement'.26
Barrowclough proudly saw himself as a Territorial officer.27 Permanent Force officers, many of whom occupied powerful staff positions, tended to look askance at 'part-time' soldiers in high ranks.28 Barrowclough believed that Duigan, Puttick’s predecessor as Chief of General Staff, had been prejudiced against Territorials. Barrowclough noted that 'I wouldn't have served overseas with Duigan, and I don't think many Territorial
18
Richard Humble, Crusader, London: Leo Cooper, 1997, p.164.
19
Murphy, Tobruk, pp.286-96.
20
Crawford, p.156. See also Cox, p.200.
21
The War Cabinet indicated a preference for an officer from 2NZ Division for the Fiji Command. Puttick suggested 'that only Barrowclough, Inglis or Kippenberger would be suitable command division in Fiji...' In the meantime he recommended Mead for the Fiji command. Archives NZ, AD12, Box 21, Secret Cables E Puttick, Puttick to Freyberg, 16 February 1942.
22
Owen Gillespie, The Pacific, Wellington: War History Branch, 1952, pp.45-46.
23
Henderson, Barrowclough Interview, p.9.
24
It could not have escaped Barrowclough's notice that Mead was a Permanent Force soldier.
25
Henderson, Barrowclough Interview, pp.10-11.
26
Ibid., p.11.
27
Ibid., p.9.
28
This situation was not unique to New Zealand. In Australia there was a sharp divide between the full time Staff Corps Officers and Militia Officers, complicated by the acute shortage of officers to command the newly created AIF units and the tribalism of the Officer Corps. Jeffrey Grey, The Australian Army, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.111-12. The Militia had to put up with the AIF perceived sense of superiority over them. Albert Palazzo, Defenders of Australia – The Third Australian Division, Canberra: Department of Defence, 2002, p.98.
Officers would'.29 He believed that in peacetime 'a marked jealousy between the Staff Corps and the Territorial Officers had developed'.30
Mead’s unexpected death led to Barrowclough’s appointment to command 3NZ Division. On 11 August 1942 he was instructed to prepare it for offensive operations in the South Pacific by 25 August 1942, 31 an impossible task as the troops scattered around New Zealand on leave and at various camps. In terms of divisional staff, Barrowclough had Col J. Brooke-White, CRE and Brigadier C Duff, CRA, who had experience from the Desert War. Many of the rest of his officers were veterans of World War I, some physically unfit and most lacking recent combat experience. Those that had been in Fiji had received little or no training in operations larger than a battalion32 and there was little sense of unit cohesion, let alone divisional identity. Men had to be given uniforms, equipped, trained, inoculated and vaccinated, all under the pressure of time.
One of Barrowclough's major achievements was to make 3NZ Division capable of complex combat operations in a tropical environment. The Division consisted initially of soldiers from 8 and 14 Brigade Groups, who were fit primarily for static warfare,33 together with hastily raised units that were generally ill-equipped and untrained. He firstly purged the Division of unfit, inadequate or elderly officers and promoted younger and more energetic men. This had a beneficial effect on morale34 but many of the purged senior officers were retained in New Zealand in administrative or staff positions and harboured no love for Barrowclough. Secondly, he ensured that his men were thoroughly trained.35 He devised a training exercise in the Kaimai Ranges for two brigades ('the Battle of the Kaimais'), one defending and one attacking, based on the Australian experience on the Kokoda Track. As he had with 6 Brigade, Barrowclough organised and led a route march. A Captain with 30 Battalion considered that
29
Henderson, Barrowclough Interview, p.20.
30
Stone, p.133.
31
War Cabinet Minute, 11 August 1942.
32
Archives NZ AD 12 28/15/1 Barrowclough to Army HQ, 20 August 1942
33
Archives NZ, AD series 12, 28/15/1, Barrowclough memo to Army HQ, 20 August, 1942.
34
The Third Division Histories Committee, Headquarters, Dunedin: AH & AW Reed, 1947, p.21.
35
Barrowclough noted that 'It was very apparent on my taking over the command of the Fijian Force that it had not had experience of modern tactical roles. That lack of experience has been overcome during the six months of fairly strenuous work on this Island (New Caledonia).’ War Diary GOC 3NZ Division, 30 May 1943.
The jungle exercise was well conceived, I believe by Barrowclough, and the mass route march to the base of the Kaimais in the Matamata area was an excellent boost to lead into the exercise proper. I think this exemplified Barrowclough's class in appreciating the need to lift morale and also to bring to all the new and old members of the force a sense of unity.'36
Lessons were learned in air/ground cooperation, logistics and engineering,37 but above all consolidation of 3NZ Division was begun.38
The Division was then deployed to New Caledonia, where 'Everyone trained ... There was no option, since, it was an instruction that all ranks of every branch and headquarters even the less conspicuous element such as cooks and batmen must undergo a fitness campaign and march certain distances.'39 Barrowclough directed that the Division be trained in jungle warfare40 and this began 'always with an eye to combat in the Solomons'.41 Route marches over difficult terrain were designed to increase fitness levels. Exercises Styx, Sylla and Tonta involved river crossings, beach landings and mountain warfare between early to mid 1943. Exercise Taniwha was directed by Barrowclough and intended to train signals personnel under field conditions.42 Training was multi-dimensional, from Training Exercises Without Troops (TEWT) for senior officers conducted at brigade and divisional level, through to specialised unit training such as Exercises Bobo and Kongo.43 Lessons were learned – 'New Zealanders of 3 Division, for the first time in history preparing for jungle and island warfare, were practically writing their own text books as their training progressed'.44 Operation Cyclops involved landing practice for 8 Brigade and Divisional Headquarters Staff. Training in embarkation and landing paid dividends later. Further training on the New Hebrides honed amphibious operations skills.45 Barrowclough showed an interest even in tactical training. Visiting 15 Brigade, he saw their machine gun pits were badly
36
Narrative written by Lindsay Adams. Authors Collection.
37
A conference was held in the aftermath of the exercise to discuss lessons. Archives NZ WAII DAZ121/1/28.
38
Archives NZ, WAII D 305/1/67, Report on Kaimai Exercise.
39
Gillespie, p.98.
40
Archives NZ, AD 28/5, Vol. II, Barrowclough to Army HQ, 23 January 1943.
41
Gillespie, p.99.
42
Archives NZ WAII, DAZ 121/1/1/2.
43
These involved 36 Battalion and 29 Battalion. Archives NZ, WAII, 1, DAZ 154/1/17-18.
44
Gillespie, p.101.
45
constructed, AA guns misplaced and the laying of barbed wire ineffective. He pointed this out to the Brigadier and noted 'On the whole the exercise should have proved of immense value as all arms saw a number of mistakes which it is hoped will not be repeated'.46 Further training on Guadalcanal involved 3NZ Division Tank Squadron.47 One of Barrowclough's problems was the undetermined purpose of the Division. He had been told it would be used for offensive operations, yet it was encumbered with heavy coastal defence batteries.48 He pressed for a configuration in the style of the usual British infantry-based division with supporting elements.
Negotiations concerning the composition of these forces were in progress before Barrowclough's appointment and continued long afterwards. No New Zealand commander, faced with the responsibility of taking combat troops overseas, was ever so harassed by proposals, uncertainty, and indecision, all of which despite his initiative and capacity for detailed planning, hindered him from re-organising his division and training it to that desired state of efficiency required for an unusual campaign such as island war in the tropics. No details of the precise character of the operations were available to him, which was no fault of the New Zealand Army authorities....49
These uncertainties caused friction between Barrowclough and Army Headquarters in Wellington.50 Another source of friction was the understrength nature of 3NZ Division, which eventually led to the disbandment of 15 Brigade.
John Crawford has emphasised Barrowclough’s difficulties with senior Army
46
War Diary GOC 3NZ Division, 2 June 1942.
47
Such training was not without its perils. A demonstration to Barrowclough of the indirect fire techniques of the tanks came to an abrupt halt when a misfire landed close to Barrowclough's group. Jeffrey Plowman, Rampant Dragons – New Zealanders in Armour in World War II, Christchurch: Kiwi Armour, 2002, pp.42-43.
48
'[A]n organisation unique in the history of British Arms'. Gillespie, p. 77. Barrowclough protested about the immobility of 3.7 howitzer and 155mm guns and argued vigorously for more 25 pounder guns. Archives NZ, AD 28/15, Vol. 1 Barrowclough to Army HQ, 27 August 1942.
49
Gillespie, p.75.
50
Archives NZ, EA1, 85/1/1, Lt General E. Puttick, The Defence of New Zealand, Wellington:
Government Printer, 1943, pp.15-16. During World War II the New Zealand Army was commanded by the General Officer Commanding with the rank of Lt. General. He exercised command through staff based in Wellington. The General Staff dealt with planning, intelligence and training matters. The Adjutant-General's Branch dealt with pay, discipline, medical matters and POW's. The Quarter-Master General’s Branch dealt with food, equipment, stores, road and rail movements. The GOC was the main adviser to the War Cabinet and held critically important roles with the Army Board and the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
commanders, arguing that he was in conflict not only with the Japanese, but also Lieutenant General Puttick and Army HQ in Wellington. 51 While attributing this partly to stresses surrounding the Division’s uncertain future and scarcity of resources, Crawford maintains that Barrowclough had resented the attitude of some New Zealand Regular Army officers during the ‘four Colonels’ incident, and had blamed their personal animosity for opposition to his appointment as a brigade commander in 2NZ Division. He was annoyed at Mead’s appointment to command 3NZ Division and ‘may well have thought that this was another example of regular officers conspiring against him’. In 1942 there was a prolonged dispute with headquarters over his rate of pay. Crawford notes that
Puttick was a rather eccentric man, and many people found it difficult to establish a good relationship with him. Barrowclough’s litigious tendencies, which led him to debate decisions Puttick had made, did not endear him to the conservative Chief of General Staff. Finally, Barrowclough’s relations with Army Headquarters as a whole were not helped by his brusque manner, which upset a number of senior officers and obliged Puttick to remonstrate with him. In December 1942, for instance, an exasperated Puttick asked Barrowclough, ‘Would you please remember we are backing you up all we can and that no consideration of Home Defence will prevent us doing all we can to further a forward policy in the Pacific.52
The relationship between Puttick and Barrowclough seems to be epitomised by Puttick’s statement to Freyberg in late 1944 that although he considered Barrowclough had ‘lots of ability’ and 3NZ Division had performed satisfactorily, he was ‘very glad to be rid of such a disturbing individual’.53 He had found Barrowclough ‘most difficult, querulous and complaining as Commander 3 Div.’ and alleged he had shown strong prejudice against Regular Army Officers and upset senior commanders at Army HQ.
Clearly, there was conflict between Barrowclough and Puttick, but this has to be seen in