Anyone know what this is about.. Another from a friend.

With the advantage of hindsight we can see that a few soldiers properly placed in the defile could have prevented the Zulu attack from the rear.  The massacre was preventable.


From the original report:
Suddenly the noise of firing became much more intense, but with the smack of the bullets striking the earth all round quite close it was not easy to tell from which direction this fresh firing came.  At the same time the men seemed to be dropping much oftener, and I was impressing them with the necessity of keeping up a brisker fire to the front, when I noticed a bullet hit our side of the parapet.

It then became clear, the enemy must evidently have got into the donga behind us (to which I paid no attention, as it was to the rear), and were shooting us in the back as we stood up to our parapet.
From the official Parliamentary records:
SIR EDWARD WATKIN
  asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies ... whether such Report was not printed, with maps attached, last autumn; and, if so, why the Report and maps were excluded from recent Papers, and, in fact, suppressed, until a Question was asked in the House; and, whether he can give a date before which the Report and maps will be issued to Members, in pursuance of the promise of the Secretary of State for War?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
[the report] being very voluminous, it was printed at the time for the use of the War Office, and, being so printed, was marked "Confidential." I had arranged last spring ... that if among the Papers forwarded ... there were any which, in his opinion, should not be published, they should be marked "Confidential; because, being the channel through which despatches to the War Office were presented to Parliament, I had often felt a difficulty in deciding whether Papers of a professional or technical character were fit for publication or not. Therefore, as this Report was so marked, of course I did not publish it. I trust the hon. Member will feel, after this explanation, that his use of the word "suppression" has not been justified.

Ray63,

In answer to your question “Anyone know what this is about?” It is about your friend putting one over on you.

The first section is from a hoax about a 900 British soldiers being wiped out by 30 Zulu.

With the advantage of hindsight we can see that a few soldiers properly placed in the defile could have prevented the Zulu attack from the rear. The massacre was preventable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The second part is entirely fictional.

Suddenly the noise of firing became much more intense, but with the smack of the bullets striking the earth all round quite close it was not easy to tell from which direction this fresh firing came. At the same time the men seemed to be dropping much oftener, and I was impressing them with the necessity of keeping up a brisker fire to the front, when I noticed a bullet hit our side of the parapet

This is a quote from a fictional account during the Boer War, “The Defence of Duffer’s Drift” that was printed in The United Service Magazine.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Defence of Duffer's Drift is a short book by Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton, published in 1904 when Swinton was a Captain. It appeared in the British United Service Magazine under the pseudonym, Lieutenant N. Backsight Forethought, who is the narrator of the book. The book is an exploration of small unit tactics in a fictional encounter in the Boer War. Swinton served in South Africa during the Boer War, and the book "embodies some recollections of things actually done and undone in South Africa, 1899–1902."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The “from official parliamentary records” is not about any cover up of a Zulu attack – it is about a report of General Crealock that Wolseley did not forward back to England.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Report of General Crealock upon the operations of the First Division in the Zulu War was not forwarded home by Sir Garnet Wolseley last summer; whether such Report was not printed, with maps attached, last autumn; and, if so, why the Report and maps were excluded from recent Papers, and, in fact, suppressed, until a Question was asked in the House; and, whether he can give a date before which the Report and maps will be issued to Members, in pursuance of the promise of the Secretary of State for War?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: General Crealock's Report was duly forwarded home by Sir Garnet Wolseley, and was received in this country last autumn. Being very voluminous, it was printed at the time for the use of the War Office, and, being so printed, was marked "Confidential." A copy was forwarded to the Colonial Office, from which, by mistake, the word "Confidential" had not been erased. I had arranged last spring with my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), that if among the Papers forwarded by him to the Colonial Office there were any which, in his opinion, should not be published, they should be marked " Confidential ;" because, being the channel through which despatches to the War Office were presented to Parliament, I had often felt a difficulty in deciding whether Papers of a professional or technical character were fit for publication or not. Therefore, as this Report was so marked, of course I did not publish it. I trust the hon. Member will feel, after this explanation, that his use of the word " suppression " has not been justified. The printers inform me that the Report will be published in a week.

From the House of Commons, February 26, 1880

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Petty Officer Tom

Well Done Tom. I was looking for this. I once used this as an April fools joke, sometime ago on the forum