What a tragic and complicated tale, as always meticulously documented and now joining an impressive series of well informed and important pieces of history, which you have kindly shared on SummitPost. It is good to know that a system of effective and coordinated mountain rescue rose up out of the ashes of all the mismanagement and in-fighting of 1956.
By the way, to refresh my memory, I tried to follow the links to your articles entitled A Tragic Adventure on Mont Blanc and The 1966 Drus Rescue, but both came up as an error (404, whatever that means). I ended up accessing again them via your home page. Maybe worth re-entering them?
Best wishes to you, Esther and Mr Choups.
Mark
Thanks Mark, corrections done. Choups and her mistress won yesterday for the second time in a row the Grau du Roi Wakesurfing World Cup event - amateurs qualification and Choups insisted to be on the podium. Best
In response to Eric Vola's article on the Vincendon and Henry’s tragedy « Shipwrecked on Mont-Blanc – The Vincendon and Henry Tragedy » published by the site summitpost.org, and particularly in its chapter "The Bonatti controversy", I thought it would be interesting to bring a few clarifications, essentially on 3 points:
- The « broken » ice axe: when confirming his words published in « La Settima Incom Illustrata » dated from February 1957, Silvano Gheser recounts “Bonnati, while digging the steps, breaks the handle of his ice axe […] We go back to the Fourche, it’s already dark. Given he’s told Vincendon and Henry that he wants to go back to Courmayeur to change his ice axe, they very generously offer him one of theirs”. In the Rivisita Mensile from March 1957, Bonatti recounts: "At the bivouac, Henry was very nice. Having noticed that I had broken ("rotto" in Italian) the handle of my ice axe, he proposed to swap it for his". What are the differences between these two original versions? None. The terminology "spezzato" is found in Bonatti's book "Le mie montagna" (1961), translated as "broken" in the French edition "A mes montagnes" (1962), and it is still the word "broken" which is used 25 years later in the 1987 reissue of the same work. Bonatti therefore accepts François Henry’s ice axe and repairs his with a cord as he will specify in a letter from 1998: "I was able to wrap it with a long string tight, which guaranteed at least 80% of its effectiveness". Thus, the ice axe split "in two pieces" as described by Gheser will be operational, "to 80%". And François Henry did not climb the Brenva with a piece of ice axe in each hand (absurd indeed!).
- The Poire: In "La Settima Incom Illustrata", Gheser recounts: "Bonatti proposes to Vincendon and Henry to join us for the ascent of La Poire. This offer was advantageous for everyone: we would have made a single rope party, thereby reducing tiredness and risks, and evenly distributing the loads ". In the Rivista Mensile Bonatti recounts: "The sympathy was reciprocal, so much that I had invited them to follow us on La Poire”. What is the difference between these two original versions? None. Afterwards, Bonatti will refute his words: "I absolutely did not propose to Vincendon and Henry to join us for La Poire. It was a madness to propose such an undertaking to two unknown young people "(letter from 16th February 1998). When I told him that this piece of information came from the Rivista Mensile, he first retorted: "Newspapers are bullshit!". And when I pointed out to him that this article was from him, he finally admitted having proposed La Poire to the "two Frenchmen": "I proposed at the time to the two Frenchmen to follow us on the programmed path of La Poire. But it was only a spontaneous gesture of sympathy and pure courtesy "(letter from 28th January 1999).
- The Split: In "La Settima Incom Illustrata," Gheser recounts: "Vincendon and Henry began to slow our pace down. Then they stopped and offered to halt to eat something in order to regain strength. Bonatti, on the other hand, advised to go quickly and explained to the Belgian and the Frenchman the danger of spending another night outside. Both maintained their decision, and we therefore separated. Bonatti and I resumed our progression towards the summit of Mont Blanc, whilst Vincendon and Henry stopped to eat, with the idea to follow our footsteps half an hour later, in order to join us at the Vallot refuge. From then onwards we have not seen our unfortunate companions." In a handwritten account published by the magazine "Sports et vie" in February 1957, Bonatti recounts: "Vincendon and Henry began to suffer and were slowing down our progress. Vincendon proposed to stop to eat something and regain strength. But time was of essence, and was more imperative in the winter season than in the summer because of the shortening of days. In order not to lose anything of the precious daylight, we jointly decided to form two rope parties [...] For me, it was only a brief goodbye ... This "goodbye” What an empty thing! Goodbye Vincendon! Goodbye Henry! ". What is the difference between these two original versions? None. In his book "A mes montagnes" (1987), Bonatti justifies himself: "Many people, badly informed, subsequently asked why I had "abandoned" Vincendon and Henry on the summit of Mont Blanc [...] , I had left behind the two young strangers with the absolute conviction that they would follow our footsteps and catch up with us from one moment to the next ". In 1987, Bonatti admits therefore to have "left behind the two young foreigners". Honoré Bonnet who was able to speak with the "shipwrecked" after the crash of the helicopter on 31st December is formal: "I confirm that Vincendon told me:" We separated from Bonatti ". And Warrant Officer Blanc who was transported into the wrecked helicopter following his fall in a crack, recounted François Henry’s words when lying next to him: "He explained to me that shortly after Bonatti's departure (with whom he had agreed to mark the tracks), Jean had become more and more tired, then had collapsed, exhausted and blind”. (testimony collected by Louis Henry, François’ father who came to see Blanc at the hospital and carefully noted this essential testimony in a letter to Jean, François' brother). Again, Bonatti's "departure" is at stake of course.
As you can see, it is quite clear that the original accounts from Bonatti and Gheser match perfectly, in particular on these three points. I thus decided to keep them.
Presenting Silvano Gheser as a confused person - worse, as a liar, even an ungrateful person is both unjust and unworthy. I met him on January 5, 1998, and he seemed to me both sane, honest and sincere. He kindly wrote to me his version of the events. It has not changed in 40 years. He had nothing to defend. What interest would he have had in lying? To look like the hero? One finds in his moving account of La Settima Incom Illustrata this terrible confession about a discussion he had with Bonatti at the Vallot refuge: "Bonatti wanted to retrace his steps to track down the Belgian and the French, but I managed to convince him that venturing at night on the glacier would have been suicide". Couldn’t we find any better tribute paid to Bonatti’s behaviour, and by a person better entitled than he was as his companion of rope? I do not think so. Those who think of defending Bonatti by dragging Gheser into the mud should reflect on this confession marked by exemplary honesty and courage. And those who present him as an ungrateful should read this other confession: "I look at Bonatti and I think that in addition to the fraternal friendship that binds us, I owe him deep gratitude for his behavior towards me during the past days".
Bonatti, on the other hand, modified certain elements of his testimony, to the extent of contradicting himself at times. Why? He may have been accused of having abandoned Vincendon and Henry. I’m using the conditional tense because I have found no trace, either in the testimonies I gathered from witnesses, friends, families, nor in the newspapers of the time, of such an indecent accusation, even of an ounce of reproach. But perhaps he was afraid of being held responsible for Vincendon and Henry’s tragic deaths, while he had done all that was humanly possible to save them. Following a terrible bivouac, he descended 100 meters on the spur of the Brenva to help them and he led everyone to the bottom of the final slope to Mont Blanc which no longer presented any obstacle (this is told in my book). Perhaps he felt his honor was being challenged - rightly or wrongly? And it is perhaps to avoid adding a controversy on top of a tragedy that he came to change or omit some specific details. Those who knew Walter Bonatti were aware that he had a sensitivity on the surface and that he would react with the impetuosity of a passionate man. Rather than raising its contradictions, which would have given my book a controversial aspect which I did not wish for, I simply informed my readers: "In the case where several successive accounts from the same author present variations, the oldest is considered the most authentic". I think this is an honest, scrupulous approach. It would have been much simpler for me to simply copy the last book of Bonatti without looking any further - he kindly offered it to me. This would have saved me from losing the friendship of the one whom I still consider as the greatest - and most endearing - mountaineer in history. But by doing so, I would not have acted as an honest and scrupulous historian. I conducted two years of inquiry, I interviewed over 80 witnesses (most of them have unfortunately now died, but were very much alive 20 years ago), consulted hundreds of documents, reports, (I even found the weather archive of the time), and I reported this in a meticulously compliant narrative, with the information that seemed to me to be the most authentic.
There remains a question: You write :"when I discovered that Bonatti was outraged by Ballu's text which was implying for him that he had abandoned the two boys". Can you quote one sentence, one word in "Naufrage au Mont Blanc" wich outrages Bonatti ? Where is it told that Bonatti has abandonned the two boys ? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere ! Does "Naufrage au Mont Blanc" damage the reputation of Walter Bonatti, that of his honor? I do not believe so, quite the opposite: What reader ever closed it thinking that Bonatti behaved badly? None to my knowledge!
Note: Several interesting documents can be consulted on my blog, which includes the beautiful preface of my friend Claude Dufourmantelle was quoted incompletely in "Shipwrecked on Mont Blanc - The Vincendon and Henry tragedy". The following paragraph is missing: "Forty years later, the friend Yves Ballu undertook to relate this tragedy: he did it with the passion of an investigative journalist and the seriousness of an academic historian. He collected all testimonies, triangulated all the information, minutely established the chronologies and, by doing all of this, put all the characters "in their place", for what they had said, for what they had done and, unfortunately, more often than not, for what they had not done. The reward for this work was the success of this book. It is also the work of a sociologist, as the reader will see in it a painting of a specific period of mountaineering, of a specific environment, where the media began to impose its code and pace".
It also misses this recommendation: "... read or reread this book ...".
Probably a copy-paste mistake…
Another mistake in Eric Vola's article : the caption of the picture : "Henry smiling". How absurd ! Not only is Jean Vincendon seen from the front (Henry is left in profile), and the unfortunate does not smile. First of all, because the helicopter's crash about 20 meters away was not likely to rejoice him, but above all, with his poor frozen face, he would have been quite incapable to smile! This grin is not a smile, but the expression of pathetic distress.
We know that testimonials in extreme situations, verbal and written, are to be taken with much cautiousness, they be given a few hours, days after the event or even more so 40 years after. None of the sources used either by you or me as far as Walter Bonatti and Silvano Gheser contributions to the event are concerned have been corroborated with other testimonials as the individuals who could have done so were dead. Therefore there is no way one can expect to claim what the truth is. We can only approach it using our knowledge of what can occur in such situations and believe or not what the only two people involved stated, Gheser and Bonatti, and this was contradictory. You chose to believe Gheser’s version, I chose to believe Bonatti.’s This stated I will just make a few short observations on your points:
1. the Ice axe shaft cracked, not broken. "The Mountains of my life" translated by Robert Marshal and published in 1995 had the correction requested by Walter i.e. cracked and not broken. Recent French editions such as Arthaud’s have also the same correction (page 141 Arthaud "j'avais fendu le manche de mon piolet"). You write "absurd indeed" about the axe being in two pieces so we agree: Walter was one of the greatest climbers of his time but not a magician who could repair an Ice axe shaft broken in two pieces with a cord. Any alpinist can understand that. That is a first point going against Gheser's testimonial.
2. The Poire: "I proposed at the time to the two Frenchmen to follow us on the programmed path of La Poire. But it was only a spontaneous gesture of sympathy and pure courtesy "(letter [of Walter to you] from 28th January 1999). As you wrote yourself in your book "The euphoria of the previous day had gone" and Vincendon and Henry left for the Brenva spur. You should have quoted this in your book. It is up to the readers to prefer to believe Gheser's version or Walter's version, not to us. Any alpinist knows that La Poire being then the most difficult ice climb of the Mont-Blanc Italian side, it was not for youngsters such as Vincendon and Henry who had no experience at altitude, had done no serious ice climbs previously, nor any winter climbing. This is a second stone against Gheser's testimonial.
3. The split. I have no issue with this term. This is what happened but Walter said and wrote that the decision was taken jointly as you quote now from Walter: "In order not to lose anything of the precious daylight, we jointly decided to form two rope parties [...]". I added that Gheser's testimonial is full of toponymical errors. This again does not go in favour of Gheser's testimonial. Doubting that Walter decided jointly with V&H to reform two separate parties as the rest of the ascent was easy enough implies that he may have decided to abandon them as slowing him and Gheser dangerously. If we accept Walter's given reasons, then it is clear as least for him that he did not abandon them. I however agree with your thinking that maybe Bonatti did not want anyone to think that he abandoned them. In such extreme conditions who knows how any of us would have reacted.
One thing is sure, and our "common" friend Claude Dufourmantelle would agree with it, Vincendon & Henry should never have attempted this route. They were not ready for it. And Henry by staying with his pal decided of his own fate. I have a number of examples, including of friends of mine who refused to leave their partner and died because of it.
It is therefore much a matter of opinion and trying to imagine what occurred: Yours is based on Gheser's testimonial, mine on Walter's writings, particularly in his last book published post mortem "Walter Bonatti Una Vita cosi". It is to the readers to make up their own opinion. I don’t pretend to “know the truth”. I know we both do not.
Ps: I corrected my caption’s error of "Henry smiling" and added the "missing" paragraph of Claude's foreword.
Sorry, but I did not choose Gheser against Bonatti, because the question was not to choose between Gheser and Bonatti, but TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BONATTI 1956 AND BONATTI 1996. As you, Eric, I don’t assume to hold the truth, I only made the choice of what seemed to be most authentic, and I made it clear for the readers :”In the case where several successive accounts from the same author present variations, the oldest is considered the most authentic". I agree with you, it is to the readers to make up their own opinion.
On the other hand, Vincendon (still alive) spoke to Honoré Bonnet and François Henry (still alive) to Warrant Officer Blanc. Quote these testimonials is not make dead men talk, it is precisely corroborate other testimonials.
Note 1 : I did not need to check with some alpinists knowing well the area the validity of Gheser's toponymy, because I personally climbed the Brenva spur.
Note 2 : Thank's for having added the "missing" paragraph of Le Duf's foreword.
Since his comment, I have exchanged with Ballu through mails and telephone calls. He also sent me a number of documents of which a letter Bonatti sent him responding to 15 questions in order to obtain modifications in his manuscript which made me understand why Walter was so mad after Ballu: coming back from a 3 months trip to Jordan, he realized that Ballu's book had been published a month or so before he had sent his letter and that of course it did not contain any of the modifications he had requested.
Ballu and I have agreed on a number of points, the most important one being that he does not believe that Bonatti did abandon V&H. It is quite unfortunate that Ballu did not clear this key point with Bonatti before publishing his book as it was what most enraged Walter.
I have therefore rewritten the Chapter 6 describing more accurately the Bonatti/Ballu controversy. We did not agree on all the points, although far less important as I explain in my new text. In view of no corroborated testimonials, it is a matter of opinion and to the readers in the end to make up their mind.
End of 1997 was the erroneous date of publication you first gave me. So when Bonatti came back from Jordan he discovered that you had taken a number of his corrections (as you now told me) but discarded what he wrote in his book "To My Mountains" giving his reasons for the "separation" of the two parties: the key point on which Bonatti most reacted.
For you, Vincendon decided to stop to rest and eat so Bonatti had no other choice than to continue on his own, a decision that you agree must have been taken from a common consent meaning then that as Bonatti stated in his La Rivista’s article: “no one did leave anyone to his fate, no one was abandoned.” In your text you do not situate the time nor the place where this event occurred. However you agree that it occurred 300 m below the summit (taken from Bonatti’s To My Mountains) and not much nearer the summit as Bonatti deducted.
For me, Vincendon did propose to take a rest and eat something at the top of the Old passage where the 4 of them had grouped together: there Bonatti told them that the only way out was to take the route to Vallot by the summit which Vincendon agreed with; they also decided from a common consent to take back their autonomy as two parties. It is then that Vincendon proposed to take a rest and eat which Bonatti objected to strongly, forcing Gheser to follow him, which I believe V&H also did within a few minutes.
At least we agree that Bonatti did not abandon V&H.
Eric Vola’s article recently published on summitpost.org describes what is generally called the “Vincendon and Henry Affair” (“l’Affaire Vincendon et Henry”). Under the title “Shipwrecked on Mont Blanc: the Vincendon and Henry Tragedy” (referred to as “Shipwreck” in the following), Vola provides a condensed version of the book “Naufrage au Mont Blanc – L’Affaire Vincendon et Henry” (referred to as “Naufrage” in the following) of Yves Ballu published by Glénat twenty years ago and recently reedited by Guérin with illustrations and other additions. The base of Vola’s article is Ballu’s book, to which, of course, he added his own contributions. At times, reading “Shipwrecked” did surprised me. My intent here is not to initiate a new polemic, enough of them have been generated by the ”Affaire”, but to comment on some aspects of Vola’s article.
Reading the original version of Vola’s article, the photo with the caption “Henry smiling” did shock me. After several bivouacs laying on the snow, their limbs deeply frozen, the two alpinists see the rescue helicopter crash a few meters away and … they smile? Incidentally, the alpinist facing the camera is Vincendon whose smile appears more like a rictus while my brother is on the left of the photo in profile. I am relieved that Vola eliminated this tasteless caption from ulterior versions of his article but also disappointed that he did not bother to identify the two young men correctly.
Shortly after the tragic events, (February – March 1957), Bonatti and Gheser, independently, published articles describing the climb with the Vincendon-Henry rope. The two articles are essentially identical, report the same facts. Copies of these documents as well as others collected and used by Ballu while preparing “Naufrage” are available on Yves Ballu’s blog (yvesballublog.canalblog.com). Later on, and particularly when Ballu was preparing the first edition of “Naufrage”, he noticed differences between the original articles of Bonatti and his subsequent articles and books. On the other hand, forty years later, Gheser did not change his recollection of the events. In his introduction, Ballu warns readers that “when the recollection of a witness changes, the first version of the events will be considered as the most authentic”, thus the adoption of the original versions of Gheser and Bonatti. Given the similarity of these versions it is the logical choice. The common version of the climb is, in fact, very simple: after a very hard bivouac, Bonatti reaches the Franco-Belgian rope and leads the alpinists about one hundred meters higher where Gheser is waiting. They form a foursome rope that Bonatti leads to the top of the Brenva Spur under difficult conditions, the common rope explores the feasibility to go down directly to Chamonix through the “passage Balmat” (“Balmat’s way” or “ancient way”) which turns out to be too risky and, by common agreement, they separate into two individual ropes and plan to rejoin at the Vallot refuge. This is what “Naufrage” relates.
In the chapter “The Bonatti controversy” of “Shipwreck”, Vola discusses some aspects of the differences between the original articles of Bonatti and his subsequent publications.
An example of these differences is the case of Bonatti’s ice-ax broken during a recon towards “la Poire”. In his later articles, Bonatti states that the ice-ax was not broken but only cracked or split and that he fixed it with thin string. A question of semantics which certainly does not qualify as a “controversy” or a reason to criticize “Naufrage”. If the ice-ax had been declared “damaged” no question would have been raised. Further, nothing indicates that the ice-ax in question did not provide the services it was supposed to provide or that it would have handicapped the progression of the ropes. After mention of the repair, the ice-ax does not appear anymore in “Naufrage”. As far as I am concerned, there is no controversy here.
Another controversy brought up by Vola is that the two ropes would have regained their independence, i.e. would have separated, when the young alpinists, having a difficult time maintaining the pace of Bonatti, did propose to take a break to rest and eat close to the summit of Mont Blanc, which could suggest that Bonatti had abandoned them. “Naufrage” locates precisely the separation to have taken place 350 meters from the summit. But then, why would a separation at a higher altitude be considered as an abandonment while a separation at a lower altitude would be a separation and not an abandonment? This does not seem clear to me, but in the mind of Bonatti and Vola the controversy about a possible abandonment seems to depend on the location of the separation. In fact, Bonatti faced a terrible choice: a separation of the two ropes after the attempt to go down the “Balmat way”, about 350 meters below the summit, to let the two ropes progress at their own pace, the second rope benefitting from the tracks of the leading rope, or progress as a common rope until they were closer, say about fifty meters below the summit, then separate to let each rope reach the Vallot refuge over fairly smooth terrain. Bonatti choose the first option. Initially things went as planned: although being slower, the Franco-Belgian rope kept progressing and responded calmly to Bonatti’s verbal encouragements. So, Bonatti kept on as his rope mate Gheser started having difficulties walking and he wanted to reach the Vallot refuge before dark. Little did he know that the second rope was close to collapsing and had to stop and bivouac; he would have had little and probably no chance to find them in the dark. The second option, bringing everybody closer to Vallot before separating would have made it easier for Bonatti to go back and, may be, bring them to Vallot. However, given the slow pace of the common rope and the degree of exhaustion of the young climbers, it is very doubtful that they could have reached Vallot before dark which would have entailed another terrible bivouac for all four alpinists. I believe that Bonatti made the right choice, but in no case the other choice, that of a separation at higher altitude could not be considered as abandonment. One could even think the opposite. Personally, I have no doubts: Bonatti did not abandon Vincendon and my brother. Members of my family, friends and acquaintances with whom I spoke before and after the publication of “Naufrage” have never mentioned an abandonment. An abandonment or suspicion thereof is not mentioned anywhere in “Naufrage”.
In his two original articles (February and March 1957), Bonatti states that after having abandoned the idea of going directly to Chamonix through the ancient passage (passage Balmat), he explained to the other members of the rope that the only viable solution was to reach the Vallot refuge, and that they all agreed to separate themselves in two ropes, so that the Franco-Belgian rope, being slower, could benefit from the track made by Bonatti. In his original article (February 1957) and his letter to Ballu (1997) Gheser confirms this. The testimony of warrant officer Blanc who reports the description of the events by my brother confirms this sequence of events. On the basis of these concurring testimonies confirming a separation at relatively low altitude, the idea of an abandonment is rejected. Basing himself on the fact that the toponymy of Gheser is erroneous, Vola suggests that Gheser’s description of the events could lead to the assumption that the separation took place at a higher altitude and that Bonatti would have abandoned the Franco-Belgian rope. In his reports of the events, Ghezer calls the “ancient way” (or “passage Balmat”) the “Corridor”, which is erroneous. As can be seen from the illustrations in “Shipwreck”, the “Corridor” is parallel to the ancient way but at lower altitude, which reinforces the idea that the separation was not an abandonment. In his article in “Sport et Vie” (February 1957), Bonatti says: “First I had the intention of taking the “Corridor” … “. He refers here to his attempt to go down directly to Chamonix using the “passage Balmat” (“ancient way”). In Rivista, March 1957, Bonatti says: “… we are exactly on the col above the “Mur de la Cote” between the two Red Rocks …” and also “… the ‘”couloir” between the two Red Rocks (itinerary 176 of the Vallot Guide – parallel to the “Corridor” per se) …” and in a letter to Ballu “… realizing that the “Grand Couloir of the lower “old way” was highly dangerous …”. It seems that Bonatti’s toponymy is quite variable but not considered erroneous. Gheser, certainly less familiar with the French side of Mont Blanc most probably simply adopted the terminology of Bonatti. Further, Gheser mentions the “Brenva col”, which is erroneous, but the combination of the col and the “Corridor” in its proximity corresponds exactly to the description of their location as given by Bonatti. A few lines after his criticism of Gheser’s toponymy, Vola adds “… a careful reading of the Gheser’s text confirms that the separation took place at the location mentioned by Bonatti”. In a short section of his article, Vola accepts the location of the separation mentioned by Gheser, then raises some doubts about it and then accepts it again. All this is confusing, not convincing at all and, in fact, pointless as the original reports of Bonatti and Gheser establish the location of the separation, and, mostly its reason (slow pace of the Vincendon-Henry rope and suggestion of a break to recover). Further, “Shipwreck” has been revised four times to my knowledge (I may have missed some revisions) since its original publication (June 2017). Most of the revisions are rewrites of “The Bonatti Controversy” chapter attempting to explain, justify or legitimize Bonatti’s changing recollection of the events which gives the impression of a text in preparation modified as the author gathers new data or is advised about errors.
In the same chapter of “Shipwreck”, Vola blames Ballu for having “made the dead talk”. In reality, Ballu does not make the dead talk, he assigns their own words to protagonists of the events in the form of conversations, discussions or declarations. These, in turn were obtained from testimonies that Ballu collected and from a variety of documents of the time that he gathered during his research (I have provided a number of such documents myself). This approach, often used in publications about historical events, makes the text more vivid and more attractive, as Vola recognizes. But, as Vola and some of his friends say, it turns “Naufrage” into a novel. According to the Oxford dictionary a novel is a “relatively long fictional prose narrative with a more or less complex plot or pattern of events, about human beings … “. “Naufrage” is definitely not a fictional narrative. Obviously everyone is entitled to his opinions, but I have a difficult time understanding how the description of the long agony of two young men, of the suffering and frostbites of a pilot who will remain handicapped for the rest of his life, of the efforts and risks the rescue team went through, some members of which will be haunted for years by their memories, all carefully documented in “Naufrage”, could compare to the description of an inquiry by Inspecteur Maigret or of an adventure of James Bond. Moreover, to appreciate what the expression “make the dead talk” (“faire parler les morts”) alludes to, one should read “Naufrage” in French, which most readers of “Shipwreck” have not done. Why then insert this reference to the format of a text in French in an article in English and in a chapter dealing with the Bonatti controversy? “Naufrage” gives a chronological, carefully documented description of the events, which, together, add up to an important stage in the history of alpinism in the French Alps and of Chamonix in particular. Personally, I consider “Naufrage” as a historical document, but, as always, to each his own.
My comments regarding the Bonatti Controversy may appear as an “Anti-Controversy” or as the initiation of a new debate, which is not the case. I have tried to show that new interpretations based on rather secondary aspects of the events (Gheser’s toponymy, exact location of the separation, allusion to an abandonment, damaged ice-ax, rest and snack stop, …) are rather inconsistent and do not improve our understanding of the events. It is time to resign ourselves to admit that the facts as we know them now are the only ones we will ever know and that certain questions that we may ask ourselves will never be answered. It should also be noted that Vola’s original article did not include “The Bonatti Controversy” chapter; for the sake of his readers Vola should have kept it that way. There was never an “abandonment controversy” (not even in the Italian media!). This so-called controversy was, in fact and unfortunately, initiated by Bonatti’s changing testimony.
In the years following the tragedy, Bonatti modified his original description of the events. He blames Gheser whom he refutes systematically and Ballu for not having adopted his modified version of the facts. The tone of Bonatti’s criticism toward Gheser and Ballu suggests a vindictive, verbally aggressive and, at times, nasty person. I have never met Bonatti, but basing myself on some of his publications I read, his photo reports, comments and hearsay, I imagined a supremely gifted alpinist, proud of his achievements, self-confident, and affable. This last trait is well illustrated by the friendly relationship that developed between the two ropes at the Fourche refuge the evening before the climb. Why did Bonatti react in such a virulent way? How to explain this change in personality? We will never know for sure, but I would like to propose a possible explanation which could reconcile these opposed aspects of his personality. After he extracted the Franco-Belgian rope from its bivouac and joined it to his own rope, undoubtedly saving the lives of the two young men, he assumed full responsibility of the three alpinists. In a letter to Ballu, Bonatti explains: “In addition, I would add that all, tacitly (and since the first morning in the storm as members of the same rope), trusted me and considered me as the strongest and most experienced one”. This seems obvious to me. When he proposes to separate into two ropes to progress faster and to regroup at the Vallot refuge, everybody agrees because they all trust him. This trust places a serious responsibility on his shoulders which, perhaps, will weigh heavily on him later. Upon reaching the refuge, as a responsible leader would, he first cared for Gheser’s frostbites which looked quite serious, then considers going out in the dark of the night to look for “his” second rope. Gheser dissuades him to do so. Bonatti did not know that the second rope was exhausted and had resigned themselves to a second bivouac and that he would never see them again. For Bonatti who had assumed the responsibility of the two ropes, this was a failure. As a conscientious guide, he probably searched his memory to restore the sequence of events to determine how he could have avoided that failure. This call to his memory is probably what led him to modify his original reports of the events. In an essay “An Afterword…” recently added to “Shipwreck” and also posted in French and in English on Yves Ballu’s blog (these versions include an introduction by the author missing in “Shipwrech”’s version), Claude Duformantelle discusses the role of one’s memory as one tries to reconstruct situations in which one participated . He says, among others, “ This means that a memory, a recollection, a reminiscence, is constantly reconstructed by one’s poor mind in its futile attempts to figure out what one has really done, what really happened and to imagine what could have happened if … or what one should have done if … if what? To change the past? To explain the past? To understand the past or simply to exempt oneself from the past.” Given the criticism that had been heaped on him (notably after the Italian expedition to K2), it is quite possible that Bonatti’s memory led him towards a version of the events that should have avoided new criticism, even if that meant changing his testimony if necessary. All this is only a hypothesis which we will never be able to confirm and it does not change in any way my admiration, respect and gratitude towards Bonatti.
In the apologue to the recent version of “Naufrage”, I had suggested that the book should be compulsory reading for candidates to mountaineering professions. Recently, I was glad to learn that the book is included in the library of the “Peloton de Gendarmerie de Secours en Haute Montagne” (the elite rescue group operating in the French Alps) and is being read: even after sixty years, the human interactions described in “Naufrage” remain actual.
Jean Henry
First, I apologize for my mistake with the photo you mention which I first corrected when Yves Ballu told me about it taking off the word “smiling” and now by naming the two boys in the right order as you pointed out.
As far as the “Vola's controversy” is concerned, you must accept that it is not “my” controversy but the controversy that Ballu created in refusing to accept a number of Bonatti’s explanations in response to questions he sent him and in so writing a text in his book concerning his participation to the drama that infuriated Walter to the point that he wanted to take Yves and his publisher to court. I have sent to Yves the translation I made of the Chapter Bonatti wrote about this “Christmas on Mont Blanc” contesting most violently Ballu’s story and which was published in his posthumous book “Walter Bonatti una Vita Cosi” (and as Ballu told me in La Rivista in 1999). If you have not read it, you should: ask Yves or me to send it to you.
However I would agree that this paragraph about the Ballu-Bonatti controversy could be taken out of my article, particularly since Ballu and you fully agree with the fact that Bonatti did not in any way abandon the two boys, which was the suggestion he most violently reacted against.
As Ballu told me that he did not want to include in his book any details of the controversy he had with Bonatti, I did not want also to include the many details and analysis which Ballu and I exchanged about the Bonatti and Gheser testimonials and the contradictory analysis we both made of them. We had a number of verbal exchanges - note that from the start I asked our common friend Claude Dufourmantelle to warn Yves that I was writing this article and would welcome his checking my text for errors - and some 30 mails most on Yves’s sources, some very detailed, confronting our own analysis which as you found differ.
It is during those exchanges that I read more carefully Yves’s text, noting the differences with Bonatti’s versions which then lead me to Bonatti’s posthumous book Walter Bonatti Una Vita cosi. Note that what Ballu (and yourself) take as Bonatti’s contradictions particularly between Bonatti published texts (specifically the two written just after the events) over time, I accepted Bonatti’s explanations as being mainly more detailed texts given over time, i.e. complementary texts far more than contradictory. Similarly Gheser’s two testimonials 40 years apart are not as I read them like what Ballu and you state to be: totally identical. Even the toponymical errors he makes are different! I have exchanged at length with Yves on those testimonials and our analysis and resulting opinions finally differ.
You state that Ballu “locates precisely the separation to have taken place 350 meters from the summit.” But that is no so. Ballu (page 137) mentions the altitude of 4500 m when they get out of the Brenva spur (the sole altitude quoted for the whole episode) and the time of 3 pm. This timing is taken from Bonatti in To My Mountains and from Bonatti’s CAI article while the timing indicated in the Sport et Vie article is 2:30 pm and this article does not mention their attempt to go down the Passage Balmat: I guess this is what provoked Ballu’s mistaking the exact altitude and timing of the “separation”. At the following page after having mentioned the attempt to go down to the Grands Mulets by the passage Balmat, the decision to go to Vallot via the summit and also after V&H had slowed down, Ballu mentions that the summit is 300 m higher, but not where they were. Then Ballu writes that V&H wanted to stop to rest and eat and that Bonatti decided to “separate” because they stopped. Also Ballu indicates that in “two hours and a half, night will fall”. But this cannot be : Top of Brenva Spur 3 pm + 1 hour for going down to the start of the Passage Balmat and 100m down it + getting back up to the Balmat passage start again = 4 pm (this timing is mentioned by Gheser in his 2nd testimonial while it is totally mixed up in his 1rst testimonial). They have 1 hour to 1 hour and a half of daylight left not 2 hours and a half. In fact for me this whole scenario is erroneous and clashes with what Bonatti told and wrote. It is at the top of the Balmat Passage - 4 450 m - at 4 pm when they all regrouped that Bonatti convinced them that their only solution left was to go to Vallot by the Mont Blanc summit. On that we all agree, including Ballu.
It is then that they also decided all in agreement to take back their autonomy, not higher as from Bonatti's reading Ballu’s text suggests, and not because V&H stopped. This occurred later as per Bonatti some 200 m higher below the Petits Mulets. That is what infuriated Bonatti as he read Ballu's text stating that it is when they stopped that they unropped while that occurred 200 m below.
You also state that: "It seems that Bonatti’s toponymy is quite variable but not considered erroneous.” Because he wrote in ‘Sport et Vie’ (February 1957): “First I had the intention of taking the Corridor”. My view is that you make the same type of mistaking assumption than Ballu in considering just the text written and not the explanations given by Bonatti: his initial intention was to end up his ascent at the Brenva Col and to go down to Chamonix via the Corridor and the Grands Mulets as the previous two parties did. It so happens that in the mist he took one the left exits and found himself some 150 m higher than the Brenva Col. And as he explains in Walter Bonatti Una Vita cosi, he did not give/write all the details each time. I agree that in this article Bonatti could have been more explicit as he did when he wrote his own text for the CAI review, days after, but I cannot believe he made a mistake, his knowledge of the area was already too great at the time.
Considering the sources used by Ballu and Bonatti's explanations in response to what Ballu estimated as contradictions, I personally did not find any proven fact justifying to disbelieve Bonatti’s main assertions. Again as you also state, no one will ever know for sure, so as I stated from the start it is a matter of opinion. I don’t hold the truth about Bonatti’s deeds but nor Ballu nor anyone else.
In fact, I agree that this controversy would be better treated, eventually if at all, in a separate article and in French as the testimonials concerned are in French, Italian and not English - although I doubt that it would interest many people as you also mention. Whatever, as this article is mainly about the drama that Jean Vincendon and your brother suffered, the mountain context, mountaineers mentalities of the time and the impact it had on the French mountain rescue system, I could suppress the “Controversy” paragraph and then modify the section of the events concerned with what I believe happened, i.e. as per Bonatti’s texts published which on several key points for Bonatti differ from Ballu’s text.
If you want a more detailed response or to discuss further, do as Ballu and correspond with me by email and/or phone. You can ask Yves Ballu my email and Tel N°. And let me know if my above proposal suits you.
markhallam - Jul 3, 2017 1:20 am - Voted 10/10
Bravo Eric!What a tragic and complicated tale, as always meticulously documented and now joining an impressive series of well informed and important pieces of history, which you have kindly shared on SummitPost. It is good to know that a system of effective and coordinated mountain rescue rose up out of the ashes of all the mismanagement and in-fighting of 1956.
By the way, to refresh my memory, I tried to follow the links to your articles entitled A Tragic Adventure on Mont Blanc and The 1966 Drus Rescue, but both came up as an error (404, whatever that means). I ended up accessing again them via your home page. Maybe worth re-entering them?
Best wishes to you, Esther and Mr Choups.
Mark
ericvola - Jul 3, 2017 2:12 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Bravo Eric!Thanks Mark, corrections done. Choups and her mistress won yesterday for the second time in a row the Grau du Roi Wakesurfing World Cup event - amateurs qualification and Choups insisted to be on the podium. Best
Ballu - Oct 6, 2017 5:49 pm - Voted 2/10
"Naufrage au Mont Blanc" is not a novel. Sadly…"Naufrage au Mont Blanc" is not a novel. Sadly…
In response to Eric Vola's article on the Vincendon and Henry’s tragedy « Shipwrecked on Mont-Blanc – The Vincendon and Henry Tragedy » published by the site summitpost.org, and particularly in its chapter "The Bonatti controversy", I thought it would be interesting to bring a few clarifications, essentially on 3 points:
- The « broken » ice axe: when confirming his words published in « La Settima Incom Illustrata » dated from February 1957, Silvano Gheser recounts “Bonnati, while digging the steps, breaks the handle of his ice axe […] We go back to the Fourche, it’s already dark. Given he’s told Vincendon and Henry that he wants to go back to Courmayeur to change his ice axe, they very generously offer him one of theirs”. In the Rivisita Mensile from March 1957, Bonatti recounts: "At the bivouac, Henry was very nice. Having noticed that I had broken ("rotto" in Italian) the handle of my ice axe, he proposed to swap it for his". What are the differences between these two original versions? None. The terminology "spezzato" is found in Bonatti's book "Le mie montagna" (1961), translated as "broken" in the French edition "A mes montagnes" (1962), and it is still the word "broken" which is used 25 years later in the 1987 reissue of the same work. Bonatti therefore accepts François Henry’s ice axe and repairs his with a cord as he will specify in a letter from 1998: "I was able to wrap it with a long string tight, which guaranteed at least 80% of its effectiveness". Thus, the ice axe split "in two pieces" as described by Gheser will be operational, "to 80%". And François Henry did not climb the Brenva with a piece of ice axe in each hand (absurd indeed!).
- The Poire: In "La Settima Incom Illustrata", Gheser recounts: "Bonatti proposes to Vincendon and Henry to join us for the ascent of La Poire. This offer was advantageous for everyone: we would have made a single rope party, thereby reducing tiredness and risks, and evenly distributing the loads ". In the Rivista Mensile Bonatti recounts: "The sympathy was reciprocal, so much that I had invited them to follow us on La Poire”. What is the difference between these two original versions? None. Afterwards, Bonatti will refute his words: "I absolutely did not propose to Vincendon and Henry to join us for La Poire. It was a madness to propose such an undertaking to two unknown young people "(letter from 16th February 1998). When I told him that this piece of information came from the Rivista Mensile, he first retorted: "Newspapers are bullshit!". And when I pointed out to him that this article was from him, he finally admitted having proposed La Poire to the "two Frenchmen": "I proposed at the time to the two Frenchmen to follow us on the programmed path of La Poire. But it was only a spontaneous gesture of sympathy and pure courtesy "(letter from 28th January 1999).
- The Split: In "La Settima Incom Illustrata," Gheser recounts: "Vincendon and Henry began to slow our pace down. Then they stopped and offered to halt to eat something in order to regain strength. Bonatti, on the other hand, advised to go quickly and explained to the Belgian and the Frenchman the danger of spending another night outside. Both maintained their decision, and we therefore separated. Bonatti and I resumed our progression towards the summit of Mont Blanc, whilst Vincendon and Henry stopped to eat, with the idea to follow our footsteps half an hour later, in order to join us at the Vallot refuge. From then onwards we have not seen our unfortunate companions." In a handwritten account published by the magazine "Sports et vie" in February 1957, Bonatti recounts: "Vincendon and Henry began to suffer and were slowing down our progress. Vincendon proposed to stop to eat something and regain strength. But time was of essence, and was more imperative in the winter season than in the summer because of the shortening of days. In order not to lose anything of the precious daylight, we jointly decided to form two rope parties [...] For me, it was only a brief goodbye ... This "goodbye” What an empty thing! Goodbye Vincendon! Goodbye Henry! ". What is the difference between these two original versions? None. In his book "A mes montagnes" (1987), Bonatti justifies himself: "Many people, badly informed, subsequently asked why I had "abandoned" Vincendon and Henry on the summit of Mont Blanc [...] , I had left behind the two young strangers with the absolute conviction that they would follow our footsteps and catch up with us from one moment to the next ". In 1987, Bonatti admits therefore to have "left behind the two young foreigners". Honoré Bonnet who was able to speak with the "shipwrecked" after the crash of the helicopter on 31st December is formal: "I confirm that Vincendon told me:" We separated from Bonatti ". And Warrant Officer Blanc who was transported into the wrecked helicopter following his fall in a crack, recounted François Henry’s words when lying next to him: "He explained to me that shortly after Bonatti's departure (with whom he had agreed to mark the tracks), Jean had become more and more tired, then had collapsed, exhausted and blind”. (testimony collected by Louis Henry, François’ father who came to see Blanc at the hospital and carefully noted this essential testimony in a letter to Jean, François' brother). Again, Bonatti's "departure" is at stake of course.
As you can see, it is quite clear that the original accounts from Bonatti and Gheser match perfectly, in particular on these three points. I thus decided to keep them.
Presenting Silvano Gheser as a confused person - worse, as a liar, even an ungrateful person is both unjust and unworthy. I met him on January 5, 1998, and he seemed to me both sane, honest and sincere. He kindly wrote to me his version of the events. It has not changed in 40 years. He had nothing to defend. What interest would he have had in lying? To look like the hero? One finds in his moving account of La Settima Incom Illustrata this terrible confession about a discussion he had with Bonatti at the Vallot refuge: "Bonatti wanted to retrace his steps to track down the Belgian and the French, but I managed to convince him that venturing at night on the glacier would have been suicide". Couldn’t we find any better tribute paid to Bonatti’s behaviour, and by a person better entitled than he was as his companion of rope? I do not think so. Those who think of defending Bonatti by dragging Gheser into the mud should reflect on this confession marked by exemplary honesty and courage. And those who present him as an ungrateful should read this other confession: "I look at Bonatti and I think that in addition to the fraternal friendship that binds us, I owe him deep gratitude for his behavior towards me during the past days".
Bonatti, on the other hand, modified certain elements of his testimony, to the extent of contradicting himself at times. Why? He may have been accused of having abandoned Vincendon and Henry. I’m using the conditional tense because I have found no trace, either in the testimonies I gathered from witnesses, friends, families, nor in the newspapers of the time, of such an indecent accusation, even of an ounce of reproach. But perhaps he was afraid of being held responsible for Vincendon and Henry’s tragic deaths, while he had done all that was humanly possible to save them. Following a terrible bivouac, he descended 100 meters on the spur of the Brenva to help them and he led everyone to the bottom of the final slope to Mont Blanc which no longer presented any obstacle (this is told in my book). Perhaps he felt his honor was being challenged - rightly or wrongly? And it is perhaps to avoid adding a controversy on top of a tragedy that he came to change or omit some specific details. Those who knew Walter Bonatti were aware that he had a sensitivity on the surface and that he would react with the impetuosity of a passionate man. Rather than raising its contradictions, which would have given my book a controversial aspect which I did not wish for, I simply informed my readers: "In the case where several successive accounts from the same author present variations, the oldest is considered the most authentic". I think this is an honest, scrupulous approach. It would have been much simpler for me to simply copy the last book of Bonatti without looking any further - he kindly offered it to me. This would have saved me from losing the friendship of the one whom I still consider as the greatest - and most endearing - mountaineer in history. But by doing so, I would not have acted as an honest and scrupulous historian. I conducted two years of inquiry, I interviewed over 80 witnesses (most of them have unfortunately now died, but were very much alive 20 years ago), consulted hundreds of documents, reports, (I even found the weather archive of the time), and I reported this in a meticulously compliant narrative, with the information that seemed to me to be the most authentic.
There remains a question: You write :"when I discovered that Bonatti was outraged by Ballu's text which was implying for him that he had abandoned the two boys". Can you quote one sentence, one word in "Naufrage au Mont Blanc" wich outrages Bonatti ? Where is it told that Bonatti has abandonned the two boys ? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere ! Does "Naufrage au Mont Blanc" damage the reputation of Walter Bonatti, that of his honor? I do not believe so, quite the opposite: What reader ever closed it thinking that Bonatti behaved badly? None to my knowledge!
Note: Several interesting documents can be consulted on my blog, which includes the beautiful preface of my friend Claude Dufourmantelle was quoted incompletely in "Shipwrecked on Mont Blanc - The Vincendon and Henry tragedy". The following paragraph is missing: "Forty years later, the friend Yves Ballu undertook to relate this tragedy: he did it with the passion of an investigative journalist and the seriousness of an academic historian. He collected all testimonies, triangulated all the information, minutely established the chronologies and, by doing all of this, put all the characters "in their place", for what they had said, for what they had done and, unfortunately, more often than not, for what they had not done. The reward for this work was the success of this book. It is also the work of a sociologist, as the reader will see in it a painting of a specific period of mountaineering, of a specific environment, where the media began to impose its code and pace".
It also misses this recommendation: "... read or reread this book ...".
Probably a copy-paste mistake…
Another mistake in Eric Vola's article : the caption of the picture : "Henry smiling". How absurd ! Not only is Jean Vincendon seen from the front (Henry is left in profile), and the unfortunate does not smile. First of all, because the helicopter's crash about 20 meters away was not likely to rejoice him, but above all, with his poor frozen face, he would have been quite incapable to smile! This grin is not a smile, but the expression of pathetic distress.
ericvola - Oct 7, 2017 12:13 pm - Hasn't voted
Ballu' clarificationsWe know that testimonials in extreme situations, verbal and written, are to be taken with much cautiousness, they be given a few hours, days after the event or even more so 40 years after. None of the sources used either by you or me as far as Walter Bonatti and Silvano Gheser contributions to the event are concerned have been corroborated with other testimonials as the individuals who could have done so were dead. Therefore there is no way one can expect to claim what the truth is. We can only approach it using our knowledge of what can occur in such situations and believe or not what the only two people involved stated, Gheser and Bonatti, and this was contradictory. You chose to believe Gheser’s version, I chose to believe Bonatti.’s This stated I will just make a few short observations on your points:
1. the Ice axe shaft cracked, not broken. "The Mountains of my life" translated by Robert Marshal and published in 1995 had the correction requested by Walter i.e. cracked and not broken. Recent French editions such as Arthaud’s have also the same correction (page 141 Arthaud "j'avais fendu le manche de mon piolet"). You write "absurd indeed" about the axe being in two pieces so we agree: Walter was one of the greatest climbers of his time but not a magician who could repair an Ice axe shaft broken in two pieces with a cord. Any alpinist can understand that. That is a first point going against Gheser's testimonial.
2. The Poire: "I proposed at the time to the two Frenchmen to follow us on the programmed path of La Poire. But it was only a spontaneous gesture of sympathy and pure courtesy "(letter [of Walter to you] from 28th January 1999). As you wrote yourself in your book "The euphoria of the previous day had gone" and Vincendon and Henry left for the Brenva spur. You should have quoted this in your book. It is up to the readers to prefer to believe Gheser's version or Walter's version, not to us. Any alpinist knows that La Poire being then the most difficult ice climb of the Mont-Blanc Italian side, it was not for youngsters such as Vincendon and Henry who had no experience at altitude, had done no serious ice climbs previously, nor any winter climbing. This is a second stone against Gheser's testimonial.
3. The split. I have no issue with this term. This is what happened but Walter said and wrote that the decision was taken jointly as you quote now from Walter: "In order not to lose anything of the precious daylight, we jointly decided to form two rope parties [...]". I added that Gheser's testimonial is full of toponymical errors. This again does not go in favour of Gheser's testimonial. Doubting that Walter decided jointly with V&H to reform two separate parties as the rest of the ascent was easy enough implies that he may have decided to abandon them as slowing him and Gheser dangerously. If we accept Walter's given reasons, then it is clear as least for him that he did not abandon them. I however agree with your thinking that maybe Bonatti did not want anyone to think that he abandoned them. In such extreme conditions who knows how any of us would have reacted.
One thing is sure, and our "common" friend Claude Dufourmantelle would agree with it, Vincendon & Henry should never have attempted this route. They were not ready for it. And Henry by staying with his pal decided of his own fate. I have a number of examples, including of friends of mine who refused to leave their partner and died because of it.
It is therefore much a matter of opinion and trying to imagine what occurred: Yours is based on Gheser's testimonial, mine on Walter's writings, particularly in his last book published post mortem "Walter Bonatti Una Vita cosi". It is to the readers to make up their own opinion. I don’t pretend to “know the truth”. I know we both do not.
Ps: I corrected my caption’s error of "Henry smiling" and added the "missing" paragraph of Claude's foreword.
Ballu - Oct 8, 2017 3:11 pm - Voted 2/10
Bonatti 1956 against Bonatti 1996Sorry, but I did not choose Gheser against Bonatti, because the question was not to choose between Gheser and Bonatti, but TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BONATTI 1956 AND BONATTI 1996. As you, Eric, I don’t assume to hold the truth, I only made the choice of what seemed to be most authentic, and I made it clear for the readers :”In the case where several successive accounts from the same author present variations, the oldest is considered the most authentic". I agree with you, it is to the readers to make up their own opinion.
On the other hand, Vincendon (still alive) spoke to Honoré Bonnet and François Henry (still alive) to Warrant Officer Blanc. Quote these testimonials is not make dead men talk, it is precisely corroborate other testimonials.
Note 1 : I did not need to check with some alpinists knowing well the area the validity of Gheser's toponymy, because I personally climbed the Brenva spur.
Note 2 : Thank's for having added the "missing" paragraph of Le Duf's foreword.
ericvola - Oct 23, 2017 5:08 am - Hasn't voted
Bonatti 1956 against Bonatti 1996Since his comment, I have exchanged with Ballu through mails and telephone calls. He also sent me a number of documents of which a letter Bonatti sent him responding to 15 questions in order to obtain modifications in his manuscript which made me understand why Walter was so mad after Ballu: coming back from a 3 months trip to Jordan, he realized that Ballu's book had been published a month or so before he had sent his letter and that of course it did not contain any of the modifications he had requested.
Ballu and I have agreed on a number of points, the most important one being that he does not believe that Bonatti did abandon V&H. It is quite unfortunate that Ballu did not clear this key point with Bonatti before publishing his book as it was what most enraged Walter.
I have therefore rewritten the Chapter 6 describing more accurately the Bonatti/Ballu controversy. We did not agree on all the points, although far less important as I explain in my new text. In view of no corroborated testimonials, it is a matter of opinion and to the readers in the end to make up their mind.
Ballu - Oct 26, 2017 4:02 am - Voted 2/10
Re: Bonatti 1956 against Bonatti 1996Sorry Eric, "Naufrage au Mont Blanc" was published in June 1998, ie not a month before, but 4 months AFTER the letter of Bonatti.
ericvola - Oct 27, 2017 8:39 am - Hasn't voted
June 1998End of 1997 was the erroneous date of publication you first gave me. So when Bonatti came back from Jordan he discovered that you had taken a number of his corrections (as you now told me) but discarded what he wrote in his book "To My Mountains" giving his reasons for the "separation" of the two parties: the key point on which Bonatti most reacted.
For you, Vincendon decided to stop to rest and eat so Bonatti had no other choice than to continue on his own, a decision that you agree must have been taken from a common consent meaning then that as Bonatti stated in his La Rivista’s article: “no one did leave anyone to his fate, no one was abandoned.” In your text you do not situate the time nor the place where this event occurred. However you agree that it occurred 300 m below the summit (taken from Bonatti’s To My Mountains) and not much nearer the summit as Bonatti deducted.
For me, Vincendon did propose to take a rest and eat something at the top of the Old passage where the 4 of them had grouped together: there Bonatti told them that the only way out was to take the route to Vallot by the summit which Vincendon agreed with; they also decided from a common consent to take back their autonomy as two parties. It is then that Vincendon proposed to take a rest and eat which Bonatti objected to strongly, forcing Gheser to follow him, which I believe V&H also did within a few minutes.
At least we agree that Bonatti did not abandon V&H.
Ballu - Nov 20, 2017 3:48 am - Voted 2/10
Jean Henry responds to Vola's controversyEric Vola’s article recently published on summitpost.org describes what is generally called the “Vincendon and Henry Affair” (“l’Affaire Vincendon et Henry”). Under the title “Shipwrecked on Mont Blanc: the Vincendon and Henry Tragedy” (referred to as “Shipwreck” in the following), Vola provides a condensed version of the book “Naufrage au Mont Blanc – L’Affaire Vincendon et Henry” (referred to as “Naufrage” in the following) of Yves Ballu published by Glénat twenty years ago and recently reedited by Guérin with illustrations and other additions. The base of Vola’s article is Ballu’s book, to which, of course, he added his own contributions. At times, reading “Shipwrecked” did surprised me. My intent here is not to initiate a new polemic, enough of them have been generated by the ”Affaire”, but to comment on some aspects of Vola’s article.
Reading the original version of Vola’s article, the photo with the caption “Henry smiling” did shock me. After several bivouacs laying on the snow, their limbs deeply frozen, the two alpinists see the rescue helicopter crash a few meters away and … they smile? Incidentally, the alpinist facing the camera is Vincendon whose smile appears more like a rictus while my brother is on the left of the photo in profile. I am relieved that Vola eliminated this tasteless caption from ulterior versions of his article but also disappointed that he did not bother to identify the two young men correctly.
Shortly after the tragic events, (February – March 1957), Bonatti and Gheser, independently, published articles describing the climb with the Vincendon-Henry rope. The two articles are essentially identical, report the same facts. Copies of these documents as well as others collected and used by Ballu while preparing “Naufrage” are available on Yves Ballu’s blog (yvesballublog.canalblog.com). Later on, and particularly when Ballu was preparing the first edition of “Naufrage”, he noticed differences between the original articles of Bonatti and his subsequent articles and books. On the other hand, forty years later, Gheser did not change his recollection of the events. In his introduction, Ballu warns readers that “when the recollection of a witness changes, the first version of the events will be considered as the most authentic”, thus the adoption of the original versions of Gheser and Bonatti. Given the similarity of these versions it is the logical choice. The common version of the climb is, in fact, very simple: after a very hard bivouac, Bonatti reaches the Franco-Belgian rope and leads the alpinists about one hundred meters higher where Gheser is waiting. They form a foursome rope that Bonatti leads to the top of the Brenva Spur under difficult conditions, the common rope explores the feasibility to go down directly to Chamonix through the “passage Balmat” (“Balmat’s way” or “ancient way”) which turns out to be too risky and, by common agreement, they separate into two individual ropes and plan to rejoin at the Vallot refuge. This is what “Naufrage” relates.
In the chapter “The Bonatti controversy” of “Shipwreck”, Vola discusses some aspects of the differences between the original articles of Bonatti and his subsequent publications.
An example of these differences is the case of Bonatti’s ice-ax broken during a recon towards “la Poire”. In his later articles, Bonatti states that the ice-ax was not broken but only cracked or split and that he fixed it with thin string. A question of semantics which certainly does not qualify as a “controversy” or a reason to criticize “Naufrage”. If the ice-ax had been declared “damaged” no question would have been raised. Further, nothing indicates that the ice-ax in question did not provide the services it was supposed to provide or that it would have handicapped the progression of the ropes. After mention of the repair, the ice-ax does not appear anymore in “Naufrage”. As far as I am concerned, there is no controversy here.
Another controversy brought up by Vola is that the two ropes would have regained their independence, i.e. would have separated, when the young alpinists, having a difficult time maintaining the pace of Bonatti, did propose to take a break to rest and eat close to the summit of Mont Blanc, which could suggest that Bonatti had abandoned them. “Naufrage” locates precisely the separation to have taken place 350 meters from the summit. But then, why would a separation at a higher altitude be considered as an abandonment while a separation at a lower altitude would be a separation and not an abandonment? This does not seem clear to me, but in the mind of Bonatti and Vola the controversy about a possible abandonment seems to depend on the location of the separation. In fact, Bonatti faced a terrible choice: a separation of the two ropes after the attempt to go down the “Balmat way”, about 350 meters below the summit, to let the two ropes progress at their own pace, the second rope benefitting from the tracks of the leading rope, or progress as a common rope until they were closer, say about fifty meters below the summit, then separate to let each rope reach the Vallot refuge over fairly smooth terrain. Bonatti choose the first option. Initially things went as planned: although being slower, the Franco-Belgian rope kept progressing and responded calmly to Bonatti’s verbal encouragements. So, Bonatti kept on as his rope mate Gheser started having difficulties walking and he wanted to reach the Vallot refuge before dark. Little did he know that the second rope was close to collapsing and had to stop and bivouac; he would have had little and probably no chance to find them in the dark. The second option, bringing everybody closer to Vallot before separating would have made it easier for Bonatti to go back and, may be, bring them to Vallot. However, given the slow pace of the common rope and the degree of exhaustion of the young climbers, it is very doubtful that they could have reached Vallot before dark which would have entailed another terrible bivouac for all four alpinists. I believe that Bonatti made the right choice, but in no case the other choice, that of a separation at higher altitude could not be considered as abandonment. One could even think the opposite. Personally, I have no doubts: Bonatti did not abandon Vincendon and my brother. Members of my family, friends and acquaintances with whom I spoke before and after the publication of “Naufrage” have never mentioned an abandonment. An abandonment or suspicion thereof is not mentioned anywhere in “Naufrage”.
In his two original articles (February and March 1957), Bonatti states that after having abandoned the idea of going directly to Chamonix through the ancient passage (passage Balmat), he explained to the other members of the rope that the only viable solution was to reach the Vallot refuge, and that they all agreed to separate themselves in two ropes, so that the Franco-Belgian rope, being slower, could benefit from the track made by Bonatti. In his original article (February 1957) and his letter to Ballu (1997) Gheser confirms this. The testimony of warrant officer Blanc who reports the description of the events by my brother confirms this sequence of events. On the basis of these concurring testimonies confirming a separation at relatively low altitude, the idea of an abandonment is rejected. Basing himself on the fact that the toponymy of Gheser is erroneous, Vola suggests that Gheser’s description of the events could lead to the assumption that the separation took place at a higher altitude and that Bonatti would have abandoned the Franco-Belgian rope. In his reports of the events, Ghezer calls the “ancient way” (or “passage Balmat”) the “Corridor”, which is erroneous. As can be seen from the illustrations in “Shipwreck”, the “Corridor” is parallel to the ancient way but at lower altitude, which reinforces the idea that the separation was not an abandonment. In his article in “Sport et Vie” (February 1957), Bonatti says: “First I had the intention of taking the “Corridor” … “. He refers here to his attempt to go down directly to Chamonix using the “passage Balmat” (“ancient way”). In Rivista, March 1957, Bonatti says: “… we are exactly on the col above the “Mur de la Cote” between the two Red Rocks …” and also “… the ‘”couloir” between the two Red Rocks (itinerary 176 of the Vallot Guide – parallel to the “Corridor” per se) …” and in a letter to Ballu “… realizing that the “Grand Couloir of the lower “old way” was highly dangerous …”. It seems that Bonatti’s toponymy is quite variable but not considered erroneous. Gheser, certainly less familiar with the French side of Mont Blanc most probably simply adopted the terminology of Bonatti. Further, Gheser mentions the “Brenva col”, which is erroneous, but the combination of the col and the “Corridor” in its proximity corresponds exactly to the description of their location as given by Bonatti. A few lines after his criticism of Gheser’s toponymy, Vola adds “… a careful reading of the Gheser’s text confirms that the separation took place at the location mentioned by Bonatti”. In a short section of his article, Vola accepts the location of the separation mentioned by Gheser, then raises some doubts about it and then accepts it again. All this is confusing, not convincing at all and, in fact, pointless as the original reports of Bonatti and Gheser establish the location of the separation, and, mostly its reason (slow pace of the Vincendon-Henry rope and suggestion of a break to recover). Further, “Shipwreck” has been revised four times to my knowledge (I may have missed some revisions) since its original publication (June 2017). Most of the revisions are rewrites of “The Bonatti Controversy” chapter attempting to explain, justify or legitimize Bonatti’s changing recollection of the events which gives the impression of a text in preparation modified as the author gathers new data or is advised about errors.
In the same chapter of “Shipwreck”, Vola blames Ballu for having “made the dead talk”. In reality, Ballu does not make the dead talk, he assigns their own words to protagonists of the events in the form of conversations, discussions or declarations. These, in turn were obtained from testimonies that Ballu collected and from a variety of documents of the time that he gathered during his research (I have provided a number of such documents myself). This approach, often used in publications about historical events, makes the text more vivid and more attractive, as Vola recognizes. But, as Vola and some of his friends say, it turns “Naufrage” into a novel. According to the Oxford dictionary a novel is a “relatively long fictional prose narrative with a more or less complex plot or pattern of events, about human beings … “. “Naufrage” is definitely not a fictional narrative. Obviously everyone is entitled to his opinions, but I have a difficult time understanding how the description of the long agony of two young men, of the suffering and frostbites of a pilot who will remain handicapped for the rest of his life, of the efforts and risks the rescue team went through, some members of which will be haunted for years by their memories, all carefully documented in “Naufrage”, could compare to the description of an inquiry by Inspecteur Maigret or of an adventure of James Bond. Moreover, to appreciate what the expression “make the dead talk” (“faire parler les morts”) alludes to, one should read “Naufrage” in French, which most readers of “Shipwreck” have not done. Why then insert this reference to the format of a text in French in an article in English and in a chapter dealing with the Bonatti controversy? “Naufrage” gives a chronological, carefully documented description of the events, which, together, add up to an important stage in the history of alpinism in the French Alps and of Chamonix in particular. Personally, I consider “Naufrage” as a historical document, but, as always, to each his own.
My comments regarding the Bonatti Controversy may appear as an “Anti-Controversy” or as the initiation of a new debate, which is not the case. I have tried to show that new interpretations based on rather secondary aspects of the events (Gheser’s toponymy, exact location of the separation, allusion to an abandonment, damaged ice-ax, rest and snack stop, …) are rather inconsistent and do not improve our understanding of the events. It is time to resign ourselves to admit that the facts as we know them now are the only ones we will ever know and that certain questions that we may ask ourselves will never be answered. It should also be noted that Vola’s original article did not include “The Bonatti Controversy” chapter; for the sake of his readers Vola should have kept it that way. There was never an “abandonment controversy” (not even in the Italian media!). This so-called controversy was, in fact and unfortunately, initiated by Bonatti’s changing testimony.
In the years following the tragedy, Bonatti modified his original description of the events. He blames Gheser whom he refutes systematically and Ballu for not having adopted his modified version of the facts. The tone of Bonatti’s criticism toward Gheser and Ballu suggests a vindictive, verbally aggressive and, at times, nasty person. I have never met Bonatti, but basing myself on some of his publications I read, his photo reports, comments and hearsay, I imagined a supremely gifted alpinist, proud of his achievements, self-confident, and affable. This last trait is well illustrated by the friendly relationship that developed between the two ropes at the Fourche refuge the evening before the climb. Why did Bonatti react in such a virulent way? How to explain this change in personality? We will never know for sure, but I would like to propose a possible explanation which could reconcile these opposed aspects of his personality. After he extracted the Franco-Belgian rope from its bivouac and joined it to his own rope, undoubtedly saving the lives of the two young men, he assumed full responsibility of the three alpinists. In a letter to Ballu, Bonatti explains: “In addition, I would add that all, tacitly (and since the first morning in the storm as members of the same rope), trusted me and considered me as the strongest and most experienced one”. This seems obvious to me. When he proposes to separate into two ropes to progress faster and to regroup at the Vallot refuge, everybody agrees because they all trust him. This trust places a serious responsibility on his shoulders which, perhaps, will weigh heavily on him later. Upon reaching the refuge, as a responsible leader would, he first cared for Gheser’s frostbites which looked quite serious, then considers going out in the dark of the night to look for “his” second rope. Gheser dissuades him to do so. Bonatti did not know that the second rope was exhausted and had resigned themselves to a second bivouac and that he would never see them again. For Bonatti who had assumed the responsibility of the two ropes, this was a failure. As a conscientious guide, he probably searched his memory to restore the sequence of events to determine how he could have avoided that failure. This call to his memory is probably what led him to modify his original reports of the events. In an essay “An Afterword…” recently added to “Shipwreck” and also posted in French and in English on Yves Ballu’s blog (these versions include an introduction by the author missing in “Shipwrech”’s version), Claude Duformantelle discusses the role of one’s memory as one tries to reconstruct situations in which one participated . He says, among others, “ This means that a memory, a recollection, a reminiscence, is constantly reconstructed by one’s poor mind in its futile attempts to figure out what one has really done, what really happened and to imagine what could have happened if … or what one should have done if … if what? To change the past? To explain the past? To understand the past or simply to exempt oneself from the past.” Given the criticism that had been heaped on him (notably after the Italian expedition to K2), it is quite possible that Bonatti’s memory led him towards a version of the events that should have avoided new criticism, even if that meant changing his testimony if necessary. All this is only a hypothesis which we will never be able to confirm and it does not change in any way my admiration, respect and gratitude towards Bonatti.
In the apologue to the recent version of “Naufrage”, I had suggested that the book should be compulsory reading for candidates to mountaineering professions. Recently, I was glad to learn that the book is included in the library of the “Peloton de Gendarmerie de Secours en Haute Montagne” (the elite rescue group operating in the French Alps) and is being read: even after sixty years, the human interactions described in “Naufrage” remain actual.
Jean Henry
ericvola - Nov 21, 2017 5:05 am - Hasn't voted
Jean Henri's responseDear Jean Henry,
First, I apologize for my mistake with the photo you mention which I first corrected when Yves Ballu told me about it taking off the word “smiling” and now by naming the two boys in the right order as you pointed out.
As far as the “Vola's controversy” is concerned, you must accept that it is not “my” controversy but the controversy that Ballu created in refusing to accept a number of Bonatti’s explanations in response to questions he sent him and in so writing a text in his book concerning his participation to the drama that infuriated Walter to the point that he wanted to take Yves and his publisher to court. I have sent to Yves the translation I made of the Chapter Bonatti wrote about this “Christmas on Mont Blanc” contesting most violently Ballu’s story and which was published in his posthumous book “Walter Bonatti una Vita Cosi” (and as Ballu told me in La Rivista in 1999). If you have not read it, you should: ask Yves or me to send it to you.
However I would agree that this paragraph about the Ballu-Bonatti controversy could be taken out of my article, particularly since Ballu and you fully agree with the fact that Bonatti did not in any way abandon the two boys, which was the suggestion he most violently reacted against.
As Ballu told me that he did not want to include in his book any details of the controversy he had with Bonatti, I did not want also to include the many details and analysis which Ballu and I exchanged about the Bonatti and Gheser testimonials and the contradictory analysis we both made of them. We had a number of verbal exchanges - note that from the start I asked our common friend Claude Dufourmantelle to warn Yves that I was writing this article and would welcome his checking my text for errors - and some 30 mails most on Yves’s sources, some very detailed, confronting our own analysis which as you found differ.
It is during those exchanges that I read more carefully Yves’s text, noting the differences with Bonatti’s versions which then lead me to Bonatti’s posthumous book Walter Bonatti Una Vita cosi. Note that what Ballu (and yourself) take as Bonatti’s contradictions particularly between Bonatti published texts (specifically the two written just after the events) over time, I accepted Bonatti’s explanations as being mainly more detailed texts given over time, i.e. complementary texts far more than contradictory. Similarly Gheser’s two testimonials 40 years apart are not as I read them like what Ballu and you state to be: totally identical. Even the toponymical errors he makes are different! I have exchanged at length with Yves on those testimonials and our analysis and resulting opinions finally differ.
You state that Ballu “locates precisely the separation to have taken place 350 meters from the summit.” But that is no so. Ballu (page 137) mentions the altitude of 4500 m when they get out of the Brenva spur (the sole altitude quoted for the whole episode) and the time of 3 pm. This timing is taken from Bonatti in To My Mountains and from Bonatti’s CAI article while the timing indicated in the Sport et Vie article is 2:30 pm and this article does not mention their attempt to go down the Passage Balmat: I guess this is what provoked Ballu’s mistaking the exact altitude and timing of the “separation”. At the following page after having mentioned the attempt to go down to the Grands Mulets by the passage Balmat, the decision to go to Vallot via the summit and also after V&H had slowed down, Ballu mentions that the summit is 300 m higher, but not where they were. Then Ballu writes that V&H wanted to stop to rest and eat and that Bonatti decided to “separate” because they stopped. Also Ballu indicates that in “two hours and a half, night will fall”. But this cannot be : Top of Brenva Spur 3 pm + 1 hour for going down to the start of the Passage Balmat and 100m down it + getting back up to the Balmat passage start again = 4 pm (this timing is mentioned by Gheser in his 2nd testimonial while it is totally mixed up in his 1rst testimonial). They have 1 hour to 1 hour and a half of daylight left not 2 hours and a half. In fact for me this whole scenario is erroneous and clashes with what Bonatti told and wrote. It is at the top of the Balmat Passage - 4 450 m - at 4 pm when they all regrouped that Bonatti convinced them that their only solution left was to go to Vallot by the Mont Blanc summit. On that we all agree, including Ballu.
It is then that they also decided all in agreement to take back their autonomy, not higher as from Bonatti's reading Ballu’s text suggests, and not because V&H stopped. This occurred later as per Bonatti some 200 m higher below the Petits Mulets. That is what infuriated Bonatti as he read Ballu's text stating that it is when they stopped that they unropped while that occurred 200 m below.
You also state that: "It seems that Bonatti’s toponymy is quite variable but not considered erroneous.” Because he wrote in ‘Sport et Vie’ (February 1957): “First I had the intention of taking the Corridor”. My view is that you make the same type of mistaking assumption than Ballu in considering just the text written and not the explanations given by Bonatti: his initial intention was to end up his ascent at the Brenva Col and to go down to Chamonix via the Corridor and the Grands Mulets as the previous two parties did. It so happens that in the mist he took one the left exits and found himself some 150 m higher than the Brenva Col. And as he explains in Walter Bonatti Una Vita cosi, he did not give/write all the details each time. I agree that in this article Bonatti could have been more explicit as he did when he wrote his own text for the CAI review, days after, but I cannot believe he made a mistake, his knowledge of the area was already too great at the time.
Considering the sources used by Ballu and Bonatti's explanations in response to what Ballu estimated as contradictions, I personally did not find any proven fact justifying to disbelieve Bonatti’s main assertions. Again as you also state, no one will ever know for sure, so as I stated from the start it is a matter of opinion. I don’t hold the truth about Bonatti’s deeds but nor Ballu nor anyone else.
In fact, I agree that this controversy would be better treated, eventually if at all, in a separate article and in French as the testimonials concerned are in French, Italian and not English - although I doubt that it would interest many people as you also mention. Whatever, as this article is mainly about the drama that Jean Vincendon and your brother suffered, the mountain context, mountaineers mentalities of the time and the impact it had on the French mountain rescue system, I could suppress the “Controversy” paragraph and then modify the section of the events concerned with what I believe happened, i.e. as per Bonatti’s texts published which on several key points for Bonatti differ from Ballu’s text.
If you want a more detailed response or to discuss further, do as Ballu and correspond with me by email and/or phone. You can ask Yves Ballu my email and Tel N°. And let me know if my above proposal suits you.
Best