1950 French Annapurna expedition

Annapurna is in the Eastern Himalaya in Nepal, and no one had attempted to climb the mountain before 1950. All pre–World War II Himalayan mountaineering expeditions had avoided Nepal and had travelled via Tibet or India, but in 1949, alarmed that the communists seemed to be gaining control in China, Tibet expelled all Chinese officials and closed its borders to foreigners. In October 1950 Tibet was occupied by the People's Republic of China and its borders remained closed indefinitely.[1]

For over one hundred years Nepal, ruled by the Rana dynasty, had not allowed explorers or mountaineers into the country. However, by 1946 a possible communist-sponsored revolution was even less welcome than Western influence so Nepal opened diplomatic discussions with the United States. Privately hoping to be able to use Nepal as a Cold War launching point for missiles, the United States welcomed the new situation.[note 1] Scientific expeditions became permitted but two requests in 1948 from Switzerland and Britain for purely mountaineering expeditions were refused. A year later mountaineers were allowed if they were accompanying scientific travellers.[3][4] Nepal first gave permission for a full mountaineering expedition for a French attempt in 1950 on Dhaulagiri or Annapurna.[5]

Alpine mountaineering was immensely popular in France – the Fédération Française des clubs alpins et de montagne had 31,000 members in 1950 – and the top mountaineers were second only to footballers in their celebrity. Although French mountaineers included some of the leading alpinists in the world,[note 2] they had not ventured much beyond the Alps[note 3] whereas their British counterparts, with little truly mountainous terrain of their own and less skill on rock faces, had been reconnoitring Himalaya via newly-independent India.[8][9] After the travails of war a mountaineering success would be good for the public mood.[10]

On 30 March 1950 the French Annapurna Expedition[note 8] flew on an Air France DC-4 from Paris to New Delhi (with several refuelling stops).[21] They took 3.5 tons of supplies which included ropes and outer clothing of nylon, down-filled jackets and felt-lined leather boots with rubber soles – all innovative equipment. Most of their food was to be bought locally and they had decided not to take bottled oxygen. Another aircraft took them to Lucknow where they met Ang Tharkay, the expedition's highly experienced sirdar[note 9][21] A train took them to Nautanwa where they met up with the other sherpas[note 7] and entered Nepal to travel on by truck through jungle and then grassy fields to Butwal where the road ended.[21][23] On the march-in Lachenal and Terray would keep going on ahead as a scouting party while the rest followed with 150 porters carrying the supplies on their backs. Porters were paid according to the weight of their loads and they scorned the work they were being offered where the packs averaged about 40 kilograms (88 lb). However, they were willing to accept double loads of 80 kilograms (180 lb). Terray estimated the heaviest porter would not have had a body weight of over 80 kilograms.[21][24]

Sketch map of Dhaulagiri and Annapurna region based on Herzog's 1951 map[25]

Dhaulagiri and Annapurna are 34 kilometres (21 miles) apart on either side of the gorge of the Kali Gandaki river, a tributary of the Ganges.[11][26] As the expedition approached from the south Dhaulagiri was clearly visible as a white pyramid to the west whereas Annapurna to the east was hidden behind the Nilgiri mountains. On first seeing Dhaulagiri on 17 April the immediate impression was that it was unclimbable. They could not see Annapurna but there was a break in the Nilgiris where the Miristi Kola flows into the Kali Gandaki through a deep and narrow gorge with an impenetrable entrance. The 1920s Survey of India map they were using (see left-hand Annapurna map below) showed a path leading up the gorge and over "Tilicho Pass" that might provide a route to the north face of Annapurna. However, none of the local inhabitants they spoke to knew of a path or had any further information. Continuing up the Kali Gandaki Gorge the team reached the market town of Tukusha at 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) on 21 April. The people lived there in primitive conditions – Terray described the place as having "biblical charm".[note 10] Couzy climbed a 4,000-metre (13,000 ft) Nilgiri peak to the east of Tukusha to inspect the eastern Dhaulagiri terrain and he concluded the southeast ridge was "absolutely frightful". Even so, Herzog decided that they should first focus on Dhaulagiri, the higher mountain, since they would only have to investigate possible routes to the summit and would not have to reconnoitre to find the mountain itself.[28]

Dhaulagiri from French Pass (2008)

Dhaulagiri region: sketch maps of India Survey (left) and Herzog (right)[29]

Starting from Tukusha, the climbers Lachenal and Rébuffat headed for an initial exploration of Dhaulagiri's eastern glacier, while Herzog, Terray and Ichac went to the north where they found their 1920s map was seriously defective (see above).[30] Unlike Annapurna, Dhaulagiri is well separated from its neighbouring peaks and it is steep on all sides.[31] They found an unmapped region they called the "Hidden Valley" but from there they were unable to see the mountain at all. Over the next two weeks small groups examined the southeast and northeast ridges while Terray and Oudot reached a 5,300-metre (17,500 ft) pass (called French Pass) beyond the Hidden Valley but, although they were able to see Dhaulagiri, they decided the north face could not be climbed.[30] They were also able to see across to Annapurna in the distance where there were steep cliffs to the south but the northern profile did not look to be more than 35°.[32]

Annapurna Himal from 50 kilometres (31 mi) north. Annapurna I is the highest peak, somewhat left of centre (annotated image).

Annapurna region: sketch maps of India Survey (left) and Herzog (right)[33]

During this Dhaulagiri reconnaissance, Schatz, Couzy, Oudot and Ang Tharkay had been back south to explore the deep canyon of the Miristi Kola river. When they had previously passed that river on the march-in it seemed to have a greater flow than would be likely for the limited drainage basin shown on the map. To avoid the entrance to the gorge, the party climbed to the ridge of the Nilgiris from where they could see the ravine below was indeed impassable.[note 11][30] However, traversing beside the ridge by following a slight path marked with cairns, they reached a point from which Schatz and Couzy were able to descend 910 metres (3,000 ft) to the river and from there they reached the base of Annapurna's northwest spur. They could not tell whether the spur, or the ice fields on either side of it, might provide a feasible route to the summit.[35]

With everyone back in Tukusha and with poor prospects of attaining either summit from the east, west or south, Herzog acted on the advice of a Buddhist lama that they should travel towards Muktinath on a route to the north and then east.[30][36] Hoping they might be able to approach "Tilicho Pass" from the east along the track marked on their map, Rébuffat, Ichac and Herzog set off on 8 May crossing two passes north of a peak (now called Tilicho Peak) at each end of a frozen ice lake and discovering an unmapped wall of mountains to their south continuing beyond the lake and still blocking any view of Annapurna. This part of the Nilgiri range looping right round the north of Annapurna they called the "Great Barrier".[30] Ichac and Ang Tharkay stayed back to do accurate surveying and to climb north to a point at about 6,200 metres (20,300 ft) on a ridge, hoping the see the mountain over the Great Barrier – but everywhere was shrouded in mist. The main party reached the village of Manangbhot and explored slightly further before returning to Tukucha on the road via Muktinath. The expedition had been unable even to see Annapurna from the north, let alone discover a route to it. The map they had was so inaccurate that it was useless.[37]

With the start of the monsoon predicted for the first week in June, back in Tukusha on 14 May they held a meeting to discuss which mountain to attempt and along which particular route. Terray wrote: "In full awareness of his terrible responsibility Maurice chose the more reasonable but uncertain course: we would attempt Annapurna." The route would be the one reconnoitered by Schatz and Couzy's team.[38][39]

Annapurna from Miristi Kola valley

Most of the party set out for the Miristi Kola as an advance reconnaissance group leaving most of the porters to bring the rest of stores and equipment later. They took with them the medical supplies deemed necessary by Oudot including Maxiton (the equivalent amphetamine preparation in Britain was Benzedrine[40]).[41] In three separate groups they crossed the Nilgiri range, traversed east above the Miristi Kola, and descended the gorge. Crossing the river they set up a base camp at the foot of a glacier below Annapurna's northwest spur. Two teams moved up the spur, a feat of considerable technical climbing,[note 12] but even after repeated attempts over five days they were unable to get higher than about 6,000 metres (20,000 ft).[38][43][note 13]

Meantime Lachenal and Rébuffat on their own initiative had moved round the foot of the spur to below Annapurna's north face, to a point they decided gave the best prospects for success.[38] They sent a note back to the main party saying there was a likely route up the side of the north face glacier leading to the plateau above. However, they could see no higher. Fortunately Terray and Herzog had been able to see the plateau from their high point on the northwest spur and could tell the route across the plateau to the top was not technically difficult.[45] Compared with the northwest spur, the north face of Annapurna is at a relatively low angle and does not require rock climbing skills, but the risk of avalanches makes it extremely dangerous.[46] Annapurna may well be the most dangerous 8,000-metre peak – as of 2000 for 38 successful ascents there had been 57 deaths.[47]

The party moved their base camp to the furthest point that could be reached by porters in the direction of the newly identified starting point – to the right bank of the North Annapurna glacier at 4,400 metres (14,500 ft)[note 14] while Couzy was left to organise moving the supplies up.[50][51] Camp I was set up on the glacier at 5,110 metres (16,750 ft) with a relatively gentle slope up to the mountain but with a considerable risk of avalanches. From here on the first sunny afternoon in weeks they could survey the mountain easily. Herzog decided that the expedition's support should now move from Tukucha and so sent Sarki back with the order. Camp II was in the middle of a plateau above the north Annapurna glacier, fairly well sheltered from avalanches.[38][52][51] Each morning brought 0.30 metres (1 ft) or more of snow – making for slow progress – but after crossing an avalanche corridor they were able to establish Camp III among some seracs on the far side of the glacier and by 28 May they had established Camp IV below a curving cliff of ice that they called the "Sickle".[53][38] Terray was amazed by the energy he and the team showed, considering how long they had been at high altitude and how little they had eaten. He wondered if this was due to the drugs Oudot had insisted on them taking regularly.[54][note 15] On 25 May the porters arrived at Base Camp with supplies and equipment to support what would turn out to be a very fast, alpine-style assault on the mountain.[57][58][59]

Annapurna's "Sickle" (centre). Shoulder of Tilicho Peak (right) obscures lower parts of Annapurna.

Herzog's plan had been that he and Terray should rest before attempting the summit but the other four climbers became too exhausted to do their part of a carry to Camp IV so Terray (disobeying the orders he had received to go down from Camp III to Camp II) climbed with Rébuffat and a team of sherpas to carry up these loads.[60][61] This unselfish act by Terray led to Herzog (who had acclimatised the best[13]) and Lachenal, accompanied by Ang Tharkay and Sarki, being the ones who set out from Camp II on 31 May for an attempt on the summit. Next day Herzog's team moved Camp IV to a better site at the top of the Sickle cliff (Camp IVA) and then on 2 June they climbed a gully through the Sickle to establish Camp V, their assault camp, on the snow fields above.[62] With the monsoon now forecast for 5 June, time was extremely tight.[63] Herzog offered Ang Tharkay and Sarki the opportunity to accompany them to the summit but they turned down what would have been a great honour.[note 16] The two sherpas headed back to Camp IVA.[64]

Not understanding that being at high altitude without additional oxygen induces apathy, in a severe gale the climbers spent the night without eating anything or sleeping, and in the morning they did not bother lighting their stove to make hot drinks. At 06:00 it was no longer snowing and they ascended farther. Finding that their boots were proving to be inadequately insulated, Lachenal, fearing losing his feet to frostbite, contemplated going down. He asked Herzog what he would do if he did turn back and Herzog replied that he would go on up alone. Lachenal decided to continue on with Herzog. A last couloir led them to the summit which they reached at 14:00 on 3 June 1950.[65][66] Herzog estimated the height as 8,075 metres (26,493 ft) – his altimeter read 8,500 metres (27,900 ft).[67] They had climbed the highest summit ever reached, the first eight-thousander, on their first attempt on a mountain that had never before been explored.[note 17] Herzog, writing in his characteristically idealistic way, was ecstatic: "Never have I felt happiness like this, so intense and pure."[69] On the other hand, Lachenal only felt "a painful sense of emptiness".[70]

Lachenal was anxious to go down as soon as possible but he obliged Herzog by photographing his leader holding the Tricolour on the summit and then a pennant from Kléber, his sponsoring employer.[71][note 18] After about an hour on the summit, not waiting for Herzog in his euphoric state to load another roll of film, Lachenal set off back down at a furious pace. Herzog, swallowing the last of his food – from a nearly empty tube of condensed milk – threw the tube down on the summit as that was the only memorial he could leave and he trailed behind Lachenal into a gathering storm.[71][74][75]

Over the following years several members of the expedition wrote about their experiences^{[bibliography]} and the varied accounts eventually led to controversy.[109] At the airport, before setting off on the expedition, Herzog had required each member of the team to sign an undertaking not to publish or publicly communicate anything about the expedition for five years so initially Herzog's was the only version of events to be known.[110] However, in 1996 two very different accounts were published and "a storm of controversy seized France".[111] Herzog responded in 1998. After speaking to many of the people involved who were still alive,[note 25] in 2000 David Roberts, the American mountaineer and writer, published True Summit, discussing the whole issue.[note 26][112]

For some years Herzog's Annapurna[113] was the only account and it became a worldwide best-seller with over 11 million sales, a record for a mountaineering book.[106] All the royalties from the publication (in France it remained the best-selling work of non-fiction for nearly a year) went to the Himalayan Committee and were used to fund future expeditions – in a direct sense Herzog did not benefit financially at all.[114] The description of the expedition above in this article has generally been drawn from Herzog's book complemented by the "Annapurna" chapter from Terray's Conquistadors of the Useless.[115][39]

James Ramsey Ullman wrote in the New York Herald Tribune that Annapurna was "a gallant and moving story, in some ways a terrible story" predicting it would become a mountaineering classic. Time wrote that the first half was like "a boy camper's letter to a chum" but what followed was a "harrowing ordeal-by-nature calculated to shiver the spirit of the toughest armchair explorer."[116] Herzog and Ichac published a photographic book in 1951 Regards vers l'Annapurna[117] and in 1981 Herzog published a historical work Les grandes aventures de l'Himalaya[118] which had a section on Annapurna.[119]

In the preface to the 1951 book Devies concentrates almost exclusively on the leader of the team: "The victory of the whole party was also, and above all, the victory of its leader".[120] Herzog told of a happy team, all pulling together although at times Lachenal could be impetuous.[121] Rarely did he mention any disagreement between team members and he, as leader, could resolve any spats quite easily.[122] He very often quoted as direct speech the jaunty sort of remarks members of the team might have made, even on occasions when he was not present to have heard them.[123]

Lachenal had kept notes and a diary and he was about to publish a book, Carnets du vertige, when he was killed in a skiing accident in 1955. Herzog took over Lachenal's work and he and Lucien Devies marked in many editorial suggestions for deletions before passing it to Herzog's brother, Gérard Herzog, for full editing.[124] As published, the book comprised chapters about Lachenal's life written by Gérard Herzog from Lachenal's notes and material written by a journalist Philippe Cornuau who had been helping Lachenal with his draft – Cornuau said that when he had handed over the typescripts he had no idea of what was going to happen. None of what Lachenal or Cornuau had written appeared in the eventual publication.[125] The book also included extracts from Lachenal's diary but only after many redactions – it was mostly the more congenial remarks that remained.[126]

Lachenal had also left a typescript of some "Commentaires", intended to be published along with his diary. Herzog is commended as being as good as the professional guides for his stamina and technique, but, less agreeably for Herzog and Devies, he characterised the descent from the summit as a "débandade" (disorderly retreat) beside which on the typescript Devies jotted down "But no" and Maurice Herzog "Is this the place to say so?". When Lachenal had wanted to turn back before the summit Herzog thought it was his encouragement that had enabled Lachenal to continue. However Lachenal wrote that he agreed to go on because he thought that Herzog would not succeed in getting back down again alone. Herzog wrote in the margin of the typescript: "I didn't sense this. Perhaps after all I was unfair." On the other hand, Devies noted: "This must all be rewritten". In the event Gérard Herzog did not include any of the "Commentaires". The book[127] was published in 1956 and Cornuau was shocked by what he read.[128]

Terray's 1961 book, Les conquérants de l'inutile[129][note 27] (published in English as "The Conquistadors of the Useless") included a long chapter about the Annapurna expedition.[131] It was deliberately written to complement Herzog's book.[132][note 28] He provided a great deal of additional information but finishing with the avalanche on the way down to Camp II. Generally the book did not disagree with Herzog but did commend Lachenal's climbing ability: he said "Lachenal was by far the fastest and most brilliant climber I have ever known on delicate or loose terrain" but he could however lack patience and stamina.[133]

In association with Rébuffat's wife Françoise the journalist Yves Ballu wrote the first biography of the mountaineer. Rébuffat had become very disillusioned by the expedition and afterwards he restricted his climbing to the Alps.[134] Françoise had persuaded him not to write about Annapurna during his lifetime because it would come across as too bitter so Ballu had interviewed him with a view to an eventual biography. Rébuffat had also prepared his own notes, and Françoise had kept his many letters to her during the expedition.[135] Gaston Rébuffat: une vie pour la montagne was published in 1996.[136]

The book contained many revelations. Rébuffat had been shocked by the requirement for an oath of obedience and he described it as "a certain Nazification".[21][137] He considered it had been his initiative that led to the discovery of the eventual climbing route to the summit and that Herzog had not given him the credit for this.[138] When in 1951 Lachenal had told Rébuffat that when he had been considering publishing an account of the expedition, someone from the official Himalayan Committee had threatened him that he might lose his job at the École Nationale de Ski et d'Alpinisme.[139]

The same year Michel Guérin of Éditions Guérin, the mountaineering publisher, published an unexpurgated version of Lachenal's diary, also including the "Commentaires", under the same title Carnets du vertige.[140] The original manuscript had been left to Lachenal's son Jean-Claude, who had become angry with the changes the editors had made in 1956. However, Herzog had befriended the Lachenal family and Jean-Claude had not wanted to cause any hurt. Eventually Guérin persuaded him to allow full publication.[141]

There was a favourable book review in the Alpine Journal that provided an assessment of the situation. It was because he was a professional mountain guide that Lachenal had continued with Herzog to the summit. By doing so, through frostbite, he lost the ability to continue his career – and allowed Herzog to triumph in his.[142]

In his diaries Lachenal admitted that a sherpa had fallen to his death from the Nilgiri ridge on their return march but no one else had mentioned this. No one else wrote of the daily use of morphine as a pain-killer while the casualties were being carried out and that Rébuffat was the only person who was attentive to Lachenal.[143] Back in 1956 the text Gérard Herzog had excluded was about matters he considered too unpleasant for publication such as the climbers being offered young girls for sex and, when this was refused, being offered young boys instead. Minor comments had also been edited: "Evening, the eternal chicken and potatoes" had been removed while "We opened a bottle of white wine" had been kept.[144]

The publication of these books in 1996 had caused serious controversy: mountaineering journalists started expressing doubts about the reliability of Herzog's book. Herzog's rejoinder was to publish a memoir L'autre Annapurna[145] in 1998 when he was eighty years old.[146]

Le Figaro described it as a meditation rather than a biography, "a witty and modest account". Libération deplored its name-dropping[note 29] and Pierre Mazeaud in Le Faucigny said "I succeeded in getting to page 16. But when I saw that he had not a single word for poor Lachenal, I couldn't get any further."[147]

Herzog wrote that originally he had not intended to write a book but a hospital nurse had suggested writing would be good therapy for him.[103] He said that even after nearly 50 years his Annapurna experience still imbued his reborn life with "indescribable happiness".[note 30][106] He said that one member of the party was only accepted by the appointments committee on the understanding that Herzog could send him away at any time. However, like everyone in the team, this unnamed person had behaved as a "true comrade ... despite what was apparently divulged much later". Roberts has claimed that almost all expert observers agreed that it was Lachenal being referred to.[149] Whereas in 1951 he had written that Lachenal, after his serious fall at Camp V, wanted Terray to take him down to Camp II, in L'autre Annapurna he said Lachenal just wanted to stay where he was and die.[150][note 31]

Interviewed by Roberts in 1999, Herzog told him the controversy had not bothered him. No one had doubted what he had written. He had shown the manuscript of Annapurna to everyone who had been on the expedition and they were impressed – even Lachenal. Contradicting his 1951 account, he said his frostbite had not been caused by losing his gloves because he had simply put his hands in his pockets. Instead, the cause was digging in the snow in their overnight crevasse trying to find the buried boots. Indeed, in L'autre Annapurna he did not mention losing his gloves at all. Explaining various differences between his two accounts Herzog said Annapurna was a novel, but a true novel. He considered his first book to be objective and the other was subjective.[153]

The combination of Rébuffat's disillusioned story and the obvious censorship of Lachenal's writing caused a storm of revisionism in the French press. Frédéric Potet wrote: "The whole world remembers Maurice Herzog, the first biped to have trod, in 1950, atop a mountain of more than 8,000 metres. The others – Rébuffat, Terray, Lachenal? Who were they? Where did they come from? What did they do?" Major newspapers in France and mountaineering magazines worldwide joined the criticism. In the American Alpine Journal: "I am sorry we have had to wait so long for the true story. All around us we can see the damage done by false information."[154][155][note 32]

La Montagne et Alpinisme, however, considered there was too much fuss: five-year embargoes were normal in 1950 and the distinction between professional guides and amateur climbers had lost any significance by that time.[156]

Montagnes magazine investigated and reported that Terray had not received the Légion d'honneur because Devies and Herzog had been opposed to it. They also found that, despite rumours that several mountaineers had been seriously injured, their wives waiting anxiously at home were told nothing by Devies because of the exclusive publication contract with Le Figaro and Paris Match. Le Monde discovered that before leaving for France Ichac had searched Rébuffat bodily to check he was not smuggling back any film. Ichac had not gone above Camp II so Rébuffat had taken all the higher photographs except those at the summit taken by Lachenal and one by Herzog. Despite this, all published photographs were credited to Ichac. It later emerged that Rébuffat succeeded in covertly bringing back the film used by Lachenal and he developed it before returning all the photographs but one to Ichac. The one he kept back, which he kept for the rest of his life, had been too embarrassing for Lachenal to bear becoming public – the one of Herzog waving the tyre company Kléber's pennant on the summit.[157][note 18]

Interviewed by Le Monde, Herzog said "What I wrote in Annapurna is the exact truth. ... My writings have never been contradicted." To Montagnes he said the passages had been removed from Lachenal's book because they did not interest the editors.[158]

The 1998 publication of Herzog's L'autre Annapurna again stirred up the press. In an interview Herzog now said Lachenal was an excessive personality and he and Devies had removed passages from Lachenal's draft to avoid charges of defamation and to keep things calm. He said Herzog's brother had helped Lachenal because he was incapable of writing, that Lachenal was very happy with the rewrite and that Lachenal's son had made up the story about the draft being distorted. The sherpa Foutharkay was drawn into the arguments, saying that Sir Edmund Hillary was a hero in Nepal but Herzog not so.[159]

Roberts' book about the controversy has itself also been criticised. In reviewing True Summit the American Alpine Journal said "David Roberts has none of the Himalayan expedition experience necessary to put the events in context."[160]

• Barcott, Bruce (4 June 2000). "No Room at the Top". The New York Times.
• Barthe, Patrick (1997). "Book review: Carnets du Vertige". American Alpine Journal: 365.
• Ballu, Yves (26 December 2012). "Herzog et Lachenal sont-ils parvenus au sommet de l'Annapurna? – Kairn". Kairn (in French).
• Bonington, Chris (1971). Annapurna South Face. Book Club Associates.
• Cusick, James (14 December 2012). "Maurice Herzog: Mountaineer who became one of the first two men to ascend Annapurna". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 June 2018.
• Day, Henry (2010). "Annapurna Anniversaries" (PDF). Alpine Journal: 181–189.
• Greene, Raymond (14 July 1954). "High Altitude Medecine" (PDF). Alpine Journal. 59 (289).
• Harper, Sue (1999). "Other Annapurnas" (PDF). Alpine Journal. 104 (348): 170–174.
• Herzog, Maurice (1951a). "Annapurna" (PDF). Alpine Journal. 58 (282): 155–168.
• Herzog, Maurice (1954). Annapurna. Translated by Morin, Nea; Adam Smith, Janet. Reprint Society. Introduction by Shipton, Eric.
• Horrell, Mark (30 March 2016). "An early history of the 8000m peaks: the first ascent of Annapurna". Footsteps on the Mountain. Mark Horrell.
• Isserman, Maurice; Weaver, Stewart (2008). "The Golden Age Postponed". Fallen Giants : A History of Himalayan Mountaineering from the Age of Empire to the Age of Extremes. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300115017.
• Kléber (1950). "Kleber 1950". Kléber. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018.
• Mahé, Patrick (26 March 2009). "L'Himalaya a sauvé Paris Match" (in French). Paris Match.
• Palais, Robert (2001). "Book review: True Summit". American Alpine Journal: 420.
• Roberts, David (2001). True summit : what really happened on Maurice Herzog's first legendary ascent of Annapurna. London: Constable. ISBN 978-1-84119-339-7.
• RTL (14 December 2012). "Maurice Herzog et l'Annapurna : un exploit confisqué?". RTL.fr (in French). RTL. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018.
• Soroka, Waldemar (1998). Translated by Doubrawa-Cochlin, Ingeborga. "Annapuma North..West Ridge" (PDF). Alpine Journal.
• Terray, Lionel (2001). "Annapurna". Conquistadors of the useless: from the Alps to Annapurna. London: Baton Wicks. pp. 232–306. ISBN 978-1898573388.
• Ward, M. P.; Clark, P. K. (March 1992). "Everest, 1951: Cartographic and Photographic Evidence of a New Route from Nepal". The Geographical Journal. 158 (1): 47–56. doi:10.2307/3060016. JSTOR 3060016.
• Ward, Michael (1996). "The Great Angtharkay: A Tribute" (PDF). Alpine Journal: 182–186.
• anon (11 January 2016). "Annapurna 1950, chronologie de l'affaire – Summit Day". Summit Day (in French). For dates camps were established.

In chronological order of first (French) publication.

• Herzog, Maurice (1951). Annapurna, premier 8000 (in French). Éditions Arthaud.
  • Herzog, Maurice (1952). Annapurna. Conquest of the First 8000-Metre Peak (26,493ft). Translated by Morin, Nea; Adam Smith, Janet. London: Jonathan Cape. Introduction by Shipton, Eric.
• Herzog, Maurice (November 1951). "Annapurna" (PDF). Alpine Journal. 58 (282): 155–168.
• Herzog, Maurice; Ichac, Marcel (1951). Regards vers l'Annapurna (in French). Arthaud.
• Lachenal, Louis (1956). Herzog, Gérard (ed.). Carnets du vertige (in French). Paris: Pierre Horay. No English translation.
• Terray, Lionel (1961). Les conquérants de l'inutile. Des Alpes à l'Annapurna (in French). Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
  • Terray, Lionel (1963). Conquistadors of the Useless: From the Alps to Annapurna. Translated by Sutton, Geoffrey. Gollancz.
• Herzog, Maurice (1981). "Un autre regard". Les grandes aventures de l'Himalaya. Annapurna, Nanga Parbat, Chogori, K2 (in French). Grenoble: JC Lattes.
• Ballu, Yves (1996). Gaston Rébuffat : une vie pour la montagne (in French). Paris: Éditions Hoëbeke. ISBN 978-2842300159. Not first-hand but a posthumous biography, published with Rébuffat's approval.
• Lachenal, Louis (1996). Carnets du vertige (in French). Michel Guérin. Unexpurgated version.
• Herzog, Maurice (1998). L'autre Annapurna (in French). Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont. ISBN 978-2221087138.
• Herzog, Maurice (2007). Renaître: une autre vie après l'Annapurna (in French). Paris: Jacob-Duvernet. ISBN 978-2847241624.

• Buffet, Charlie (7 June 2000). "Maurice Herzog, 81 ans, héros de l'Annapurna, cultive depuis 1950 la légende qui lui a ouvert une vie d'honneurs et de pouvoir. Droits d'hauteur". Libération.fr (in French). Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
• Douglas, Ed (14 December 2012). "Maurice Herzog obituary". Guardian.
• Messner, Reinhold (2000). Annapurna: 50 years of expeditions in the death zone. Seattle: Mountaineers Book. ISBN 978-0898867381.
• "Victoire sur l'Himalaya". Paris Match: 12–27. 19 August 1950.

28°35′43″N 83°49′32″E