My Family At War

[LizM]

I thought it was an excellent programme, although should be on earlier in the evening so more people can see.

It may not be accurate in everything, but at least it gives those who know nothing about the events of WW1 to learn something about what went on and keep the memory alive.

LizM

[dycer]

Without detracting from the criticism of General Snow,his blaming of his men for lack of offensive spirit seems crass.

His personal papers,as quoted,seem to reveal that as the War went on he was out of his depth,either by training,experience,age or health.

He did resign,to make way for a younger man.His fault seems to have been that he "delayed the falling on his sword" too long and that his Seniors did not recognise his weaknesses sooner.

I found the Natalie Cassidy scenes a bit shallow.She came across as giggly and very uniformed of the War.I take nothing away from the work of her Relative in the post-War period.But would rather the Programme stuck to facts than conjecture.

George

[Guest tafski]

It was nice to se forum member SOREN do his bit looks like he going into presenting as well as drawing

Tafski

[Bart150]

In the closing scene Snow was in a cemetery full of white crosses - not normal cwgc stones. How come?

[pmaasz]

Just another of the programme's inaccuracies, along with the steel helmets. They looked like American grave crosses to me.

[bruce]

I was angered at a different point.

Dan Snow said of the General,"He was an old man, out of his depth" of the events of 1916.

Gen. Snow was 58 at the time.

Bruce.......just turned 56 and NOT old!!!

[Stephen Barker]

In the closing scene Snow was in a cemetery full of white crosses - not normal cwgc stones. How come?

French crosses at Thiepval next to the Memorial.

Stephen

[Steven Broomfield]

Sorry: I gave up after 15 minutes and just caught odd little bits two or three times after.

I thought (always have done) that Snow spends too much time pulling silly faces, and to describe him as an historian is stretching credibility. His attitude annoyed me. On the bright side, at least he didn't have his dad with him.

As for the Ms Cassidy, well I appreciate that celebrities aren't necessarily supposed to know much, but some of her questions (What did a graves exhumation unit do?...maybe the clue's in the title) were a bit dim.

Unfortunately my irritation with the celebs led me to miss what might have been a decent programme. Why do we have to be obssessed with celebs? Are the lives of 'ordinary' people of no interest? I applaud the Beeb's efforts at promoting the 90th Anniversary, but this programme just annoyed me. I don't want to watch a programme about the GW and spend my time shouting at Dan Snow.

No. Thumbs down from me.

Incidentally, I agree it was good to put faces to Forum names: brilliant idea, though, to film Soren and Ms C on the Cross of Sacrifice at Tyne Cot (the biggest CWGC cemetery in the world, as we were breathlessly informed) in what looked like a Force 10 gale, while trying to handle photo copied documents and keep Ms C's hair out of her eyes.

[bantamforgot]

In my view a poor programme , it was neither one thing or another , too much crammed into 40 minutes & really seemed to be a programme of/for historical experts , sorry if I offend said experts or their friends.

Dan Snow seemed to be less than his usual self perhaps in view of his "recently" acquired knowledge of a relative & appeared to advance himself for taking the guilt.

I hope this evenings programme will be more informative & trust Aurel will add more than some of the too many experts in last nights episode.

Colin

[pmaasz]

Boy soldier: surely one of the problems of the programme was that it was NOT one of/for historical experts. It was so short of the facts about the Great War, Snow's bit in particular, that it was quite misleading for those - unlike us perhaps - who know very little about it. The use of so-called celebs to front it was a shallow attempt to grab the interest of the wider public. Having done that by the use of such people, the programme makers should have given a more complete and truer story. The padding was unbelieveble, with oft-repeated clips taken out of context. And I agree, what on earth was the horse meant to demonstrate? Oh, I see. The producer learnt that cavalry had been involved at some point. I know! Let's put Dan on a horse! Like ianw, the more I think about it, the crosser I become at what was a travesty of what could have been an informative and interesting programme.

[Pighills]

I interpreted the use of the horses as demonstrating Gen Snow's experience/tactics at that point and to show how things rapidly progressed to trench warfare, therefore putting him out of touch with what he knew/was familiar with.

As for the white crosses (post #39) I too at first thought they were at Thiepval (as the clip followed directly on from that of Thiepval) but then thought there were too many for Thiepval - I then thought perhaps it was the camera angle making them it look as if there were more, does anyone know if it WAS Thiepval (not that it matters in THAT much).

[dfaulder]

I'd agree with that one - the fact that the programme was set up as a 'trial by television' for the General from start meant that it was to pander to all the stock cliches; chateaux, donkeys, cavalry etc, etc. It really was too much to have the poor lad under fire here with little in the way of background.

I thought that the other contribution was actually more honest and therefore more engaging.

Peter

I must admit that I too was a bit disappointed by this programme. It seemed lazy, taking an incomplete set of facts and assembling the "obvious" narrative (based on previous work - a.k.a. prejudice - in its mean of to "pre-judge"). The only "new" thing from this was seeing the discomfortature of Snow's great grandson. I would have hoped that they could at least have hinted at alternative narratives.

A previous manager taught me that when pointing the finger, point it at a process rather than a person - the processes of recruitment, promotion or training being the most obvious modern-day candidates. In Snow's case a more charitable narrative might have referred to:

1) At outbreak of war we had a lot of competent "old" senior officers who had successfully fought in previous wars (stated in programme)

2) That this was different in scale technique and technology (again stated). But it was this change and the inability of the army (/nation?) to adapt quick enough that rendered the old commanders less competent - not their own "failures of character".

3) That there was no process to enable the "high command" to get their minds around the implications of this. (In a modern analogy it would appear we have no banking leaders able to handle an internet-era downturn).

4) Chateaux behind the lines were sensible places to put divisional headquarters (compared to the implication that they should have been up there "on the front line", accessible only to the German Guns and a limited sector of the action).

5) Scale and technology meant that communications were not up to the job (previous techniques having been rendered inadequate in the previous months, but secure radio networks still very much in their infancy). It is quite possible that erroneous reports would have got back to the generals on 1 July 1916 ("we have entered Serre" - based on observation from a distance of shiny tinplates attached to the back of troops advancing through the mess of battle). They may also have received incomplete reports (possibly/probably erroneous) that some units failed to show sufficient aggression or fighting spirit (defined in terms of following the battle plan). When you are removed from the action you have to rely on reports from others - even "going forward to find out for yourself", puts yourself at risk, removes you from where your staff can find you, and only gives you a partial view of what is going on from which it might be dangerous to generalise. (In the modern day, the director who "goes back to the floor" for a day, and comes back with some half-baked idea from "Joe", has not necessarily gained an insight that applies everywhere.)

6) The social environment of the time meant that many of these generals were instilled with a sense of duty, which drove them on even when they had doubts (I suspect a more detailed view of Snow's letters would have helped us understand this).

etc. etc.

I hope also that someone with experience of military command might also comment on the idea that if you command thousands of men, "you are responsible for them", and therefore you must be held to blame if you take casualties. Surely a commander who is unwilling to contemplate the possibility of casualties is going to be ineffective?

Much to explore but I felt the programme "dodged" trying to get its mind around these issues.

David

[Desmond7]

No.1 Taff Gillingham with the Smiths style haircut - fashion guru. Top marks on the coiffure front

No. 2 I wish they'd spent a little bit more time on that Eastender's girlie's ancestor who was involved in post war battlefield clearance. The tram driver stuff was, frankly embarrasing.

No. 3. I had no diffs with Snow on horseback. Shurley the late Snow would have ridden a horse at some stage.

No. 4. I did not catch the name of the guy with the toy soldiers and the map at chateau and under Thiepval Memorial ... I suspect he was a forumite. I'd like to say well done to him, very natural performance and from all I've read of the Gommecourt attack, his summing up seemed to be perfectly in context.

More of this, I say.

[chrisharley9]

As for the Ms Cassidy, well I appreciate that celebrities aren't necessarily supposed to know much, but some of her questions (What did a graves exhumation unit do?...maybe the clue's in the title) were a bit dim.

Steven

well she did appear in Eastenders nuff said, sorted, alllrighttttt

Chris

[bmac]

No. 4. I did not catch the name of the guy with the toy soldiers and the map at chateau and under Thiepval Memorial ... I suspect he was a forumite. I'd like to say well done to him, very natural performance and from all I've read of the Gommecourt attack, his summing up seemed to be perfectly in context.

Guilty... but insane!

[George Armstrong Custer]

In the interests of maintaining forum civility I am not going to express in any detail my feelings on the travesty which stitched up Snow and implied all Great War generals were as bad. Certain "historians" did a good impersonation, I thought, of the late John Laffin regurgitating parts of his 'British Butchers and Bunglers of the First World War.'

I did, however, enjoy the exploration of some aspects of the home front and the post-war work of the grave exhumations teams in which the actress girl's grandfather had been involved. If the whole programme had confined itself to this it might have been a credible (and creditable to those involved) piece of history on TV.

[PhilB]

Most posters seem to think Dan Snow was misled about his great grandad`s culpability. That would be surprising considering that he is a trained historian with access to Snow`s correspondence and a great personal interest in the man. However, if it is the case, it would interesting to see him given a programme ("What did you do in the Great War, great grandad?") and an opportunity to put forward a rounded account and assessment. I`d watch it! (As long as his dad wasn`t on)

[Moston]

dam spit & bother...have recorded the programme to watch tonight...just read this and now my views will be tainted.

Sorry bMac - didn't watch you 'live' - beating the bluenoses took priority in the Moston household.

[irishmen1916]

I saw the programme last night, and found it very interesting and enjoyed it, lets face it pals not everybody watching last night is a expert, found the bit about Cassidy's Relative going back to join the graves exhumation unit and then to go on and do shell clearance very hard to understand ? but then again there was not a lot of other work around then.

Peter

[bruce]

Having given the programme a bit of thought, a number of points come to mind.

1. The Eastender girl's grandmothers may, or may not, have worked on trams or in munitions factories. They were possibilities...that is all.

2. I would have liked more on the battlefield clearance aspect.

3. On Snow......if I had a General in my family, I would have read everything I could about him. Yet Dan, a so-called historian, had never before read up anything about him???

4. Unless my memory is fading, Gommecourt was an attempt to distract the Germans, and to draw off German reserves from further south. No attempt was made to try to hide the preparations for the attack there. It is thus little wonder that the casualties were high,as the only thing for certain that the Germans didn't know was exactly when the attack would start.

5. Snow was 54 when the war started. He wasn't old!!!

6. His entire experience had been of open warfare, elsewhere within the Empire. That he was unable to cope with the extreme changes of trench warfare and all the new technology of the Great War should hardly come as a great surprise.

7. Much was made of him spending July 1st seven miles behind the lines. Where else should the General have been? In a trench somewhere, waiting to be shot by a German, out of touch with all his subsidiary commanders?

8. Much was also made of his diary entry for that day. He would only have been getting news that was relayed to him. If his Staff were telling him that the attack was progressing well (as it did at first around Gommecourt) then he is at the mercy of the information he received.

However, I suspect that the programme was not really aimed at us on the Forum!

Bruce

[PhilB]

6. His entire experience had been of open warfare, elsewhere within the Empire. That he was unable to cope with the extreme changes of trench warfare and all the new technology of the Great War should hardly come as a great surprise.

I think 2 years might enable a commander to adapt to new ideas?

However, I really wanted to say that Dan Snow didn`t mention another man, his great great grandad who was even more influential on WW1:-

"David Lloyd George is my great great grandfather and we're all very proud of him," says Dan.

"He was Britain's first working class Prime Minister and is definitely up against Churchill for the greatest one.

"He had a pretty impressive record really, coming in back in 1916 when we had the worst years in British history. We were in danger of losing the Battle of the Atlantic, we'd had a hideous loss of life on the Western Front and David Lloyd George came in and provided charismatic leadership that helped Britain win the war."

David Lloyd George is also famous for being Britain's first Welsh Prime Minister, but curiously Dan is related to him through his Canadian mother, Ann MacMillan.

"He's my mum's mum's mum's dad!" explains Dan. "My great grandmother was Welsh-speaking and lived in North Wales, then my grandmother emigrated to Canada."

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/features/li...military_past_/

And here`s a photo of the younger Lt Gen Snow.

[Ken Lees]

It's very easy to be critical of a work prepared and broadcast for a mass audience on a subject that they are likely to have very little knowledge about.

I watched it for what it was and enjoyed it. All of the presenters/experts were a credit to the subject and I don't have any problems with celebrities being used to draw in those who wouldn't watch a "documentary about the war".

Reading the above criticisms about the presenters, locations, clips used etc makes me think that some people would prefer to watch a newsreader reading from a prepared script. How many 'non-anoraks' would watch that though? Not enough for the programme to be viable, I suspect.

Ken

[Stephen Nulty]

I watched it for what it was and enjoyed it.

Couldn't have put it better, Ken. I have spoken to people over the last few days who have thoroughly enjoyed the first few programs in the Remembrance series, with these programs revealing aspects of the conflict about which they had no knowledge, and ensuring that Remembrance is now in the forefront of their mind. Isn't this the purpose of the programs?

A credit to the BBC, in my opinion.

[nicko576]

I could not agree more with Ken and Stephen.

[pmaasz]

I think Ken Lees and Stephen Nulty have missed the point of the crticisms. OK - construct a programme around 'celebrities' but at least make it sufficiently factual not to mislead and leave the viewer with a false impression of events. Again, I am thinking mainly of the Snow portion.