Prayer of the Day BBC Radio 4 Rant

[Will O'Brien]

I'm not usually one for ranting & I don't want this to turn into a religious/political free for all which will end up with the thread being consigned to the moderators electronic waste paper bin, but the Prayer of the Day which I caught this morning when driving to work really got my goat.

Pádraig Ó Tuama, today's provider of spiritual insight (who I note is described on his own website as a poet, theologian & mediator) reflected on the year 1916 & it's importance to Ireland, in particular the Easter Rising in Dublin & the Irish contribution to the Battle of the Somme. Having more than a passing interest in the subject both from a Great War perspective & because of my cultural ancestry (the clue is in the surname), I was initially heartened by the thought of listening to some innovative or non-mainstream views on the matter (whilst I'm not a religious person, I find it interesting to listen to the thoughts of those who have a faith on the matter of war & in particular the 14-18 conflict)

I was quickly disappointed. Setting aside the use of the word atrocity when describing the Battle of the Somme (I appreciate there are some who would concur that it was just that & there have been many threads here debating the rights & wrongs of the management of that particular action) & the over inflated importance attached to the Easter Rising in the ultimate creation of the Irish Free State, what really annoyed me (to the point where I think I used profanity at the radio) was the myth perpetuating comments that 60,000 British troops were killed on the 1st July & that 1,000,000 British & Commonwealth soldiers perished on the Somme over the 4 months the battle was fought.

Is the reality not horrific enough? This constant need to embellish already tragically high fatalities makes me want to disengage & simply switch off from the 'popular media's' interpretation of one of the most significant episodes in modern history.

Accidental misinterpretations of the term casualties versus fatalities shows poor understanding & research which in itself needs to be challenged. Deliberate reinforcement of untrue statistics to portray events in an even worse light deserve nothing but scorn & ridicule. I also blame the editors & executives responsible for letting these programmes go out on air without ensuring the facts are at least accurate (yes my dear BBC that was a pop at you).

Rant over...........I'm now back off to lurk in the forum shadows

[nigelcave]

And who or what was the Commonwealth in 1916? There cannot have been a million Australians who perished on the Somme, or am I missing something very major?

[Will O'Brien]

Typographical omission on my part Nigel, should have read British & Commonwealth, but of course it more correctly would have been British & Empire

[stevem49]

I would love to reply (in agreement with you) but I would possibly get banned.

[Muerrisch]

what is "Pray of the Day", pray?

[Will O'Brien]

what is "Pray of the Day", pray?

OK I was being flippant in the title & have changed it to the more appropriate prayer of the day

[Steven Broomfield]

I didn't listen to it (SWT not providing in-flight radio, sadly), but it seems that 2016 is fair set for a load of mythologising claptrap from every angle.

I think that rather than lurk in the Forum shadows we should all retreat from public life for 12 months and wait until it's all over.

[keithfazzani]

The 60,000 killed on the first day is a myth that will not go away. As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum this is the answer given on one version of Trivial Pursuits. I would just point out that it is not only religious broadcasters who get all these figures totally wrong constantly. Listen to a few "guides" on the Somme for some fascinating statistics.

[Gareth Davies]

The 60,000 killed on the first day is a myth that will not go away. As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum this is the answer given on one version of Trivial Pursuits. I would just point out that it is not only religious broadcasters who get all these figures totally wrong constantly. Listen to a few "guides" on the Somme for some fascinating statistics.

It will go away if this project has any success:

http://www.thesomme19240.co.uk/

The 60,000 killed on the first day is a myth that will not go away. As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum this is the answer given on one version of Trivial Pursuits. I would just point out that it is not only religious broadcasters who get all these figures totally wrong constantly. Listen to a few "guides" on the Somme for some fascinating statistics.

I recently heard a well established battlefield guide claim that >300k British soldiers were killed during the Battle of the Somme.

[Dragon]

It will go away if this project has any success:

http://www.thesomme19240.co.uk/

One hand-made creation per fallen soldier... where've I come across that concept before? I wonder whether they'll sell the corpses for charity afterwards.

Gwyn

[redbarchetta]

" I’m going to be posting regularly to the site.".... dated 15 April 2015... hmmmm. Too busy making the figures, I guess.

The words 'wagon' and 'band' spring to mind...

James

[depaor01]

As someone directly involved in 1916 Rising Commemoration, I'm already losing the will to live. In Ireland, the Great War projects were a cakewalk in comparison.

I'd be heading for Steven's bunker if my income didn't depend on it.

Having said that, I'm equally respectful of all sides and happy to commemorate them all. Some modern day talking heads ruin it for me regularly.

Dave

[Moonraker]

It will go away if this project has any success:

http://www.thesomme19240.co.uk/

One hand-made creation per fallen soldier... where've I come across that concept before? I wonder whether they'll sell the corpses for charity afterwards.

Gwyn

Possibly in my post of December 5 last year:

link

Two or three days ago, there was an update on regional TV, but I'm unable to trace it.

Moonraker

[Dragon]

I was actually thinking of the Tower of London Poppies. The shrouds concept seems like piggybacking on an original idea - derivative.

Gwyn

[Gareth Davies]

19240 project:

Personal view: I support commemoration and thus commemorating the 19240 British deaths of the 1st Day (according to the website the 19240 are the "men and women from across the world who gave their lives ...on July 1"). But I don't need 19240 action men wrapped in bandages in order to understand that scale of the deaths. And without context they are just a load of lumps of plastic that will probably end up in landfill.

But: If you look at the website you will see a number of organisations that are listed as supporters of the project. I work for one of those supporting organisations (part time) and I have a role in coordinating some of the support that is being given to it.

[Guest]

I tried Googling "60,000 dead Somme" and it is in fact quite difficult to find articles that make the error. Some very low-end bloggers do, but most of the mass-media seems to have the right idea. Well over 90% of the articles I looked at had the 60,000 / 20,000 Casualties/killed number (both inflate the Official number by around 4%), which might suggest the '60,000 dead on 1st July' is itself dead...or at least dying. Thankfully. If one looks hard enough one can find examples but I honestly think it is no longer mainstream or widespread in the mass media.

Separately - An example from the thesomme19240 'learn more'

This was the worst day in the history of the British Army, which saw 19,240 fall in the morning alone – 60,000 by nightfall, mainly on the front between the Albert–Bapaume road and Gommecourt, where the attack was defeated and few British troops reached the German front line. The British Army on the Somme was a mixture of the remains of the pre-war regular army, the Territorial Force and the Kitchener Army, which was composed of ‘Pals’ battalions recruited from the same places and occupations.

Did all the killed 'fall in the morning'? Were all the Kitchener armies at the Somme 'composed of 'Pals' battalions'? 60,000 By nightfall? I suspect July 2016 will possibly be more excruciating than the Christmas Truce for 'facts'. MG

[Fattyowls]

Just in case anyone wants to hear the original prayer it is here. I apologise to Will for risking raising his blood pressure again. Because I knew what was coming I tried not to get sidetracked by the use of the word atrocity and the assumption that casualties = killed and found the sentiment interesting.

Having read Martin's previous post I wonder if it is worth the forum putting its collective head together and assembling the answers to the questions posed in the last part? I've been looking at the post about men wounded on the Somme who died in the UK and have been thinking about how this affects the overall figures. I found a post by Phil (PJA) as a starter for ten. As an extension of this does the forum think it would be worth putting in complaints to the BBC when it broadcasts figures which mistake casualties for killed? Or should I take Mr Broomfield's advice and retire from public life for the next 10 months or so?

Pete

[Dragon]

19240 project:

Personal view: I support commemoration and thus commemorating the 19240 British deaths of the 1st Day (according to the website the 19240 are the "men and women from across the world who gave their lives ...on July 1"). But I don't need 19240 action men wrapped in bandages in order to understand that scale of the deaths. And without context they are just a load of lumps of plastic that will probably end up in landfill.

I usually feel in a minority of people who are both seriously interested in aspects of the Great War and receptive to arts projects, performance pieces and so on. Often the very mention of arts in the context of a response to war provokes mutterings and criticism. Therefore it's unusual for me to feel negative about an installation which I haven't even seen, but the idea of one art piece per death has already been done, and done wonderfully, in the Tower Poppies. I don't feel as if there is space for two such projects and the corpses idea seems derivative. It draws on the concept embodied by the Tower poppies and on Anthony Gormley's Field for the British Isles which I saw at Tate Liverpool: a room full of 40000 small unglazed clay figures, seemingly endless - similar to row upon row of shrouded figures. I also don't much care for the idea of the resources wasted.

I wish him success and I hope his exhibition touches and educates people. If by the end of 2016 people are still transfixed by 1st July and still clinging to the 60000 figure, then the opportunities of this year have been wasted.

Gwyn

[nigelcave]

I tried Googling "60,000 dead Somme" and it is in fact quite difficult to find articles that make the error. Some very low-end bloggers do, but most of the mass-media seems to have the right idea. Well over 90% of the articles I looked at had the 60,000 / 20,000 Casualties/killed number (both inflate the Official number by around 4%), which might suggest the '60,000 dead on 1st July' is itself dead...or at least dying. Thankfully. If one looks hard enough one can find examples but I honestly think it is no longer mainstream or widespread in the mass media.

Separately - An example from the thesomme19240 'learn more'

This was the worst day in the history of the British Army, which saw 19,240 fall in the morning alone – 60,000 by nightfall, mainly on the front between the Albert–Bapaume road and Gommecourt, where the attack was defeated and few British troops reached the German front line. The British Army on the Somme was a mixture of the remains of the pre-war regular army, the Territorial Force and the Kitchener Army, which was composed of ‘Pals’ battalions recruited from the same places and occupations.

Did all the killed 'fall in the morning'? Were all the Kitchener armies at the Somme 'composed of 'Pals' battalions'? 60,000 By nightfall? I suspect July 2016 will possibly be more excruciating than the Christmas Truce for 'facts'. MG

Oh dear - the worst day in the history of the British Army? How about the fall of Singapore? I know most casualties - the vast majority - were PoWs, but many of these did not survive the horrors of the PoW camps, whilst its impact on British prestige and its consequences were, I suspect, considerably greater than the horror that was the First Day of the Somme.

And what nonsense - everyone 'tidily' killed in the morning and everyone after that wounded, missing, PoW. I mean look at it!

Just wait till we get to Third Ypres - the figures cited in the media in the past for that battle give me no great hopes that the statistics when we get to that centenary will be any more accurate than the ones that often get bandied around for the Somme.

Typographical omission on my part Nigel, should have read British & Commonwealth, but of course it more correctly would have been British & Empire

Don't worry - it is one of my grumpy old man gripes: British, Dominion and Empire troops if for the whole of the Somme campaign. I once got irritated enough to have a go at the Commission some years back. The person who responded agreed that the use of the word 'Commonwealth' was an anachronism of which they were well aware but their hands were somewhat tied by what the funding nations wanted.

[Ron Clifton]

1 July 1916 was the worst day for casualties in the British Army when it happened. Singapore was of course over 25 years later, so I don't have a problem with remarks about the worst day - it simply represents yet another case of the media using something short and emphatic without weakening it with too many caveats. But the assumption that all 19,240 were killed in the first hour does point to either slapdash research or sloppy journalism.

It might, however, be more useful if some of the TV documentary makers could put it in a better context - what, for example, were the "worst days" in the War for the French and German armies?

Ron

[Guest]

It is all rather "tiresomme" [sic]. You heard it here first. MG

[PhilH]

Is not the real issue one of using the term casualty to refer only to the dead rather than actual casualties? I know little of actual numbers killed or wounded but the real definition of casualty is 'killed or wounded' and not just killed. When a military concept chooses to use a term to relate other than the real definition what do you expect but confusion?

[Guest]

Absolute or Relative?

The so called 'Worst Day' is always measured by absolute casualties, particularly fatal casualties. The whole concept is embedded in definitions. If the Army had sent in a million men and suffered 57,000 'casualties' would it have taken on a similar significance? I think not. The French and German OHs give less than a few pages to 1st July. The British dedicate a whole volume. In my view this is largely to explain the destruction of a large part of the men who volunteered in 1915. Men who chose to fight and were largely failed by the planners.

There are alternative views on worst days: I think the worst day or the British Army was the annihilation of the 4th Worcesters at Gallipoli. If measured by fatalities or casualties as a per cent of those who stood up and crossed the start line; the 4th Worcesters saw a higher per cent of casualties on 6th August 1915 than any unit in the British Empire during the whole of the Great War. No memorials, no hand wringing, no commemorations. Almost entirely forgotten. Not that it matters but simply to counter the tsunami of nonsense being regurgitated by the ill-informed media on what 'bloody' means exactly. Absolute or relative?. The Somme was bloody but in brutal terms it was simply because it was a very large scale operation that failed (the OH describes it as a 'success'. Really.) There were tens of thousands of casualties because (simply) many tens of thousands of men crossed the start line. When viewed as a per cent of the numbers involved the catastrophe of the first day of the Somme takes on a completely different perspective.

One might easily argue that Gheluvelt was more catastrophic (in terms of casualties a a per cent of those involved) and more meaningful. The 1st July 1916 has been distorted in the minds of the populous by authors who do not understand simple mathematics or the context of battles. Happy to be shot down.

[Kate Wills]

OK I was being flippant in the title & have changed it to the more appropriate prayer of the day

This regular pre-8am slot within the Today programme is called Thought for the Day.

Agree with you Will about presenting the correct numbers. If you are going to ask people to ponder a serious issue, you should at least get your facts right.

[Will O'Brien]

This regular pre-8am slot within the Today programme is called Thought for the Day.

Agree with you Will about presenting the correct numbers. If you are going to ask people to ponder a serious issue, you should at least get your facts right.

Interesting that they repeat it under a different guise. The slot between the Shipping Forecast & Farming Today (at circa 5.40am) is badged 'Prayer' rather than 'Thought'