Aurel Sercu Posted 16 February , 2003 Author Share Posted 16 February , 2003 Clare, As to the question in your last line ... Very simple : if made public, this has to be equipped with "unimportant" details, footnotes, references to sources, etc. All this I think are things that an average reader may not be really interested in. Besides it would overload a website article, making it unattractive to read and look at. (One does not read from a monitor screen the way one reads a book or magazine.) On the other hand : some readers do want these footnotes etc. So I think a complete form in print and an abridged form (website) might be desirable. But as I said before : I will have to think about this seriously. Aurel Sercu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Clare Elliott Posted 17 February , 2003 Share Posted 17 February , 2003 Hi Aurel I'm sure I speak for the rest of us when I say: Who cares about them? I want to see the footnotes and references. People don't *have to read them. Please ... Best wishes Clare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest whizzbang Posted 9 March , 2003 Share Posted 9 March , 2003 I have read with some concern the articles on John Condon. I have met Aurel on a number of occasions and find him to be a gentleman and a scholar . His passion, integrity and honour are beyond reproach. All i can say is keep up the good work Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Birch Posted 10 March , 2003 Share Posted 10 March , 2003 I was in South Africa when this this thread took place and have only just caught up with it. I must say that I am appalled at what I read. One thing which comes across loud and clear is the restrained and honourable way in which Aurel wrote what he had to write, which is in sharp contrast to the self righteous and rather hollow responses from those trying to find excuses for the inexcusable. Aurel, I look forward to reading your paper in Stand To! Regards Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chiel88 Posted 18 May , 2003 Share Posted 18 May , 2003 Dear Aurel, it's been a while since anyone gave reply on this forum, so perhaps it's time for me to write something. It's a pity that all ends this way. Months of investigation gone to the dogs. You know the time I had spent to find out the Russian manufacturers, and it gave much joy to publish it on the Internet. Even If someone walked away with my ideas and investigation, I still published it because it's my credit. I think that you earn the credit for it and I ask you to concider again. Perhaps there are only a few footnotes, but I learned the last few month's that at the other side of the big pont a lot of collectors and historians need information about the Great War and all his issues. I think this is a big one as it gives us inside information how logistic thinks can be going wrong to worst in a war. Please concider to publish it, your friend from the north Chiel Voswijk See you in the trenches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 18 May , 2003 Share Posted 18 May , 2003 May be it is time..... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 18 May , 2003 Author Share Posted 18 May , 2003 Chiel, John, I certainly have not abandoned "John Condon". And he is still on my mind, every day, no doubt about that ! It's just that right now I got stuck (together with some of my Irish contacts, whose help I greatly appreciate) with regard to a "footnote", a "detail" : finding possible relatives / descendants of a certain soldier in this matter. I think I have a moral duty to do all I can to find them. Almost every day emails or letters are exchanged, but right now, no tangible result. Though I still have some tracks to follow, which will be done in the near future.. But I can assure you : one day I will come out with it. In what form ? It won't be in Stand To in September, for I was expected to hand in my article for the September issue this month. Thanks for your support. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 19 May , 2003 Share Posted 19 May , 2003 Aurel All the support you need John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Mackenzie Posted 19 May , 2003 Share Posted 19 May , 2003 Having been through every posting since April I cannot belive I have only picked up on this thread today -apologies if my comments are behind the times. I do not know any of the individuals involved on a personal level so cannot comment on that aspect at all. However, the thing that struck me about the the Campaign for War Grave Commemorations entry on John Condon was:- 1. I thought I read a post that they had removed the entry/article from their site but I believe it is still there. 2. In their analysis of John Condon I could see no reference at all to the substantial amount of work that Aurel had obviously contributed. Whether or not they felt their contribution was parallel to his is immaterial and the fact that Aurel did not wish to be associated with the breaking of this story on their web site is also immaterial. They were surely aware of the contribution he had made and should have acknowledged it accordingly. I too would like to see the full analysis from Aurel in Stand To! but this is his work and he should publish it as he sees fit (with appropriate recognition of the contribution made by anyone else of course). As a side note, having had a brief run through the Campaign for War Grave Commemorations web site my first impression was 'right idea but badly executed'. Obviously there will be many errors in the CWGC records, given the number of casualties involved and the technology available at the time this is inevitable. I think it is a good idea to have a forum for getting such errors corrected. Howeverr, to blame the current CWGC personnel for errors in the 1920's is as ridiculous as blaming them for the loss of records in the WW2 Blitz. In my limited dealings with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission I have always found them very helpful (especially when compared to your average civil servant - apologies to all CS's everywhere). I am sure that if the Campaign took a more constructive approach than would appear to be the case (based on their current website) they would achieve a lot more. As with everything - just a personal view Neil P.S. I have to say that I found this thread a bit depressing - like some of the postings we get on this forum criticising/slagging off the WFA. At the end of the day we should all be on the same side, i.e. remembering our ancestors who served and died in WW1 (whatever their nationality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Mackenzie Posted 20 May , 2003 Share Posted 20 May , 2003 Apologies. When I said 'good idea badly executed' I was referring to the tone of the site rather than its quality or the quality of the research. Neil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 20 May , 2003 Share Posted 20 May , 2003 I don't want to get involved in the fight - but to point out to the John and Neil that, contrary to a (much) earlier statement, the Condon story is still on your website and accessible. Andrew (sliding back into the trench.......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 20 May , 2003 Share Posted 20 May , 2003 Andrew I was passing on my overall support to Aurel, as there seems to be more to do before it can literally all be laid to rest... apologies if I gave the wrong meaning John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 20 May , 2003 Share Posted 20 May , 2003 I had understood that CWGC had "done the decent thing" and withdrawn the article from their website. Last time I looked, they had. But it's back. What a pity John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 20 May , 2003 Author Share Posted 20 May , 2003 Yes, it is ... So I have been informed a couple of times ... But frankly, I'd rather not see it. Too painful. Neil M., I will send you a personal email tomorrow (Wednesday). Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 Dear Members, I have just picked up on this long-running thread and have read the lot from start to finish. I know neither person. On a broader tack, and being relatively new to this forum myself and to the subject of Wipers in particular, it is very clear that there is a wealth of knowledge from subject matter experts being posted on this site. My plea is how can we publish articles on WW1 to make them more acessible to the wider public, both young and old? I'm sure Aurel's article will make for scholarly reading. But what about all the other threads we cover, all of which have highly learned and fascinating inputs. Is ST! our only logical outlet for hard copy? A minor point - At least the yonger soldiers like Condon and Strudwick have grave stones - let us please not forget the thousands upon thousands of brave men who have no known grave for ancestors to grieve at. We must remember them too. Kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broznitsky Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 My plea is how can we publish articles on WW1 to make them more acessible to the wider public, both young and old? Is ST! our only logical outlet for hard copy? Kerry, check the thread about The Great War Magazine. This seems like it would fit our purposes, (along with Stand To). Although, it's only available by subscription, and not on newstands . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 My plea is how can we publish articles on WW1 to make them more acessible to the wider public, both young and old? Is ST! our only logical outlet for hard copy? A thought... would a Bakers Pals magazine be too much to consider? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 I think setting up competition for Stand To! would be a very bad decision. It's the best WW1 publication in the world. No less an authority than John Keegan has recognized WFA as the premier historical group we have. Let's not diminish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 Paul - I agree! The problem with setting up a rival publication to Stand To is that you risk diluting and spreading thinly quality material for publication. I have just joined the WFA and the 2 copies I have received are excellent both in content and quality and as has been noted and debated recently on this forum, its members come from a broad church! If you have never read it - try it! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Mooney Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 I must agree with Ian and Paul - rather than set up a rival publication, we should encourage scholarly contributions to Stand To or The Great War Magazine (or other worthwhile pubs). Having been in the publishing biz at one time, you would be amazed at the amount of bad material that gets submitted for publication. Truly well written and researched stories are like nuggets of gold. I have often wondered why more of those who post here do not attempt to publish, though many are already contributors to various mags. The depth of knowledge and breadth of interest is tremendous. A day ne'er goes by that I don't come away with some snippet or another. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 This is an excellent site, but we should all give 100% support to the WFA and Stand To, I would guess that the bulk of us are members anyway. Why another magazine!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 Accepts comments but was not trying to set a pals mag up against Stand To! It was just a thought John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 A thought... would a Bakers Pals magazine be too much to consider? The other thought is that it takes an awful lot of someone's time, and a considerable amount of money, to produce a printed magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 22 May , 2003 Share Posted 22 May , 2003 As a professional magazine publisher, my advice is 'Forget it'. Stick with the web and Chris' magnificent site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bruce Simpson Posted 23 May , 2003 Share Posted 23 May , 2003 Dear Aurel, I am sad to read the problems you have had. I am sorry such a man as yourself has had to go through such an experence. I hope you do publish in Stand Too this is required to be on record as it is so important and would become a permanent record. Stand Too will be made available soon via Naval & MilitaryPress who will be releasing back issues hopefully by the end of the summer As always best wishes and support to you Bruce Simpson European Liason The Western Front Association [code] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now