My Family At War

[Stephen Barker]

Matthew Kelly's statement:

They are our relatives, they are our people

I thought was very moving.

Celebrities here are representing the general public - identified as a celebrity, yet losing their 'celebrity status' in a way because they are in a sphere which is new to them, where that status becomes meaningless and hence they become ordinary, which is as it should be.

Both the men's reactions were authentic, measured and respectful.

Good tonight I thought

Stephen

[amelialongcroft]

Have been following this discussion with interest, although I missed the Dan Snow/Natalie Cassidy episode. I must say I did enjoy tonight's programme, and found Matthew Kelly's 'journey' very touching (but then I am an old softie). I'm sure programmes like this will encourage many to research relatives who served in WWI, although I appreciate the points made earlier in the thread about the dangers of 'bad' history. Will be interested to find out if tonight's programme featured any heinous inaccuracies - I'm not knowledgeable enough (yet!) to spot them.

[John_Hartley]

Celebrities here are representing the general public -

I agree - and folk are more likely to watch, and become engaged by the subject, a programme featuring Kelly & Tuffnell than they would be by one featuring, say, Barker & Hartley.

[Stephen Barker]

I agree - and folk are more likely to watch, and become engaged by the subject, a programme featuring Kelly & Tuffnell than they would be by one featuring, say, Barker & Hartley.

Oh crikey, Barker and Hartley, can't think of anything worse!

Stephen

[Jim Clay]

Barker & Hartley. Has a certain - je ne sais quoi. But Messrs Barker & Hartley have put their fingers on the spot. These 'celebs' represent 'us' and, as Stephen says, they lose their 'celebrity status' in a way because they are in a sphere which is new to them ... they become ordinary. I found Kelly and Tufnell's journeys tonight fascinating.

Jim

[Guest Taynuilt]

My first post here and, I must admit, I was impelled to join by watching Monday night's first programme in this series.

Much of what I intended to say has now been said by other posters, particularly and most eloquently by David Faulder on page 2 of this thread. I watched the programme with mounting horror and anger. For over thirty years I taught History in a Scottish secondary school and for much of that time the Great War was a staple of the senior curriculum. I sought to correct the stereoptypical and grotesquely over-simplistic images of the war created by TV programmes like Blackadder Goes Forth and its caricature of generals like Sir Douglas Haig.

One of the pleasures of reading the scholarly research of the last 16-20 years has been to recognise the revision to the 'lions led by donkeys' picture provided by modern academics. To watch a programme in which the old stereotypes are resurrected was depressing in the extreme! Have the producers never heard of John Bourne, Peter Simkins, Gary Sheffield or Andy Simpson? Apparently not.

The fact that Dan Snow-who has a first class degree in History from Oxford-was indulging in this opposite of family piety was astonishing and rather sad. His protestations that he knew nothing about his great-grandfather were disingenuous to say the least!

Specifically, there is a case to be made against Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas D'Oyly Snow. He was not the best corps commander on the Western Front. He should probably have been sent home before his actual removal in January 1918. The Battle of the Somme was not Snow's finest hour as a military commander. On the other hand his command of VII Corps ar Arras in April 1917 showed signs of his having learned some of the harsh lessons from the past. He may have been unlucky along with his fellow corps commanders Pulteney and Woollcombe to be blamed for the initial success of the German offensive at Cambrai in November 1917, an assault he had warned the staff of Third Army was about to be launched.

Snow's conduct at the Somme in 1916, his criticisms of the fighting qualities of the men of the 46th and 56th Divisions under his command and his part in the removal of the 46th Division's commander can legitimately all be criticised.

Instead however we were treated to the hoary old cliches of the general in his chateau 8 miles behind the lines and the over-optimism regarding the size of casualties on the first day of the Somme-points discussed and disposed by David Faulder above. Nor was it recognised that Snow, as a Corps Commander, operated under the direction of Haig as C-in-C, B.E.F., Allenby as Third Army Commander and Rawlinson, whose 4th Army carried out the main offensive on the Somme on 1st July and had overall direction of the battle. (Snow's VII Corps of 3rd Army attacked Gommecourt in a support role).

Does any of this matter? Was it not just a short programme on BBC1 aimed at a mass audience which perforce had to cut historical corners to make general points? Well, yes it does matter if generations of school pupils learning History in some depth are to be given a picture which is not distorted. That was what I and my colleagues laboured to do for so long. Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry make more impact on the consciousness of the young than a lot of less dynamic school teachers! This programme did not help!

[armourersergeant]

Have the producers never heard of John Bourne, Peter Simkins, Gary Sheffield or Andy Simpson? Apparently not.

Specifically, there is a case to be made against Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas D'Oyly Snow. He was not the best corps commander on the Western Front. He should probably have been sent home before his actual removal in January 1918.

Well come to the posting forum. Many of your comments have validity, it was very much an over simplification and I guess had to be in just twenty minutes. Perhaps some 'bad' editing did change or misrepresent some of what happened.

I do know that some of the above were sort by the BBC but were in many instances not available to help.

You will I hope forgive me pointing out- Snow was not removed but requested to go home. It is something I am very quick to point out. Though I am willing to admit he would almost certainly have gone when others like Pulteney and Woolcombe did. His performance at Cambrai was better than often portrayed but 'history' has seen the corps commanders blamed in this area when perhaps it should have been parked at Byng's door. But that is another thread altogether!

Regards

Arm

[dycer]

I felt compelled to comment critically on Monday evening's Programme but, like many contributors, I feel last night's screening did justice to the subject of the Series.

George

[Matt Dixon]

I have enjoyed the programmes and found Kelly's reaction very moving. His comments at the end, brought a lump to my throat. Even Mrs D watched the whole programme without moaning about WW1 being on the telly again!

Tuffers just makes me laugh, and I enjoyed the Dan Snow section especially. A difficult situation I think he found himself in, what on earth could he have said?

I like the programme, think they have been well made, and it's nice to see a rogues gallery of GW Forumites on screen! Well done the BBC.

[Alan Tucker]

French crosses at Thiepval next to the Memorial.

Stephen

There were too many. It looked like La Targette to me!

[Alan Tucker]

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.

I thought we had had a thread saying it was politically incorrect to be on the Cross of Sacrifice at Tyne Cot?

[Alan Tucker]

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.

Er - bit of an o.g. here for a Lieutenant General - you have swallowed all DLG's own guff about being a 'cottage bred' man. True he did not come from the English elite as per norm but his upbringing in North Wales was hardly 'working class'. Read John Grigg Volume 1. First working class PM was Ramsay MacDonald.

[pmaasz]

Well said Taynuilt! Your last paragraph is particularly apt.

But last night's episode was a lot better, even if Tufnell's part was a bit corny.

[Dragon]

Er - bit of an o.g. here for a Lieutenant General - you have swallowed all DLG's own guff about being a 'cottage bred' man. True he did not come from the English elite as per norm but his upbringing in North Wales was hardly 'working class'. Read John Grigg Volume 1. First working class PM was Ramsay MacDonald.[/b]

Phil was quoting Dan Snow quoted in the Worcester News, I thought, not expressing his own opinion.

[PhilB]

Thanks, Gwyn - I certainly was quoting (that`s why it was in inverted commas). I couldn`t work out why Mr Tucker was criticizing Lt Gen Snow - it turned out he wasn`t!

[irishmen1916]

Really enjoyed the Progamme last night very moving, this Series will hopefully bring part of the whole sad story of WW1 to a younger audience, but why is it on so late ?

Peter

[Alan Tucker]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 5 2008, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Gwyn - I certainly was quoting (that`s why it was in inverted commas). I couldn`t work out why Mr Tucker was criticizing Lt Gen Snow - it turned out he wasn`t!

Apologies for my crossed wires. Once again does not reflect on Dan Snow 'the historian'

[centurion]

Last night continued the practice of perpetuating hoary old myths with Phil Tufnal continuing to repeat words to the effect 'they refused to hand out parachutes', implying that there were stocks of chutes that the wicked generals were refusing to give their aircrew. Until late 1918 there were no parachutes suitable for use in aircraft (as opposed to balloons) and the cockpits of many aircraft were in anycase too cramped to fit a chute in with the pilot. The authorities could have been taken to task for not having put enough priority to the development of parachutes but not of refusing to hand them out. As I've said elsewhere the RAF ordered chutes for use in aircraft in Sept 1918 but none arrived before the end of the war.

[ianw]

I have watched a wee bit of the Mathew Kelly/Tuffers programme and was moved by his tears at the Menin Gate - that's somewhere we all have been. No Snow controversy here, thank goodness. Looking forward to Rolf!

Well done to all the Forum members who have so far done their stuff. I must say that I would be absolutely terrified if asked to appear on a Great War TV programme knowing that my every syllable would be picked over by the brotherhood (and sisterhood) with any errors ruthlessly exposed. However, I might be lured on screen if Cherie Lunghi turned out to have a grandfather in the Tank Corps - explaining to her the differences between male and female wouldn't be too much of a burden.

[John_Hartley]

'they refused to hand out parachutes', implying that there were stocks of chutes that the wicked generals were refusing to give their aircrew.

Even worse, was it not the chap from the museum who actually said it first?

[Ken Lees]

Is there a great deal of difference in those in charge failing to ensure that aircraft were designed with the safety of the pilot in mind and failing to issue parachutes?

It seems to me that it was not a priority for the reason quoted in the programme, effectively, 'give them a parachute and you encourage them to jump and not fight'.

Wilful neglect by those in a position to do otherwise, in my view.

Ken

[centurion]

Is there a great deal of difference in those in charge failing to ensure that aircraft were designed with the safety of the pilot in mind and failing to issue parachutes?

It seems to me that it was not a priority for the reason quoted in the programme, effectively, 'give them a parachute and you encourage them to jump and not fight'.

Wilful neglect by those in a position to do otherwise, in my view.

Ken

I think you are perpetuating a myth still. The only quote I can find that comes close to 'give them a parachute and you encourage them to jump and not fight' appears in Flight in 1913 'a pilots job is to stick with his aeroplane'. I'd be interested if anyone can provide a verifiable wartime official statement or quote that confirms this state of mind. The RNAS began trials to see if parachutes could be used as early as 1914. The only chute before 1918 that came anywhere close was the Calthorpe Guardian Angel but in its original form this was very bulky and had to be housed in a container outside the fuselage thus impairing aircraft performance and making the pilot more likely to be shot down in the first place. Calthorpe himself was unable to iron out all the problems out until post war (by which time he had a very different chute).

[Jim Clay]

Even worse, was it not the chap from the museum who actually said it first?

I believe so, John.

[matteyre]

I think last nights programme was a great improvement, not least because it covered the RFC and POWs which are particular interests of mine... Kelly and Tufnell seemed to understand the issues better, and hopefully the programme will go from strength to strength.

[squirrel]

I really enjoyed last night's programme. Matthew Kelly was superb and his words brought a lump to my throat. No playing up to the cameras there.

Tufnell was his usual self but I thought it a bit much when they came out with the old story about parachutes (see centurion's posts) especially when he had himself commented upon how small the cockpit in the Sopwith Camel was and then he repeated this after his trip in an Avro 504!

Interesting stories - excellent.