Is the WFA biased?

[Mark Hone]

An interesting sideline to my enquiry about WW1 teaching has emerged through a couple of e-mails sent directly to me by contributors to the forum and correspondence in recent 'Stand Tos' and 'Bulletins'. To what extent does the WFA act as an evangelical organisation for the so-called 'revisionist' (ie Terraine, Sheffield, Barnett et al) explanation of the Great War? There has always been a strong element of this in the organisation's hierarchy to be sure. The point was made to me however that criticisms of the war's presentation to schoolchildren are largely made because textbooks etc do not actively subscribe to the 'revisionist' viewpoint rather than that they present a one-sided view per se. This has also become a feature of some Stand To book reviews and was criticized in correspondence in the latest issue.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Mark,

Can you elaborate on what you mean by a 'one-sided view' please.

Ian

[Alan Lines]

Mark

I spent an hour writing a new thread earlier this evening on a similar issue on the infox site but it didn't come out!

Inside the front cover of Stand To! is the statement "The object of the Association is to educate the public in the history of the Great War with particular reference to the Western Front." This is a very honourable and worthy objective. But it appears to me the objective is as much to inform people that Field Marshall Haig & Co. were really a great bunch and it is almost the WFA's mantra.

Any comments I made that were anti the British Generalship on the old WFA Forum were usually replied to very quickly either on the Forum or by personal email and the assumption was made that I was generally naive, misguided or not well read.

The thinking seems to be that once you have read a few of the recommended books and delved a bit deeper you will understand that they actually did a pretty good job, after all we did win the War. I only came to the conclusion that most British Generals were at best useless after years of studying the Great War.

I was pleased to hear today that membership has increased recently but I don't think this attitude will help recruit new members, especially the young who have grown up with Captain Blackadder. Rightly or wrongly people who are just getting interested in a subject will probably not be ready to join a group which supports a theory 100% at odds to what they currently believe.

Although others will disagree I feel there is a clear "party line" within the Association led by a large section of the senior members of the WFA. I see the WFA at times as being as much revisionist as educational and there is a difference.

With regard to childrens education, my son covered WW1 last year and whilst the material might not have suited the revisionists both sides of the arguement were well represented.

[Alan Lines]

Sorry Mark, a bit like a politician I didn't answer your question directly!

Yes, in my opinion the WFA is biased.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Alan Ive recently joined the WFA and I was already aware of, and had experienced something of their revisionist view. I feel quite capable to make my own evaluation on the British Generalship during WW1. History now is all about investigation at a personal level and I would be surprised if differences of opinion on Haig alone would stop people from the younger generation joining.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

While I have seen some signs of the problem as outlined above the members still have an ability to provide their personal point of view of any subject by submitting a well researched article. I have been involved in studying the German army in the war and as such there is less to worry about in regards to revisionist thinking. It is simply a subject that has few interested members and few so-called 'experts'.

Hopefully any opinion is tolerated as we will all have a different point of view on any given subject. When it comes to school curriculum it is even harder to apease all sides of any subject. hopefully the materials and the presentation is well rounded.

I recall some of the items I was taught so many years ago regarding the U.S. involvement in the war, the Lusitania, freedom of the seas, etc. and so much of the materials presented were biased at best and downright incorrect at worst.

The best way to provide a balanced point of view would be to send in a contribution in the form of an article and argue a particular point with logic and supporting documents.

Ralph

[Kate Wills]

I only came to the conclusion that most British Generals were at best useless after years of studying the Great War.

I don't think this attitude will help recruit new members, especially the young who have grown up with Captain Blackadder.  Rightly or wrongly people who are just getting interested in a subject will probably not be ready to join a group which supports a theory 100% at odds to what they currently believe.

I have to lay my cards on the table and say that I have no interest in generalship, and have not studied this aspect of the war at all. However Alan, I would be interested to know how many and who amongst the generals you would describe as 'useless'. I can guess you are going to cite Haig for beginners. Also, how does the performance of British Generals compare with those of the other combattant nations?

More importantly, if anyone is using TV comedy-fiction as the basis for historical accuracy, then thank God for special interest groups such as the WFA. Taking this statement to its logical conclusion, we would need to skewer historical fact to suit the whims of the general public, simply to generate membership. No thanks.

I don't think the WFA does "support a theory 100% at odds to what they currently believe". It does, however, welcome well-researched and cogently argued articles and lectures. For instance Alan, you are a convinced member of the SAD campaign. Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this stance count as 'revisionist'?

Failure to convince anyone on a particular viewpoint is not the fault of the WFA. Sound judgement and the abandonment of pre-conceptions must be used by historians and audience alike in furthering our knowledge of any period of history.

[Mark Hone]

Thanks for your interesting points. My original submission on the topic may not have been as cogent as I intended as I was called away from the computer whilst I was in the middle of writing it! However I was acting somewhat as 'devil's advocate' in this case as I am myself a 'revisionist', for want of a better word, and have become aware that in my own teaching and battlefield tours I do tend to push that line. For example on our recent Cambrai and Passchendaele tour I tried to question the simplistic view of Third Ypres by describing the success of 'Bite and Hold' tactics before 9th October 1917.

What I meant by 'balanced view' was that critics have drawn attention to many school textbooks' unquestioning acceptance of the 'butchers and bunglers ' explanation to the extent that their attempts to provide a balanced view are pretty half-hearted. 'Use Sources A to E to decide whether General Haig was a.) Incompetent or b.) A war criminal ' is only a slight exaggeration of the tenor of some questions on this topic! However the suspicion is that some of those critics are not actually interested in the other side of the story being given equal weight but want the 'revisionist' explanation to be accepted as the norm, in other words to replace the 'Blackadder' version as the popular image of the Great War. I'm not sure how desirable or likely this is.

[Martin Hornby]

With regard to this thread about the WFA.

The Association has alot of members who could be described as revisionised when it comes to the Great War. However the mandate for the Association is to help educate the public in regard to all aspects of the Great War.

Unfortunately some people whether within the WFA or not will express views in a very forthright manner! This can undoubtedly be viewed as being intolerant of views not fitting the "Revisionist Line".

Many of you will now know that I now hold the Liaison Trustees position with the WFA. In this roll I hope to encourage all views about the Great War to be voiced.

We are entitled to hold whatever view we wish, and I would condemn any one who set to belittle any person just because their view did not follow the norm.

Having said this if you express a certain view on a discussion forum whether here or on the WFA Info X you can expect to have to defend it in a robust manner.

Martin Hornby

[Chris_Baker]

It seems to me that in the last decade there has been a definite development of the 'learning curve' theory, viz. that the (British) Generals were actually rather good at their job and the fact that they assimilated so much that was new (tactically, materially and logistically) in such a short space of time and played a major if not leading part in the defeat of the German Army is greatly to their credit.

The threads of this development go back forty years to John Terraine's stout defence of Haig and others, and it has gained considerable momentum in more recent times through the academic and research works of Peter Simkins, John Lee, Gary Sheffield, John Bourne, and others. The gathering of evidence is strong, and the arguments well made.

This line of thought now seems to dominate, and it is rare indeed to hear or read a well-argued, well-evidenced, counter-view.

For my own part, having heard and read this stuff over a number of years, I have come to believe that the 'learning curve' viewpoint has a ring of truth to it; however, I am still deeply troubled by clear evidence of boneheaded, wasteful, shambolic actions that were repeated countless times right up to the end. Patrols that had no purpose, attacks against undamaged defences, missed opportunities, and so on. Perhaps many of these things were due to human nature, interpersonal politics, misinformation, and the myriad things that make all armies disorganised and wasteful at times. Even though I am troubled by this and believe there is much that was 'wrong', I do not subscribe to the simple lions led by donkeys, class war, type theories. They are much too sweeping and fail to explain much.

As far as the Western Front Association is concerned, it does not have an official party line and never has. There have been occasions when the press has asked for comment and the WFA has found this difficult, knowing that its members represent a broad cross-section of opinion.

However, you have to note that many of the key and influential figures in the WFA are of the very school that has developed the 'learning curve' theory, and it is inevitable that this type of viewpoint is central to much of the Association's writings, actions and so on. I can not remember a WFA event - perhaps other than local branch meetings - where a counter-view has been represented.

Personally I have seen many people of widely differing opinions welcomed into the WFA, and very few explicit instances where difference of opinion has led to any form of acrimony. Where the latter has been the case it has usually been some form of personal-level difference, and not something that arose because of an official line. I would suggest that in fact the 'new revisionist' stance in much of what WFA has to say is in fact refreshing to many who have come to this subject believing that lions were led by donkeys.

[munce]

I'm a fairly recent member of the WFA, and so cannot really comment on their individual or collective biases. However, I would not be particularly surprised or worried if they did have an inclination towards the revisionist side. I would see this as being a perfectly normal academic reaction to fifty or sixty years of a very one-sided view of events, which became an orthodoxy set so rigid that some people still become very upset when it is challenged. The revisionists' 'biased' point of view needs to be seen in the context of the 'history of the history' of the Great War, which itself has been extraordinarily biased in the sense of admitting just one version of events for the vast majority of its existence. Alan, for example, says that his view of generalship comes about from many years' study into the subject. I would suggest, though, that the sources he took his information from could only lead him to one possible conclusion, because of that very orthodoxy.

I'm sure that after a few years popularity, the revisionist stance will become itself the 'new orthodoxy', and will be challenged in its turn a few years later by a new reading of events - most probably a mixture of the two previous ones. Such is history. All we can do in the meantime is be aware of the biases which exist in ALL opinions and sources, place them in the context of when and by whom they were written, and try to view the events from as many different points of view as possible. In my opinion, when there are two sides to a story, the truth normally lies somewhere in between.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Quote

munce, I could not say this better.

The WFA, is open to all views, I get the feeling that some people are out to under mine the WFA.

Annette

[Mark Hone]

Dear all,

I hope I did not give the impression that I was trying to undermine the WFA. Far from it-I have been a member since the year after it started, and although I no longer attend a local branch I stiil avidly read each issue of Stand To! and the Bulletin. As I said, I am myself a 'revisionist'-having been introduced to that strand of argument primarily through going on those wonderful WFA battlefield tours in the mid 1980's with the likes of Terry Cave, John Terraine, Tony Spagnoly etc. However I was interested in other peoples' views on the argument made to me and reflected in correspondence in recent magazines, that the WFA is now perceived in some quarters as being essentially a 'revisionist' organisation. I hope that this is not the case, as Chris argues and that the organisation remains a broad church able to accomodate all strands of opinion on the subject.

The 'learning curve' explanation does seem slowly to be seeping into the public consciousness, although there are still what I would call World War I 'enthusiasts' who seem never to have heard of it, vide the group of very friendly ex-service types I met on the battlefields last year who looked at me as if I was mad when I demurred from their 'butchers and bunglers' line. They assumed that everybody believed that as a matter of course.

[Terry_Reeves]

I agree with the comments made by Chris, Munce and Annette. I fail to understand why revisionism has become such a dirty word in some quarters over the last few years. Fresh thinking, on any subject, surely cannot be a bad thing.

The job of the historian is interpret events based on the available evidence, not an exact science to be sure, but if long held assumptions are never challenged we would never move any further foward in anything. It is worth remembering that just twenty years before the outbreak of WW1, the British Army was still fighting in scarlet and some units were carrying their colours into battle.

Another part of the modern historians core work is to investigate what changed, what stayed the same and why. One of the fascinations of WW1, for me at least, is this process of change. Politicians, diplomats, generals and the general population alike were were faced with a massive process of change in all sorts of areas during this period, some of which had already started before the war admittedly, but it is hardly suprising that much confusion existed as people struggled to come to terms with what amounted a sea-change in ideas and values and on the battlefield, military doctrine and tactics.

One final point. Given that these criticisms have been levelled at the WFA, why have they not been aired on the WFA web site where those at whom they have been directed are able to respond?

Terry Reeves

[Kate Wills]

Terry,

I pasted a copy of my reply to Alan's point directly below his on the WFA site. However, the debate originated on this site, where it continues apace.

[Bryn_Hammond]

The job of the historian is interpret events based on the available evidence, not an exact science to be sure, but if long held assumptions are never challenged we would never move any further foward in anything. It is worth remembering that just twenty years before the outbreak of WW1, the British Army was still fighting in scarlet and some units were carrying their colours into battle.

Another part of the modern historians core work is to investigate what changed, what stayed the same and why. One of the fascinations of the WW1,  for me at least,  is this process  of change.

I can only echo Terry Reeves's remarks.

Some might say that being tutored by John Bourne and having worked for many years with the likes of Peter Simkins & Chris McCarthy might colour my views. However, I've had plenty of time (almost 20 years of studying and reading) to make my own mind up. I know what MY views are regarding British generalship in the First World War in general. I judge each SPECIFIC case on its merits.

Oh, and I prefer the more romantic title of 'revisionista'...

[Terry_Reeves]

Kate

Just seen it. This was not intended as a criticism nor that the debate on this site is not valid. Rather more in the in the interest of fairness to those in the WFA who do not use this forum. You have redressed the balance.

Best wishes

Terry Reeves

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Terry has hit the nail on the head!

The long held belief of the populace of lions being led by donkeys and underage boys rushing to recruiting offices only to be gunned down for 2 ft of land gained comes from the limited information in the papers at the time and the view from the tommy in the trenches. Now without criticising these gallant men they were not privy to 'the big picture' as I know from my own service. With the release of papers, war diaries etc, historians are able to assimilate the facts and make a disciplined arguement.

Whilst on the subject of Haig, he was faced with a situation totally outside his experience and he reacted and planned according to his training and experience. Criticism can be justifiably levelled at him for not learning from his mistakes, although Cambrai was the exception!

One question I am asking myself at the moment is how will posterity deal with the current war and events leading to it? Will there be a forum in 70 years time condemning our shortsightedness in view of Hitler in the 1930's?

Interesting thought.

Ian

[Guest Simon Bull]

Regardless of the merits of the debate re revisionism, Haig etc., one does sometimes feel that many WFA members do not have much time for those who do not share the view which is orthodox within the organisation. To my mind there are perfectly respectable arguments on both sides of the debate, and whilst one never sees direct suppression of the anti-revisionist view there is a very distinct feeling that it is not welcome within the WFA. I would sometimes wish for a slightly broader organisation which felt a little more tolerant.

Simon Bull

[Jonathan Saunders]

Simon I think thats part of the point Alan was trying to make, that he is considered naive or poorly read by senior members of the WFA because he has formed a different opinion. He has obviously experienced regretable reactions to his views. As you say there are arguments for both sides and debate should continue with thought, tolerence and respect that we are allowed to form and defend our own views.

[charlesmessenger]

Perhaps it is worth pointing out once more that history is so often not stark black and white, but several shades of grey. Hence it is always open to re-interpretation. It is also very difficult to avoid the temptation of judging historical events through 21st century eyes or falling into the historian' greatest trap - hindsight. In addition, it is also very easy to begin with a thesis and then select the evidence which proves it, rather than first gathering all the possible evidence with an open mind and weighing it up before coming to a conclusion.

The revisionists aim to counterbalance the Butchers and Bunglers school, because some of its advocates take such extreme positions. This is not to say, however, that one or two revisionists may not guilty of the same crime.

My own view is that the high command of the British Army had both faults and good qualities, but, as so often been the case in war, at least in the British experience, it did eventually learn from its mistakes and by the autumn of 1918 was able to conduct all arms operations, employing sophisticated technology (by the standards of the day) with a good deal of proficiency. One must also recognise the very rapid expansion of the Army - never experienced before nor since - to a size unimagined before 1914.

It is certainly not my impression that the WFA is biased towards revisionism. If it were, the likes of Julian Putowski and, indeed, Sir John Keegan would not be invited to address WFA meetings. I am delighted that they are. The more varied the views the more one can learn, provided, of course, that they are not driven by sheer emotion.

What I suspect many WFA members do object to is propositions supported by totally inaccurate facts and refusal to ackowledge that there is often another side to the coin.

As others have said, reasoned debate should be our watchword.

Charles M

[MartinWills]

As others have said, I think the WFA is generally open to reasoned debate and I believe that most people do tend to look for firm evidence to support the assertions.

It is interesting to draw a couple of parallels.

Writing his volume on the Fifth Army (partially republished as the March Retreat) Sir Hubert Gough sets out to defend the reputation of his Army and the men who fought, One reasonably adds that his own reputation was also in question following his dismissal against the background of the March Retreat. In doing so he is quick to support the soldiers (at all levels) whom he believes did of their best. Equally he is forthright where he believes leadership was poor. The performance of the fifth army and its leaders is still debated to this day; there is no definitive answer and most people welcome reasoned argument either way.

There is another "revisionist" parallel from the early 1960's when the Hamburg academic, Fritz Fischer wrote "Griff nach der weltmacht" translated into english as "Germany's war aims in the First World War". He adopted the reasoned approach that the war was of Germany's making founded in its expansionist aspirations. Following 1918 Germany had regarded itself as "less responsible" than other powers even to the point of rejecting Lloyd George's carefully considered compromise view that the Nations had simply slithered into war together. Fischers view was almost regarded as heresy, particularly in drawing parallels between the Wilhelmine approach and the National Socialist aims of the 1930s. It was hotly debated at the time, and the jury is still out.

In each case as the "new" viewpoint was at the cutting edge of research and publication it was a view that was to the fore. So it is now. Most "new" research (and this is what is generally published and debated at ANY time in preference to OLD research), whether academic or otherwise tends to explore the revisionist case and that is why is has the more prominent airing.

I would like to think that most people are open to new arguments and material and are prepared to "re-open" the book and not simply return to the position as it may have appeared on the basis of the information to hand in past years. New arguments should be assimilated and past viewpoints re-assessed. Good historians are those who form a strongly supportable stance, but remain open to reasoned debate. We have many amongst us now which is why we are having this debate.

On a final note. How many Generals did we have in the Great War and could they all be expected to be good, or bad; and how many politicians tried to play the role of General to their own ends at the same time..

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Alan

I hope you did not think I was getting at you personally, with my post. Your orginal post as open a very interesting debate.

Regards

Annette

[Alan Lines]

Hi Annette

No problem

[john w.]

Quite erudite, are we looking at the WFA or revisionist theories?

Having read the thread, it seems that if a group shuts up shop on allowing new ideas to permeate through it then it is biased.

Revisionism does have a nasty taste to it for some reason. Perhaps existing theorists dont want change who knows?

Have recently had a debate with people on this point, relating to Secrets of the Dead, which looked at new interpretations of events using contemporary material.

Taking a positivistic approach you tend to develop a more neutral way of seeing things. However, if you bring in interpretation that includes how people think and how it affects them, then this is frowned on.

As you know I am currently working on a radio programme on those shot at dawn, and over the last four months have refined my research to get to the real nitty gritty and I feel that I have... no revisionist theory but a positivistic approach that hopefully will convince many...and encompass many of the arguments already used by supporters and those against.

John