Is the WFA biased?

[Hedley Malloch]

I think that there is more to the revisionist argument than the butchers and bunglers stereotype. From what I have read of the 'revisionists' is that the British Army was somehow transformed into a 'learning organisation' between 1916-18 and that it was this new, knowledge-based, capable, team-based organisation (sorry about the management speak- I've been watching my video of 'The Office') which defeated the Germans in 1918. Germany was beated by brains, superior organisation and by extension, better management; critically Germany did not collapse because of her internal weaknesses or the fact that she was outnumbered.

It is interesting to compare this view with the one on offer in 1964 which essentially saw Germany collapse because she was starved by the Royal Navy, wracked by internal dissent and out-gunned. In this view British superior military organisation and knowledge has no part to play. The authors of this 1964 view included - wait for it - Barnett and Terraine. Watch episodes 23-26 of BBC 'The Great War' which they wrote and ask yourself: 'why did they change their minds?'

Of course the WFA national committee and its publicatins are in the intellectual grip of the revisionists. I don't mind that. It makes for an interesting debate, a more lively time and a good sounding board against which one can test the robustness of one's own opinions. What I do object is the occasional lapse into personal abuse by some participants to this argument by a some quite distinguished people who should know better (see past copies WFA Bulletin). There's never any excuse for that and it makes me wonder its done to detract attention from basic flaws in the argument.

[Paul Reed]

Of course the WFA national committee and its publicatins are in the intellectual grip of the revisionists.

I really think you are all giving the WFA far more importance than it really has or deserves; this subject is for the debate of those interested, and military historians - I see very few military historians on the WFA committee, and certainly none that have contributed either way to this debate. The WFA does not make policy in terms of how history is written or published, and I can assure you that no academic (or otherwise) institution follows the example of the WFA just because of who it is and what it is. At the end of the day the WFA is a Great War society made up of a broad church - long may that continue.

[Hedley Malloch]

I really think you are all giving the WFA far more importance than it really has or deserves; this subject is for the debate of those interested, and military historians - I see very few military historians on the WFA committee, and certainly none that have contributed either way to this debate. The WFA does not make policy in terms of how history is written or published, and I can assure you that no academic (or otherwise) institution follows the example of the WFA just because of who it is and what it is. At the end of the day the WFA is a Great War society made up of a broad church - long may that continue.

I base my judgement on the fact that key Haig Revisionists do occupy honorary posts (not on the committee, but elsewhere) in the WFA; and the amount of space they are given in publications like the Bulletin.

I accept that the WFA cannot and should not make formal policy; that it carries no great weight in academic circles; and that it is a 'broad church'. But it would be an interesting exercise to go through the Bulletin and calculate the amount of space given to both the Haig Revisionists and their supporters as compared with those who oppose them. On the other hand this could simply reflect who is prepared to stand up and argue about it.

But I am easy with all this. My philosophy is what goes around comes around. At about this time somewhere in the UK there is a boy or a girl preparing for their GCSE History who in 11 years (just in time for the 100th anniversary of 1914) time will write the 'new' military history of the Front which will explain Germany's capitulation in terms of her being starved into submission, outnumbered and outgunned by three enemies; and how the accounts of the Haig revisionists can be discarded

[David Filsell]

Having been clouted behind the ears in Stand To! for my review of Forgotten Victory and been subject to some very personal criticism on the WFA website for writing "an advert" for the book I can only say that my acceptance of revisionist views stems from being convinced by the the talks, books and research of the revisionists. I wasn't born a revisionist I became one having evaluated the evidence offered by those who hade genuinely researched the subject post Clarke, Laffin, Woolf et al.

So you pays your money and makes your choice. If you are convinced that British Generalship improved you are a revisionist. If you think they were all incompetent and disbelieve the latest research you arn't. But what adds more to our knowledge, development of new opinions based on good research or an unwillingness to accept that the opinions of the 50s and 60s, most prepared before War Diary material and etc became available, may no longer be valid?

What is strange is that the anti revisionists seem to offer intemperate and highly personal criticsim of those who look at things differently. So I am revisionist. If quantities of strong evidence comes along to counter my current views I will become an anti-revisionist. Indeed I may become one anyway just for the sheer pleasure of standing out in the crowd.

Just don't take it too seriously. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Great War the revisionists still havn't had much impact on the Buthchers and Bunglers, Blackadder lives view held by the majority of the British public. So in reality the anti revisionists rule ok!

[David Filsell]

As a brief and doubtless booring addition to my earlier item, having re-read the thread I am intrigued to know what "a senior member of the WFA" is and how one qualifies. Equally I am simpy not aware of which trustees hold revisionist or anti revisionist views, they certainly don't lke revising the constitution.

Can one be slightly revisionist (or is that like being a bit pregnant) partly revisionist, or totally revisionist. Are all revisionists revisionist about everything or just some things. Having been forced to rethink my opinion I have decided that I am now revising my revisionism with a view to becoming an unrevised rerevisionist. And what is the sound of one mind revising in the dark.

[Martin Hornby]

Paul,

You raise an interesting point in this thread when you say: "I SEE VERY FEW MILITARY HISTORIANS ON THE WFA COMMITTEE..."

What do you mean, and how do you class a military historian?

Maybe one requires a Degree or to have served in the military to become a military historian!

You also seem to imply that the WFA seems to believe it is better than other Great War Societies. I for one hope that it does not give this impression.

Hedley,

How can you say that the WFA Committee is in the intellectual grip of the revisionists.

I would not an class myself as an intellectual, (unless a B Grade History 'O' level counts).

I also became interested in the Great War after reading Alan Clark's "Donkeys" and from watching "Blackadder"! Hardly traditional revisionist material.

I joined the WFA and support them because they gave me alot of encouragement help and advice through the old discussion room. I now enjoy this discussion room because one gets the same support.

We can air strong views here and everyone seems to be happy to bat a few grenades every now and then!

Martin

WFA Liaison Trustee

[Paul Reed]

Martin – I think the term ‘military historian’ does and can encompass all levels of knowledge and ability when it comes to this subject. Indeed, in one way or another every member of this forum is a ‘military historian’.

However, what we are discussing here is academic military history – how approaches to the study of the war are made, interpretations and general concepts of the conduct of the Great War. This level of history is normally discussed in print, and while many members of this forum might (and should) have their own views on the rights and wrongs of Generalship in WW1, they remain personal opinion until they try to influence a wider audience by publication.

It is in this respect that I am not aware of any senior members of the WFA committee who have ACTIVELY engaged in this debate, published or lectured on it – or maybe you can correct me?

I think you might have also missed the point of my posting – in a broad church like the WFA, the Association at any level should not be in the business of dictating an official policy towards the study of the war. Personally I believe it doesn’t try to do this in any case. Whether the majority of members are for or against Haig and the High Command, it remains a personal decision; influenced for sure by what they read, but let’s hope they read beyond the scope of the excellent Stand To! And Bulletin.

[MartinWills]

At about this time somewhere in the UK there is a boy or a girl preparing for their GCSE History who in 11 years (just in time for the 100th anniversary of 1914) time will write the 'new' military history of the Front which will explain Germany's capitulation in terms of her being starved into submission, outnumbered and outgunned by three enemies; and how the accounts of the Haig revisionists can be discarded

Actually I do think that there is something in this theory(see quote).

Whereas we generally have a good understanding of the British Home Front and it's relationship with the Front Line we do not generally have that understanding of the German relationship. I believe that this is even the case from the German perspective as there is not the interest or fascination amongst German people in the way that we foster interest.

We do not grasp the economic decline in Germany from 1914 to 1919 or the way that even ersatz German products were replaced with poor substitutes; we do not understand the social structure and it's implications (and I don't mean class-war as we would think of it today). These were all key factors in Germany's decline in the latter part of the war.

I would not, either, try and argue that the German army was not outgunned; was not outmanned and was being attacked by incompetently led armies in the last 100 days.

I would argue that the WFA is well served by current scholarly thinking and less well supplied with traditional "lions led by donkeys" thinkers. The fact that is not "institutionally biased" is reflected in the robust debates that WFA members (and others) enter into here and elsewhere and the fact that it's "governing council" is not drawn from the leading thinkers of our day (sorry folks) but that in some positions it does recognise the contributors to current academic debate.

If there is any suggestion of bias it may arise from the fact that not everyone is wholly able (or perhaps wants) to enter in robust debate. Nonetheless I am sure those people form and hold their own opinions and have every right to do so.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Oh dear!

I have only just joined the WFA........

Ian

[Greenwoodman]

Its a good decision, Ian. Worth it for "Stand To!" alone. The exchange of opinions is a bonus!!

(And its not a local paper, either! )

[Michelle Young]

Martin (W)

I am quite happy to be considered not one of the leading thinkers!

Of course I hold my own views regarding the higher command during the period, but it is not my place to condemn anyone who happens to hold differing views to myself.

Michelle

[Jonathan Saunders]

Martin just taking up yr theme of robust debate. I am fairly new to the obsession of the First World War and I am the first to admit I have a lot to read, evaluate and learn.

What is really annoying is when yr argument is patronisingly dismissed with a wave of a hand and a I know better smug smile, particularly if you are in a group and you are in a minority. This does occur and WFA members are often the responsible party (because I suspect most people interested in WW1 join the WFA!!). Perhaps the development of this thread has tended to argue that the majority of WFA members are stereotypical in almost blind adherence of the revisionist theory and of course that is not correct either, and this forum is proof of that.

I would agree with you there is absolutely nothing wrong with robust debate and we should welcome that from whichever side of the fench we fall on.

Also Hedley broadened the topic from British Generalship by describing the revisionist theory as the transformation of the British Army as a “learning organisation between1916-18”. As a matter of interest can Haig's role as CinC be separated from this component of the argument? Undoubtedly the British Generalship was better in 1918 than it was in 1916 with the emergence of Currie, Birdwood, Maxse etc but what role did Haig personally play in that improvement, or for that matter Gough, Rawlinson, Allenby etc

Perhaps this is one for Saturday night! I dont mind be proved wrong - afterall we are always learning which means we should be constantly challenging previously held beliefs.

[Jonathan Saunders]

I should have also said I’ve been looking for a short definition of the Revisionist theory but haven’t found one if any one can help …

[Alan Lines]

What is really annoying is when yr argument is patronisingly dismissed with a wave of a hand and a I know better smug smile, particularly if you are in a group and you are in a minority.  This does occur and WFA members are often the responsible party (because I suspect most people interested in WW1 join the WFA!!). 

Hear hear to the first point Signals but I have found on visiting the battlefields that there are a lot of WW1 enthusiasts out there who are not members largely because of what you state above.

[MartinWills]

Michelle,

I am sure like me you have your views and theories, but I don't class either of us in the "great thinkers" category because we don't publish our views in the way the "academics" do. Most of us have a day job as well because we can't sell books as well or as profitably as Richard Holmes or Gary Sheffield (two names at random) are able to do.

Signals,

You are right in that there are some awfully entrenched views but I have been surprised how many WFA members are encouraging and helpful to others and happy to listen. I count myself lucky to have a splendid and amiable local WFA branch, though it has not always been like that. I do think that one area where debate has become totally entrenched is the Shot At Dawn (SAD) debate where most people hold one firm view or another and there is often no room for compromise. It is people's right to hold their own opinions but it is an area of discussion I find uncomfortable because of the lack of conciliation.

What I would hope is that people like yourself would be encouraged to draw your own conclusions and be given the benefit of suggestions as where to look, read and research for arguments on both sides. Maybe at times debate is too robust for some and "we" fail to recognise that when we should.

[CROONAERT]

What is really annoying is when yr argument is patronisingly dismissed with a wave of a hand and a I know better smug smile, particularly if you are in a group and you are in a minority.  This does occur and WFA members are often the responsible party (because I suspect most people interested in WW1 join the WFA!!). 

Hear hear to the first point Signals but I have found on visiting the battlefields that there are a lot of WW1 enthusiasts out there who are not members largely because of what you state above.

Got to admit that this is the reason why I didn't renew my membership back in 1992, after having been a member since 1984.

Dave

[Mark Hone]

Like any large body with a diverse membership it is possible to come away from an unfortunate experience with individual WFA members and think them typical of the whole, rather unfairly. Having been on several wonderful WFA tours in the 1980's and attending a friendly branch in Wolverhampton I moved to another part of the country( no names, no packdrill). I got the impression that the local branch there was composed of a close-knit group of friends who were not that interested in welcoming a newcomer. This may have been a totally unfair hasty judgement on my part but I never went back and it has coloured my view of the WFA ever since. I do know other people like Crooneart who have been similarly put off. A friend of mine, a quite well-known military historian (in the biblical sense) who left the organisation fairly early on its existence convinced that the majority of the membership were stark staring bonkers!

[CROONAERT]

I must stress that I don't hold the WFA as an organisation responsible for my lack of desire to rejoin. A number of other factors also contribute.

Dave.

[Hedley Malloch]

Also Hedley broadened the topic from British Generalship by describing the revisionist theory as the transformation of the British Army as a “learning organisation between1916-18”. As a matter of interest can Haig's role as CinC be separated from this component of the argument? Undoubtedly the British Generalship was better in 1918 than it was in 1916 with the emergence of Currie, Birdwood, Maxse etc but what role did Haig personally play in that improvement, or for that matter Gough, Rawlinson, Allenby etc

Perhaps this is one for Saturday night!

Signals;

Excellent! This is a very perceptive point. To what extent did the transformation of the British Army into a competent learning organisation between 1916-18 owe anything to Haig and Co? It depends on how you think organisations change. Top-down + command and control - in which case Haig gets the credit? Or bottom up, incremental and emergent? - in which case senior management cannot take the credit.

If you run with the last idea of bottom up change then you come to a rather startling conclusion: that the British Army could have been a learning adaptive organisation - run by butchers and bunglers! In other words butchers and bunglers vs learning organisation wrongly polarises the debate. Both could exist simultaneously.

A good book to really make you think about this problem is Paddy Griffiths 'Battle Tactics of the Wesern Front'. In it he details how four key strategic changes in British Army strategy and tactics came about between 16-18. His account is of the work of what he describes as 'four unsung heros' who, today, most people (even in this group) would struggle to name fits the bottom up model.

But as you say - one for Saturday night!

[Jonathan Saunders]

Hedley thanks for yr reply - do you know if Paddy Griffiths book is still in print. I had a quick look on the N&M website but it wasnt there.

[Greenwoodman]

Try Blackwells Online - £13-99 paperback.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Evening all. I've been 'off radar' for a few weeks and have just read this fascinating thread from beginning to end in onego, so I may have not fully assimilated some of the finer nuances, but here's my tuppence worth all the same.

Firstly, Mark began by referring to the debate over teaching WWI. As a history teacher of 13 years experience I'm not sure if I would agree with those who see the topic stuck in the realms of 'butchers & bunglers' (I'll refer to this group as pre-revisionists, a term familiar to academic historians of the civil wars of the 17th century - my other great love). History teaching in recent years has moved substantially towards expecting students to challenge historical interpretations, in fact it is a necessary component of the National Curriculum Attainment Targets. Many of the newer textbooks therefore offer substantial evidence of revisionist thought but ask students to contrast this with pre-revisionist views via the interrogation of both primary and secondary evidence. This is surely the correct way, rather than imposing a viewpoint on the students.

As an example, my Year 11 students have recently finished two pieces of coursework on the Great War, one of which, through the analysis of over twenty primary, secondary and tertiary sources (inc. Haig's diaries, newspapers of the day, George Coppard, John Keegan etc.), requires students to evaluate the validity of the old chestnut 'were British soldiers in the Great War Lions led by Donkeys?'. The sources are carefully selected to provide opposing views and students encouraged to produce a balanced response. Having just finished marking them I can state that none of my students has gone away with a completely one-sided view.

It is vital that historians and enthusiasts retain an open mind on such questions, otherwise we become immune to new ideas and evidence. Anyone who holds a fixed view which cannot recognise any merit in an opposing argument, and who cannot argue their own case without becoming dogmatic and patronising, loses the right to be called an historian. Encouragingly, I got the impression from this thread that collectively we do have open minds and all debates on this forum are always conducted in a lively but well supported way. This is excellent, and the reason why it is so popular.

Sadly all clubs / societies / groups that have any kind of hierarchy are susceptible to a dominant view becoming the norm. In the years I spent on the WFA forum before the daft decision to close it, the vast majority of respondents (many of whom now reside here) were open, helpful and good humoured, though I developed the impression that many others have indicated, that the organisation was a bit 'precious' and 'self-righteous'. Now these could be totally false perceptions, and certainly don't apply to WFA individuals, but nevertheless I got this impression about the 'organisation'. This is why I'm not a member - I've been in far too many groups run by history enthusiasts where the 'organisation' has become, or at least appeared to be, elitist and staffed by 'know-it-alls'. So I'm not criticising the WFA in the slightest, but perhaps it could work on its image, especially after the damage done by shutting it's forum.

Anyway, these are my ramblings - and are definitely not intended to offend anyone. Ultimately anyone interested in this period, be they of the 'Haig's a donkey' or 'Haig's a hero' variety, is still one of the good guys - after all, they are at least 'remembering'.

All the best,

Andrew

[Terry_Reeves]

However, Griffith also has this to say:

"Nor would French's successor as commander of the BEF, Sir Douglas Haig, show himself to be any less avid in his quest for the latest weapons and the highest technology, regardless of whether it was a matter of gas, guns, tanks and aircraft. Haig was always anxious to multiply infantry (and indeed cavalry) by technology, and he undoubtedly played a very important role in pushing forward the causes of all those sectarian groups. If he ultimately failed to convert the BEF into a fully mechanised "Panzer Armee", as some of his critics seem to think he should have done, that was surely more because he commanded it for too short a time for such a scheme to come to fruition, rather more because of any conceptual resistance to the general idea."

(P 110)

Technology drives tatics, but it is not the job of the General Staff to come up with the technology. Their job is to recognise its utility from wherever the source. To be sure they embraced that particular principle. From Cambrai onwards you start to see the beginnings of the all arms battle, which despite some mistakes along the way, was turned to huge advantage in the latter stages of the war.

See you Saturday

Terry Reeves.

[Jonathan Saunders]

As a matter of interest did Griffiths say anything about Haig's comment in the mid 1920's that tanks and planes were nothing more than accessories and the horse, mind you a well bred horse, would be the decisive factor in future wars?

See you Saturday!

[Terry_Reeves]

Context and source please Signals.

Terry Reeves