Great War Forum Conference 2015 - all speakers announced

[bruce]

The view of Boots over Hagley Road hasn't changed.

We will be leaving for the OCs at 6.30 to eat, and looking forward to meeting up with Pals and palettes there, and again tomorrow.

Bruce

[AlanCurragh]

The sesh has started!

[KIRKY]

Thanks Alan and Sue another great event.

Tony

[mandy hall]

Thanks to Alan and Sue for another well organised and fascinating day.

Note to self for next year, do not nod off during Peter Hart's talk. My excuse, I was up early and needed a power nap before the drive back to Sussex.

Mandy

[Roger H]

Ah, it was you he spotted!

[mandy hall]

Yes, it was me. I didn't have my eyes shut for long. Honest.

[Pighills]

Don't worry Mandy, if truth be told I bet everyone had a nod here and there!

A wonderful day was had by all.

Many many thanks to Alan and Sue for all the tremendous hard work they've put in on everyone's behalf. Superbly put together, well done!

[CaroleHope]

Just adding my thanks, well done Alan and Sue for another great conference.

[David Ridgus]

Don't worry Mandy, if truth be told I bet everyone had a nod here and there!

A wonderful day was had by all.

Many many thanks to Alan and Sue for all the tremendous hard work they've put in on everyone's behalf. Superbly put together, well done!

Echo the comments on Alan and Sue.

(My 'power nap' was during part of Charles' talk I'm ashamed to say!)

David

[Seany]

As always I am extremely grateful to Alan and Sue for their hard work in putting the whole together but this year I left feeling disappointed and somewhat frustrated.

Christina gave a master class in professional speaking. her presentation was well constructed, well researched and very well delivered, it was the highlight of the day. sadly the quality dropped from then.

I felt that the presentation styles that followed were unprofessional and disrespectful to the audience and invited guest, they did no credit to the forum. Gordon's title 'hero or villain' was not reflected in any balanced way and should have been retitled 'Haig - super hero'. but that is a minor point whereas his talk from the mess about shirt lifters and fuzzy wuzzies is offensive and has no place in a public meeting, potentially it could have led to a complaint being made by an audience member or members and as such any professional speaker should know the boundaries.

sadly Peter then went way beyond any boundaries. it is never professional to swear with the frequency that he did, never good to pick on audience members 'fat bas**rd' etc., even if he knows them it is still offensive and derogatory and I was left feeling he was ill prepared, somewhat desperate and bluffing his way through. at one point (and I really hope that I misinterpreted this) he not only referred back to the previous derogatory war poets comments of Gordon but seemed to be finding humour in miming someone being gassed. whilst no doubt this is 'just Peter' which I'm sure some will offer in defence, that is not adequate, he is a professional speaker and that presentation was not professional and may well have diminished the reputation of the forum.

I feel saddened to post these comments and equally saddened to have decided that I'll probably not be going back next year.

[AlanCurragh]

Sean - I'm sorry you feel that way and were offended by any comments made. Both Gordon and Pete are certainly robust speakers and I for one took their comments to be tongue in cheek.

Regarding their content, Gordon was asked about his talk being one-sided, and his response was that he felt he was providing a counter-argument to decades of negative comment about Haig, and Pete did say that his talk had only very recently been finished and this was the first time he was presenting it. I must admit I didn't see anything that looked like Pete mimicking a gas attack.

Did you stay for Charles and Michael? I'm sure everyone would agree they gave very high quality presentations

Alan

[Seany]

Alan,

Charles was good but then I had to leave.

there is a difference between tongue in cheek and offence. as an example, within that audience there could be people who are gay and 1970's references to 'shirt lifters' is offensive and a professional speaker should avoid such references, they lent no dignity to the event.

if robust means a need to swear frequently then I would disagree and suggest it is poor presentation skill

peter has had plenty of time to prepare

[John(txic)]

Thanks for a super event - much appreciated.

John

[trenchtrotter]

For me the highlight was the first and last talks. Both great. Excellent analysis of Verdun and Michaels talk was great. Loved the two videos of the RB and Lincs. very moving compliments to his presentation.

Had a chance to chat to him too and a nice man. Very knowledgeable.

Thanks to all involved behind the scenes etc

TT

[CaroleHope]

My interpretation of Gordon's talk was that he was coming from a position where it seems to be accepted in wider society that Haig was a villain and he was offering an alternative perspective. A title is just a title, it grabs attention. Whilst Peter's style does not appeal to all I certainly felt he knew what he was talking about and I came away better informed. The differing styles of the speakers was an interesting contrast. Michael's calm, understated delivery, wry humour and passion for the men he was talking about made up for what I would have liked more of - a description of what actually happened during the night operations on the Passchendaele Ridge 2/12/17. Perhaps I had my own little power nap without realising and missed something! A minor criticism. I enjoyed all speakers.

[Brian Curragh]

Sean

if I could just pick up on two aspects of your post.

Quality of the speakers - I am afraid I disagree with your comment that the quality of the speakers dropped off after Christina - Gordon, Pete & Charles are experienced conference speakers with very individual & personal styles of presenting and the nature & tone of their talks would not have come as a surprise to anyone who has heard them speak before. Michael LoCicero's concluding talk on a neglected part of the Third Ypres campaign was possibly the highlight of the day - 11 years of research condensed into a 50 minute talk which gave an excellent overview accompanied by many very personal annotations - quite superb in my opinion. You are also incorrect in your comment that Pete had had plenty of time to prepare - that talk was based on an 8,000 word article which was finished on Thursday and with Pete travelling up to Birmingham on Friday, Saturday was the very first chance he had to go through it - and this in front of a live audience.

Secondly - on the apparent lack of balance in Gordon's talk. Gordon gave his personal view that Haig was not the villain of the piece - a portrayal that unfortunately has gained so much ground in popular coverage of the Great War. There was opportunity in the Q&A section to challenge this view and some present did take advantage of it with Gordon responding. But the possibility of getting a credible speaker to present the view that Haig was a "butcher" is restricted severely by the fact that no-one who has carried out any serious research into the subject will still be of that opinion.

Regards

Brian

[MichaelBully]

Well done for making a stand Seany. I've been to two GWF conferences and thought that they were amazing.But worries me that a speaker can think that references to 'shirt lifters' or 'fuzzy wuzzies' is acceptable.

Regards

Michael Bully

Alan,

Charles was good but then I had to leave.

there is a difference between tongue in cheek and offence. as an example, within that audience there could be people who are gay and 1970's references to 'shirt lifters' is offensive and a professional speaker should avoid such references, they lent no dignity to the event.

...................

[David Ridgus]

It is with some trepidation that I put in my two penn'orth on this subject but here goes.

I thought Christina and Michael's presentations bookended the day superbly. They were perfect examples of that difficult trick - deep learning worn lightly: which always leads to illumination of the audience. Charles' presentation showed as ever his clear eyed and encyclopaedic understanding of the structure of the British army, and again at the end I felt better informed than I had been at the beginning.

I am not sure either Gordon's or Peter's presentations had really the same aim and so I was not expecting the same style. Gordon's was always going to be a polemic -that is after all his style - but I did not feel it was too one-sided. Yes it was pro-Haig, and unapologetic, but it did not portray itself as anything but. The Q&A afterwards allowed some points to be put on the other end of the seesaw and were dealt with without rancour or any attempt to dismiss out of hand. That said I too was rather disturbed by some of his comments at the start. You can be robustly un-PC without being offensive and his comments about poets and the executed soldiers were, to put it at its kindest, totally unnecessary to his case.

I found Peter's presentation the strangest. He appeared incredibly nervous, which for a man of his knowledge, experience and accomplishments I found quite surprising. I felt this nervousness and the short preparation time may have contributed to the frequency and range of the swearing and, frankly, bizarre interaction with the audience. I have seen Peter speak many times (his demolition of the Gallipoli strategy at a previous Conference was one of the great tour de forces of public speaking I have had the pleasure to watch) and he has occasionally used bad language. As a public speaker myself I know how effective that can be when used sparingly, in the right context, but I did feel that it was overused to the point of self-parody yesterday.

That said I still thought this Conference the best I have been to and the atmosphere throughout the day was terrific as I had the pleasure of putting more faces to forum names, as well as meeting old friends. For the first time I stayed on for the meal which again was thoroughly enjoyable and a perfect ending to the day.

I look forward to many more.

David

[Christina Holstein]

Without entering the discussion of the merits of the speakers - although I'm delighted that my presentation was up to scratch - I want to thank Alan and Sue for a superbly organised and thoroughly enjoyable conference weekend. I'm looking forward to the next one!

Christina

[Rockdoc]

I've been to and enjoyed all of the conferences but came away thinking this was the weakest for several reasons. I have no particular problem with associating this year's event with the Douglas Haig Fellowship but we lost the usual wide range of subject areas and only had "Army" plus "Western Front" and that, I felt, was a pity.

Both Christina and Michael, as has been said, gave very good talks that were well-researched and well-presented. I have no particular interest in Third Ypres but was intrigued enough by Michael to consider buying his book. It was too rich for my blood as a hard-back but I'm tempted to put it on my wish-list for when it comes out in paper-back.

I quickly understood that Gordon was trying to "swim against the tide", as it were, so his emphasis on the positives of Haig's career did not worry me unduly but I did find his language near the knuckle. I certainly don't need to hear "fuzzywuzzies" and "limp-wristed shirt-lifters" in a public place. I'm a mining engineer so I'm used to bad language and use it myself but this was inappropriate under the circumstances.

Peter was unusually nervous because the talk hadn't been finished far enough beforehand. The talk lacked his normal fluency, which was inevitable when he was having to read the script and had no slides as prompts. I think his nervousness made him rely more than usual on his jokes and most fell very flat, which couldn't make him feel any more comfortable. Nevertheless, I found it instructive and would like to hear a more polished version in the future.

I was most disappointed by Charles. His delivery was astonishingly poor for him and ISTM that he lost more and more of the audience from about half-way through. From the back of the hall I saw an increasing number of heads that weren't pointing towards the front as the talk went on. When I got home and Ruth asked me about the talks I couldn't even remember his topic I'd got so little from it.

I hope that next year we return to the previous format and we can hear topics across all aspects of WW1, all branches of the forces, all fronts and from the perspectives of both the Entente and Central Powers.

Keith

[redbarchetta]

Echo most of the comments here - Keith's, immediately above, most closely, I have to say. Principally, well done to Alan and Sue and the team at Tally Ho! for a very slick day and a lovely lunch and dinner.

I suspect the involvement of the DH Foundation, and in particular the presence of DH's grandson, was partly responsible for Peter's unusually nervous delivery...

Nice to see familiar faces again, and Centurion was missed (by me, anyway!).

Comparisons with previous years are a little unfair - you can't hit straight sixes every time, and you have to try different formats and different speakers, meaning sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it would be somewhat naive to decide not to go to next years conference on the strength of this years, when next year will have five completely different speakers!!!

James

[CaroleHope]

A point of order about the use of the terms used by Gordon Corrigan that Seany and Michael object to. They were part of the currency of the day, particularly in environments such as the army and public schools. Whilst they are offensive now I believe they were used in context in GC’s talk. Two similar examples taken from my book:-

1) “Hats off to the British Infantry Tommy! – the man who bore the real brunt of the war, the hardest worked, worst housed, and worst paid man in the army, who for a shilling a day fought like a lion, worked like a ******, carried himself everywhere like a cheerful gentleman, and laid down his life without complaint on every front for the freedom of the world.” Quote from Personal Experiences of the Great War (an Unfinished Manuscript) By Frank M. Laird, Late Royal Dublin Fusiliers 1925, page 196 I changed the word to "horses" in my book and I notice that this post has been automatically edited to take the word out. I admit I would have been uncomfortable if that particular word had been used at the conference but, on balance, I think GC's use of language was in context.

And an attitude we would find equally outrageous now:-

2) “I do not know if I told you that the ‘Black Baby Crusade’, though now partly suspended, proved a great success. I got well over 1,000 half crowns, and as in some places a poor child can be bought for six pence there should be a goodly army of woolly black souls before the throne of God now. In addition, two priests, one in Scotland the other in Australia, have taken up my card scheme and are working it well. The idea of buying a little ‘God-child’ from the slavery of the devil, and packing it off safe to Heaven, appeals to many.” Quote from letter dated 31/7/16 Fr William Doyle, SJ, CF (later MC) to his father Hugh Doyle.

As for bad language, this forum and conference are defined by the soldiers of the Great War. I believe there was a certain amount of swearing and banter between the men.

I think Charles was distracted at times by his cough which upset his fluency.

Carole

[Gareth Davies]

I find it interesting that the forum rules prevent the use of "profane language" yet its use at the GWF conference is defended by some.

[David Ridgus]

I find it interesting that the forum rules prevent the use of "profane language" yet its use at the GWF conference is defended by some.

...and if you'd heard how the Tank Corps were referred to Gareth!

[David Ridgus]

A point of order about the use of the terms used by Gordon Corrigan that Seany and Michael object to. They were part of the currency of the day, particularly in environments such as the army and public schools. Whilst they are offensive now I believe they were used in context in GC’s talk./quote]

But I think what made me uncomfortable Carole was that it was not 'in context'. Gordon prefaced his comments on poets by saying 'the only ones I've met have been...' And about the executed soldiers that '...I would shoot them now'. Had he been referencing Haig's view on poets (of which I for one have no idea) then fine, or if he had referred to the oft quoted Haig marginalia about the need to execute deserters if we were going to win the war, then that would have been in context and germane to his argument. However they were in the preamble and as such were very much not in the context of the time.

On the other hand Michael's quietly passionate defence of the disastrous decision making that led to the dreadful attack that was the subject of his talk was an object lesson in pointing up the necessity of context when discussing the Great War - an issue on which I am sure there is a great measure of agreement on the forum.

David