Great War Forum Conference 2015 - all speakers announced

[MichaelBully]

Thanks for giving those of us weren't present a bit more context Carole. And interested to read everyone else's posts about how the event went in general.

Fully understand that sentiments considered acceptable hundred years ago- but challenged to day- will appear in source material. But there are ways of distancing ourselves from them now if we want all pals to be accepted on the GWF and related events.

Gareth - tend to agree that both the 'Forum and the Conference should have the same rules.

Regards

EDIT Posted the original response without viewing David -Ridgus'- post above .

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.

[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./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

Fair comment.

Carole

[John_Hartley]

I've read contemporary accounts that use language which was in common usage then, albeit racist then as now. I do not believe in censoring that language if using the quotations in context today.

However, if I've understood the posts from folk who were there, there was language used that was not quoting from contemporary accounts but was simply the language used by the speaker. I find it difficult to understand how that usage could possibly be thought of as acceptable.

[mhifle]

Renault: Everybody is to leave here immediately! This cafe is closed until further notice. Clear the room, at once!

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Employee of Rick's: [hands Renault money] Your winnings, sir.

Renault: Oh, thank you, very much. Everybody out at once!

[burlington]

Great Conference! Well up to standard of previous events.

Many thanks to everyone who put it together.

Martin

[phil andrade]

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

Your talk was very brave, Christina. I was impressed and inspired.

I thought it brave because you dealt with the most enigmatic of all commanders ; I was flabbergasted to learn that Falkenhayn was admitting that things weren't working by the end of March.

I still feel confounded by the whys and wherefores of the Battle of Verdun. It's my intention to press on and try and get to grips with the history.

If I can follow your example of humility in pursuit of my goal, then it will end well.

Too many commentators and scholars of the Great War deploy their presentations as if they've found the Holy Grail.

Your rendition was nuanced and very intriguing. Thank you, and well done.

Phil (PJA)

[SilverFox100]

I enjoyed my first conference. I thought the talk I probably enjoyed the most was Michael's, he presented it well and so obviously knows his topic. In fact, I have today purchased his book to read about in that greater detail.

I also enjoyed the other talks, probably the one I least enjoyed was Charles's. I wasn't offended by Peter's talk, I took it as I thought he meant it to be, but would agree that given more time to work on this it would have been better and he would not have had to add some of his remarks into it. Having said that, I can also understand how some of the people who posted felt about it.

I also thoroughly enjoyed Gordon's talk about Haig and it has given me a much better understanding of the man. I do understand that those times a 100 years ago were different to today. Our generals were fighting a war totally different to any other war previously. I don't condone the loss of life that happened in the way that our soldiers were sent to fight, but from my limited knowledge of this war, I think we did fight differently in the final year of the war than previous years. I think Haig did everything possible to win the war as soon as possible and it shows the decency of the man and what he thought of all his men with his involvement after the war.

All in enjoyed the day

Regards. Mike

[Ice Tiger]

A thoroughly enjoyable conference & thank you to Alan, Sue & the team for making it happen.

Christina opened my eyes to a battle I know so little about & I now look forward to learning more from her books. Gordon was as I expected and I thought presented a very clear defence of Haig explaining his argument with clarity. Charles was more academic and his talk required careful listening to follow but surely that's what we are there for; otherwise we would stay at home & listen to Dan Snow. Peter was new to his talk and while you can comment about his ease of delivery at the start of his talk you can't criticise his knowledge of the history he presented. Michael I have never heard speak before and he gave a fresh & enlightening talk on a battle that I previously knew absolutely nothing about. My only regret is despite having been in the same room as Christina for many hours we didn't seem to find time to chat; a failing on my part.

I am now looking forward to next year; can I please book my place now Alan.

Andy

[Martin Bennitt]

Just got back home to read the above comments on the conference which I enjoyed as usual both for its social side and the erudition of the speakers. Like a number of people I thought it was a bit more of a curate's egg than previous ones, with the first and last talks standing out above the others. If Gordon's controversial comments expressed his real opinions it's regrettable-- I hope he only uttered them for some sort of effect.

Big thanks from me too to Alan and Sue for the organisation. I hope to be back next year.

Cheers Martin B

[trenchtrotter]

Posts removed from this thread. I understand why but my last had no offence at all. There are clear issues for the Forum to confront here and deal with. I do accept however this is not the place. That said though where?

Excellent conference for all the issues though. Thanks to the organisers and all involved.

TT

PS if this removed can a mod contact me re the issues. A concerned TT. From a professional stand point!

[AlanCurragh]

TT - I think your comment was removed simply as it referred to another that was removed. Without the context, it didnt make much sense - so nothing against your post itself

Alan

[Roy Evans]

TT - Alan is correct, I removed a post on which you had commented as I deemed that post inappropriate and having done so, your comment read in isolation, would not have made sense to others.

Roy

[dah]

My first conference, so unable to compare to previous years. Yes, a bit of a curate's egg,,,,,,but still thoroughly glad I went and suitably grateful to the organisers for a job well done.

Very impressed by Christina's high quality opening talk. Well presented and kept my attention and focus throughout. I learned anew about Verdun and am now keen to expand on that knowledge via her book/s..

Gordon was wonderful in a different way...and also held me spellbound throughout. I forgive him his 4-5 non-PC outbursts which took me by surprise and had me in absolute stitches. The PC world will no doubt survive. I would not condone it as text on the forum.....because you cannot so clearly see the character of the man in words. That aside, I found his presentation of Haig to be well constructed and compelling.

Peter was under-prepared for understandable reasons already explained, but I still enjoyed his lively if somewhat chaotic presentation.. I hope the targets of his abusive remarks were suitably thick-skinned and able to laugh without offence

Charles indeed displayed encyclopaedic knowledge and command of his subject.....but, alas, it was not a subject area (the changing structure of the BEF) that I'm particularly interested in....so I was one of those giving my post-lunch eyes a rest.

Michael was undoubtedly passionate and encyclopaedic about his subject of the Moonlight massacre on Passchendaele Ridge - but, unless it was a deliberate tease to get you to buy the book, I too expected to hear and missed what actually happened to the men you felt he knew by name.

All in all a good day. Next time, I must eat less!

David

[Seany]

"The PC world will no doubt survive"

I did wonder at what point the 'PC' comment would emerge. its not about that but rather its about respect for others, something we do extremely well on this forum and which is extremely well moderated when very rarely the rules for expected behaviour are broken. the forum conference is a public meeting, in a public place, and the same, if not higher, standards should apply (by public place I also mean that derogatory comments about race or sexual orientation are not only heard by the audience but also by others such as the bar or catering staff who could have been offended, and would have been in their rights to raise a complaint).

one should not have to hope that the targets of abuse are sufficiently 'thick skinned' to laugh it off, some may not be, one should not make the remarks in the first place and, finally then I'm shutting up, as cited in earlier posts we also have forum rules regarding profane behaviour that were outrageously broken by one presenter and rather than being moderated it appears he is being excused - some self awareness and self reflection may be required.

and, having reflected myself, I will probably be back next year.

[Kate Wills]

Seany,

How would an invited speaker be moderated?

Moderating the written word is simple, though not necessarily instant; but to moderate speakers a transcript of each talk would need to be submitted in advance for approval, and each speaker required to make a declaration that they will not make profane or inflammatory remarks. Once made, such remarks could not be withdrawn anyway. I could not attend this year, but this has never been an issue at previous gatherings.

Its good to know you are planning to return next year. I hope to too.

[keithmroberts]

Just an addition to Kate's point - some of our speakers can command significant fees when they attend other events, They come to our event because they have positive feelings for the GWF and stay like many of us at the Premier Inn, not in a four star palace at delegates expense. I would be surprised if even events that pay considerable fees to their speakers would have the nerve to expect to have advance scripts, or would issue briefing notes about their expectations of a speaker. Simply they would be without speakers.

Keith

[AlanCurragh]

To expand on Keith's post above, I would also emphasise that no speaker has ever been paid for speaking at a GWF conference, they just claim back expenses (and occasionally some haven't even done that).

I have to say I have been a little uncomfortable with some of the critical comments made above regarding speakers, not the PC related issues (if I may term them that) which I accept have caused controversy, but comments on the quality of the presentations - as I recall, this hasn't happened before on a post-conference thread and it strikes me as a little ungracious in a public arena. Please remember that we need to be in a position to continue to attract high quality speakers.

Despite some of the recollections of past conferences, there have always been some presentations better than others - I would say this year was as good as any we have had overall. To stand up and speak in front of over 100 people is not something that many of us would relish (as my stumbling attempts at introductions show).

I also think that technically this was the best conference we've had - I think we've finally sorted out the microphone issues that have caused problems in the past.

The link up with the Haig Fellowship was a one-off and I am sure people will have their own view as to whether it was a success. Next year, the talks will have a wider emphasis

Alan

[Guest]

I'm very sorry I missed it and will definitely be there next year. Can't really comment on some of the issues raised, but perhaps those who have criticized the quality of presentations will show us how it should be done next year. I was asked to give a talk a couple of months ago, which went fairly well, but I realise now how much work goes into a presentation. I would quail at the thought of having to give a presentation to 100 or more, many of whom maybe knew the subject as well as, or even better than I did. And all for £00.00.

Mike

[Steven Broomfield]

. And all for £00.00.

Mike

We woz robbed!

[Guest]

We woz robbed!

You are awful, but,......

Mike

[Phil Wood]

My third conference and much enjoyed. Congratulations and thanks to Alan and Sue for the smooth organisation.

[neverforget]

Seany,

How would an invited speaker be moderated?

Moderating the written word is simple, though not necessarily instant; but to moderate speakers a transcript of each talk would need to be submitted in advance for approval, and each speaker required to make a declaration that they will not make profane or inflammatory remarks. Once made, such remarks could not be withdrawn anyway. I could not attend this year, but this has never been an issue at previous gatherings.

Its good to know you are planning to return next year. I hope to too.

Just an addition to Kate's point - some of our speakers can command significant fees when they attend other events, They come to our event because they have positive feelings for the GWF and stay like many of us at the Premier Inn, not in a four star palace at delegates expense. I would be surprised if even events that pay considerable fees to their speakers would have the nerve to expect to have advance scripts, or would issue briefing notes about their expectations of a speaker. Simply they would be without speakers.

Keith

I wouldn`t have thought it necessary or practical for potential speakers to submit any form of advance scripts, but I would think it prudent in the light of this year`s controversy, to have a quiet word beforehand with next year`s candidates. I`m sure that would be enough.

I know that the nanny-state has created a ridiculous P.C. situation, and I can be pretty non-P.C. myself on occasion, but I think I might have been squirming a bit if I had invited a black or homosexual friend to the conference this year.

To put it in perspective though, we seem to be discussing one persons indiscretions, out of which by most accounts seems to have been a successful and enjoyable conference.

EDIT: Please do not see this post as any form of criticism.

Edited 30 March , 2015 by neverforget

[paul@bolton]

I would like to add my thanks to Alan and Sue for all their efforts in, once again, organising a thoroughly enjoyable conference. The amount of work that goes into both the pre-planning and the organisation on the day can easily be overlooked and the fact that it runs so smoothly can easily be taken for granted so very well done. The experience of those of us who choose to sit at the back to avoid the risk of Mr Hart's particular brand of audience participation, was much improved by the speakers being provided with wireless clip microphones which worked extremely well and Alan and Sue's efforts to run around the audience providing a microphone at question time were also appreciated.

I think we all knew that this year's Conference was going to be more Haig-centric, for obvious reasons, than previous years but, as a one-off, I think it worked well. It's a tricky balance to have a theme whilst still including something for everyone, from the novice to the expert, as well as selecting a a range of speakers with different styles who will inform, educate and - let's face it - entertain. Congratulations for achieving it.

As far as the criticisms levelled against some of the speakers is concerned, I am far more shocked that people on this forum should be so rude as to criticise our guests who have generously given their time and expertise than I was by anything they said in their talks. So much better to have expressed your concerns to the organisers of the event at the time.

Paul

[Guest]

For those of us not able to make it, are there any transcripts of the presentations available? (sans expletives). I have books by all the Speakers who were generous enough to give their time and knowledge for free, so I would be really interested if the GWF has any transcripts and whether these might be available - particularly Lo Cicero's talk which seemed to be covering new ground. His book is a masterpiece of research and I would dearly have loved to hear him speak. MG

[keithmroberts]

Sorry

We have no transcripts to offer. Some speakers will be intending to use, or as in Michael's case already have used the material in other published forms. That's a general statement, but certainly in the past some speakers have made it clear that it is not an option where they are concerned.

keith