BBC2 'The Somme 1916: From Both Sides of the Wire'

[Gunner Bailey]

I've enjoyed the series so far. It's nice to see aerial views of the landscapes I've walked quite a few times. Maybe time to buy a drone!

 

The work on the German archives has been EXCELLENT! Useful, relevant, informative and well presented. More please!

 

Peter Barton is a good presenter and you know that he has got has hands dirty in the past with digs he has been on. Gets my attention. As previously stated Richard Holmes would have done some good shows on the Somme this year, but we just have to enjoy his past works. PB is the best at the moment.

 

John

[MartH]

39 minutes ago, J Banning said:

Mart - to elaborate on what Mick said, Peter has been working in the Stuttgart Haupstaatsarchiv, the Munich Kriegsarchiv, the Bundesarchiv in Freiburg and the Landesarchiv Baden-Würtemmberg in Karlsruhe. But, as ever, the TV programme only mentioned the one archive...

 

I should address the other queries raised on this thread later if I have a chance.

JB

 

JB excellent, and thank you for the information, that shows the depth of research. 

 

Do you know if PB look at the relevant files used in the production of Der Weltkrieg or Episodes of the Western War?

 

Regards

 

Mart

[Tom Kilkenny]

Just watched the second of the series on the iPlayer and have to agree with most of the views above: for a programme intended for the general viewer this really is as good as it gets.  

 

Couple of things though: I found myself wondering just how reliable were the accounts in the German archives and is there something in the German national psyche that made (or makes) its people more reflective on the way things work and more desirous of making them work better?   

[KevinBattle]

Excellent programme to help the majority of viewers who know a little and often have a very inaccurate understanding of what great grandfather went through.

 

The reality was that large parts of France and much of Belgium were the German Front Line and the pressure was always to attempt to recover these "lost" territories.

The Germans had been pushed back in 1914, but mainly to high ground and suitable for defensive holding whilst they attempted to knock Russia out of the War and then resume the Offensive in the West (as in March 1918). The highly trained BEF had been virtually wiped out by the end of 1915, after numerous assaults on unfavourable ground, so one can perhaps understand some of the reluctance in using the New Army of citizen volunteers.

The tactics therefore seem to indicate a huge artillery barrage to flatten the barbed wire and smash the surface trenches.

In those cases, you don't need much intelligence from deserters, prisoners or phone taps to work out that an attack is brewing.

What wasn't known was that amidst all these shell bursts, a large proportion failed to explode (hence the continual "iron harvest" still appearing 100 years on).

The commanders and infantry therefore expected minimal resistance, believing the German shelters comparable to their own, whereas the Germans had had several peaceful years on the Somme in which to prepare very deep and concreted shelters far below whatever weight of shell might penetrate.

 

I can't really fault the planning for attacks on the Western Front, mainly on ground unfavourable to attackers and where a determined enemy was able to emerge and inflict colossal slaughter. The programme also explained German tactics of simply moving away from targetted zones and waiting either in front or behind to attack the oncoming waves.

 

Could the Somme have been an Allied success, had the first wave of "assault" troops rushed across and swamped the front line defenders?

But then artillery barrages may have prevented heavily armed and supplied support waves from crossing to replenish those holding the German front line, so counter attacks would have succeeded in regaining lost ground. Whichever way, the attackers were always at a disadvantage, and the Somme would have been a slaughter house in any event.

 

I hope that a concluding episode will examine just why so many shells failed to explode, was it poor manufacture; poor artillery work, the soft churned up ground or an unhappy combination of all three? And could the Somme offensive have succeeded and, if so, by what tactics?

[phil andrade]

21 minutes ago, Tom Kilkenny said:

is there something in the German national psyche that made (or makes) its people more reflective on the way things work and more desirous of making them work better?   

 

That question occurs to me, too.

 

I reckon the programme does emphasise the Germans' qualitative edge.

 

As to whether this was something innate, or something born of compulsion - the Germans, we are reminded, were outnumbered and outgunned , and were forced into husbanding their manpower - is a question that the programme requires us to countenance.

 

I feel that there is am implicit theme that the Germans were more " enlightened"...this was made more explicitly in regard to the treatment of British POWs.  I did bristle a bit here, thinking of some very harrowing accounts of hardship  and mortality among prisoners in German hands...but I applaud the thought provoking and compelling way the thing has been presented by Peter Barton and co.

 

Whatever quibbles I have, these pale beside the very high regard I have for this documentary.

 

I do hope that we'll have more of this next year as we reflect on Passchendaele, and the year after as the victory centennial is marked.

 

Phil

[Andrew Upton]

7 hours ago, seb phillips said:

...You only need to compare it with 'Somme - Defeat to Victory' which was made a few years ago. 

 

That'd be 11 years ago... 10 days spent under canvas in a field in Ipswich in September isn't something you forget in a hurry...

[Medaler]

I keep coming to a couple of thoughts about this series. Why I think they are important enough to share I have no idea, but maybe they will strike a chord with some of my fellow enthusiasts on here.

 

My first thought centres around exactly that. Despite what the makers seem to think, is this series actually aimed at the general public, the man on the Clapham omnibus? I do not regard myself as anything like an expert on the Great War but, having said that, I suppose I must know something because I have now spent several years actually seeking to immerse myself in it. There are many contributors on this forum however who I do regard as venerable experts. Some of them so knowledgeable about specific aspects that I hold them in much higher regard than many of the published experts. The interesting thing therefore is that so many of us are finding this series so worthwhile. Has there been another thread on a TV series that has run for 7 pages?

 

The second thing that has struck me is the number of comments here that draw comparison with the work of the late Richard Holmes. For my own part I find it difficult to express the debt of gratitude that I owe to Holmes. I simply regard him as the most accomplished military historian that we have ever produced. I found that strangely avuncular style of presentation that he had completely compelling. What is more, I loved his effort to tell the story of events from different levels. Picking out the human testimony of individual "Tommies" and laying that alongside the battle plans of the higher authorities was something that marked Holmes out as special in my eyes. I learned a lot from Holmes, and he encouraged my interest in this subject more than anyone else I can name.

 

To round off these ramblings then. Is this really aimed at the general public? - I don't think so. The "informed public" maybe, but not the "general public".

 

Are Mr Burton and the team producing "good history"? I certainly think so. The style that is being used to present the information certainly appeals to my preferences. It also seems much better than a lot of the froth that has been produced to mark the centenary, much of which seems to have been put together by completely uninformed producers and presenters who have merely been cashing in on the "flavour of the month".

 

There - having poked my head above the trench to proffer an opinion, I am now going to put my tin hat on and hide under the stairs.

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

 

 

[MartH]

2 hours ago, Tom Kilkenny said:

Couple of things though: I found myself wondering just how reliable were the accounts in the German archives and is there something in the German national psyche that made (or makes) its people more reflective on the way things work and more desirous of making them work better?   

 

Which is the reason for modern Official History which the Prussian General staff started, the study of military history systematically to conduct it better. 

[J Banning]

12 hours ago, Bart150 said:

Would anyone connected to the programme care to tell how the blunder of calling von Falkenhayn a field-marshal crept in?

12 hours ago, AOK4 said:

 

I have mentioned this earlier, but got no response either.

 

Jan & Bart - Apologies for the delay in my response but I have a full time job which I am juggling with two young kids off school on summer holiday so I am unable to answer GWF queries as they come in. As for your question, put simply, it is a blunder on our part. If we muck something up then I'm always happy to put my hands up. I mentioned it to Peter earlier and he said it was his fault. However, we spent long enough rewriting the scripts so I should have spotted it too! Same goes for the small matter of a German invasion of the Netherlands in 1914 as shown on one of the graphics on Episode 1. Please accept our apologies. Other than that, I hope you have been enjoying the series.

 

I plan on answering a few of the other queries on this thread tomorrow and have a few lines from Peter to add too. However, after two nights of working past midnight I will keep that task for tomorrow sometime. 

 

Jeremy

[Bart150]

Thanks for being so honest, Jeremy.

There was I imagining some BBC wallah insisting on 'field-marshal' because it sounded more fierce ...

 

Bart

[clk]

OK here goes (head down for incoming) ... the question I've been begging to ask. The consensus clearly is one of absolute respect for the work that Peter has done. However, is he a member of the forum? If not, which I suspect may be the case, how can we persuade him to join, and like Chris B pass through occasionally, and share his knowledge with a more than grateful audience? 

 

Regards

Chris

[Chris_B]

A couple of refs. relevant to episode two.   "Erfahrungen aus der Somme Schlacht" - Experiences from the Somme Battlefield  -  a blog post by Robert T. Foley from

December 2015

 

https://defenceindepth.co/2015/12/09/horizontal-military-innovation-and-lessons-reports/#comments

 

and his journal paper:

 

https://www.academia.edu/1833451/_Learning_Wars_Lessons_The_German_Army_on_the_Somme_1916_

[J Banning]

Thanks for these Chris. Peter was telling me that he had been chatting to Bob Foley at the recent AWM Attrition 1916 conference all about these. I think his work is very good.

JB

[J Banning]

It is always fascinating seeing the reactions from viewers and this forum offers a good position to discuss facets of the programme. I’ll do my best to address as many as I have seen but if I miss some, apologies. I am off to the Somme tomorrow and have much packing to do so do not want to spend all day on here. I have mentioned a few of these to Peter (who was never a member of the GWF and is unlikely ever to be!) and he sent me a few points to include.  

This series was made by BBC Bristol – it was a solely a BBC in-house project rather than a co-venture with Peter’s company, Parapet Productions. As such, Peter lost editorial control. This led to a number of the issues raised in this thread.

 

With very few exceptions, Peter only works on programmes he has personally originated and pitched: Vampire Dugout (Time Team Special), Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector (another Time Team Special), Somme: Secret Tunnel Wars, War of Words: Soldier Poets of the Somme and this series.

 

The three films being shown now are not the series that he originally pitched to the head of history, or indeed the one that he originally commissioned. BBC producers and directors got colder and colder feet as completion approached. The original pitch was to focus solely on the German story – indeed, the working title was The Other Side of the Wire. Six months or so into the work this was changed to the present title – telling BOTH sides. As such, inevitably stories became watered down. Peter estimates that we only managed to tell about 40% of the story that we wanted to. Many vital elements were undeveloped or omitted, including British war crimes and examples of British exaggeration, embellishment and fabrication of events.  Peter is very clear that his research has only scratched the surface and that the next 100 years of proper, corroborative research into German archives is going to be very interesting.

 

However, I hope most will agree (perhaps with one depressingly obvious exception) that to condense the history of the Somme into three hours of TV is something of a challenge. In the past ten days I have received so many emails and tweets from people asking why their grandfather’s battalion hadn’t been mentioned! The battle was so gargantuan that simply telling one story of one battalion on one day eats into 5 minutes of the 58 available.

 

I am with those who do not like those voiceovers using German accents (even though they were genuine German actors speaking English). I said so at the time but it was decided to go with them.  

 

Mart – I just asked Peter if he had looked at the files related to Der Weltkrieg and he said he was unsure. He has looked at thousands – and still has tens of thousands on his PC that need a detailed look at!  

Hedley – We were in touch with Heather (there is more in Episode 3 for which she helped) but her book, 'Violence against Prisoners of War: Britain, France and Germany, 1914-1920' concentrates solely on life in POW camps, not on the point of capture and subsequent few hours. My grandfather, gassed at St Julien on 22 April 1915 (hence no gas mask) was a POW for 3.5 years and was badly treated and undernourished, so I am aware of the harshness of camp life. We also accept that war is a horrible, dirty business and there were undoubtedly instances of killing POWs on all sides but the evidence Peter found showed a more enlightened German view of prisoners than we had previously imagined. There was so much more that could have been said here. Full details will come out in due course in Peter’s lectures and subsequent book.  

 
Regarding Chris Baker’s point about who else to front programmes such as these, I have a few points I’d like to make. Firstly, as someone else noted, TV is wildly unadventurous. The networks and independents (who make most of the content) rely, in the main, on well known names. A safe pair of hands, such as Paxman or Andrew Marr, will inevitably draw decent audiences. A good example of this is the Somme: Secret Tunnel Wars documentary about our work at the Glory Hole, La Boisselle. I can well recall a long telephone conversation with an overexcited young assistant producer from an independent TV production company telling me how this project just lent itself to being filmed and that their very own Dan Snow would be able to front it. “He’s very good you know, does the One Show etc…” When I pointed out that we already had a commission from the BBC and it would be a co-production between Peter’s company, Parapet Productions, and the BBC she seemed a bit miffed. I had to repeatedly tell her that we did not want Dan Snow fronting anything to do with our work – as we had the world expert on the matter writing, producing and presenting the documentary. Alas, she still never got it. Dan Snow was king as far as she was concerned. “You see, he’s a well known face…” As for the BBC, they were pushing for ages to have Fergal Keane front it but Peter stood firm, arguing it would be much more powerful with someone who actually lived and breathed the subject rather than using a presenter, parachuted in.

After Ep 1 of this series I had an interesting exchange with Jonathan Boff from Birmingham Uni on Twitter. During our conversation I suggested that an academic (or group of academics) – normally those who enjoy a good criticism of TV docs (many times with just reason!) – pitch a 1918 last Hundred Days documentary to the BBC. After all, that seemed their main beef at the government’s commemorative period announcement – too much focus on poppies, poets and the Somme and not enough on the 1914 BEF and the year of victory. Jonathan told me that this had already been done and the idea rejected by the BBC.

I am surprised at this – and a tad unconvinced. Who made the pitch? And who was it made to? And in what format? When I asked Jonathan for more info he told me he wasn’t allowed to say! I have no idea what happened but it seems a strange thing to keep identities secret. I had hoped to be able to put a word in for the idea but it appears not. I would very much like to see such a programme, fronted by academics, for two reasons. Firstly, I hope it would be fascinating and secondly, and on a much more mundane level, to see how they dealt with the producers and directors....

As for other faces, someone made the point there are some knowledgeable people who would freeze in front of camera. Many people simply do not have the verbal and delivery skills or TV presence to carry this off.  One sound recordist I worked with told me of a well-known military historian (no names, no pack drill) who he had worked with who was always desperate to be in shot but when he spoke to camera, gave his lines ‘as if giving evidence at an inquest’.    

So, will there be any more output from the BBC like this? I am unsure. I have no idea what is planned for Passchendaele or anything for 1918. As much as I would have liked something on my battle of interest, Arras, I know that nothing will appear, probably save a Canadian documentary on Vimy.

For me, it has not been an enjoyable year of work – far too much stress, angst, broken sleep  –  to consider doing anything like it again. Financially, it makes no sense too. I was paid a set fee and when that money was spent, I worked for 3.5 months for free. It was either that or leave the programmes to be broadcast with mistakes aplenty. I earned significantly less this year by working on this series than the previous year – and that is due to the quantity of work required. The big budgets of TV are long, long gone.

I know Peter is keen to do some radio – many aspects of his research lend themselves to that medium – but his emphasis will probably be on the written word in order to tell the wider story.

I hope that this has answered some of the queries. Now to pack…

All best,
Jeremy

 

[Fattyowls]

Thanks for such a detailed explanation Jeremy. Have a cracking holiday.

 

Pete.

[paulgranger]

Yes, thank you Jeremy. It's now much clearer why the programmes we'd like to see/make end up as something much different. 

[Seadog]

Yes nice one Jeremy please thank Peter for the excellent way the Germans emerge from this opus, difficult to imagine that they were in fact the invaders and such a shame Peter could not include more of the evidence on British war crimes he gleaned from the German archives, mind you a whole programme could be devoted to those perpetrated by Germany but perhaps better not to go there.

 

Best Regards

Norman

[MartH]

Jeremy thanks and enjoy your holiday, Mart

[David Ridgus]

Thank you for such a detailed response Jeremy. A fascinating insight into the difficulties you experts face in working with what A A Gill refers to as 'the Tristrams' in the broadcasting industry. Enjoy your break.

 

A new documentary on the 100 Days would be very welcome. However with budgets being what they are, I fancy we may just get repeats of Snow pere et fils on Amiens (admittedly well reviewed on first showing by Hew Strachan amongst others), Michael Palin's programme on the Last Day and David Reynolds' programme on Versailles. I would expect something new on Third Ypres if only because it fits so snugly into the 'four years of Remembrance Sundays' narrative that we all feared the Centenary might be reduced to.

 

In fact I think there have been some excellent programmes. I thought the Our World War series was first rate, as were the one off Hidden History programmes (particularly the one on VPK cameras). Many of the best programmes have been from the regions with the Welsh ones particularly strong in my opinion. 

 

David

[Guest]

" As for your question, put simply, it is a blunder on our part. If we muck something up then I'm always happy to put my hands up  "

 

Good for you, and your honesty is appreciated.

 

Hands up those of us who have never made a mistake.

 

Mike

[seaJane]

Have a good holiday Jeremy. You deserve it!

[egbert]

Just stumbled over this thread. Taking the comments here it was a mainly well received documentation. Sadly the series cannot be viewed in Germany due to BBC (blocking TV programs outside the UK) copyrights .

As I cannot view the end titles/end credits - who was the German consultant please ?

[paulgranger]

Egbert, I don't think there was a German consultant as such, Peter Barton did his own research in the various archives. Ralph Whitehead is credited with assistance, and  Siege Gunner (Mick Forsyth) of the Forum did the translations. If he or Jeremy Banning see this post, they'll correct me if I'm wrong. Incidentally, the series is being issued on DVD early next month.

Edited 29 July , 2016 by paulgranger
Remembered something

[egbert]

4 minutes ago, paulgranger said:

Egbert, I don't think there was a German consultant as such, Peter Barton did his own research in the various archives. Ralph Whitehead is credited with assistance, and  Siege Gunner (Mick Forsyth) of the Forum did the translations. If he or Jeremy Banning see this post, they'll correct me if I'm wrong. Incidentally, the series is being issued on DVD early next month.

Thanks for the response.

I am very sure that Mick does the best translations, Peter is a gifted researcher in German archives and Ralph knows a lot of German military stuff. But none of them can substitute a German national consultant knowing German peculiar aspects on cultural aspects, thinking, gestures, articulation, interpretations, military context etc etc to make the documentation as authentic as possible . I think modern documentary filming takes national advisors into consideration to come as close as possible to the real thing. Ze olt schtereotype sinking haz been overkum in today`s filmed documataries and do not give room for clichés.

Originally subject of a 50-50 British-German subject matter (as I understood from this thread) I am sure there was a national German advisor, just curious who it was, whether It happened that our ways crossed....

[timsanders]

17 hours ago, J Banning said:

Jonathan told me that this had already been done and the idea rejected by the BBC.

 

Could some of these academics self-produce or hire a small independent company and publish their works on youtube or a similar medium? It would open the viewing up to a global audience and bypass interfering tv producers.