Hot Air

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Moonraker said:

I fear that we are (or I am) going round in circles, but what makes you think that primary sources are reliable? See my post 38.

 

Moonraker

Primary sources are not all reliable. They also need to be cross-checked. If you look at the BBC's guidelines they also make it clear that facts need to be cross-checked. In case this is not clear this means cross-checking a primary source with another source or sources. The more the better. 

 

For example at the second battle of Krithia, the British line broke. Four regular British battalions wrote reports on the events. As stand-alone primary sources they only give part of the story (all incidentally blaming each other for breaking first) and some contradict each other. It is only by carefully reading all of them and the Brigade diary does one come close to establishing what actually happened. If one were to read the published histories of these four units (secondary sources based on primary material) one would not get close to the real events as each unit embellished its own role. In many early regimental histories the truth is sometimes subordinated to preserving reputations. We see similar treatment in published memoirs and personal diaries of senior Officers and Cabinet members whose post-war reputations were on the line. If memory serves there were more than a few libel cases in the post-war suggesting that some written records were being disputed. This also happened after the Crimean War. 

 

By trawling the primary sources and cross-referencing them, we stand a much better chance of establishing the facts in my view. Relying on secondary sources alone can be fraught with problems. 

 

MG

[healdav]

46 minutes ago, QGE said:

Primary sources are not all reliable. They also need to be cross-checked. If you look at the BBC's guidelines they also make it clear that facts need to be cross-checked. In case this is not clear this means cross-checking a primary source with another source or sources. The more the better. 

 

For example at the second battle of Krithia, the British line broke. Four regular British battalions wrote reports on the events. As stand-alone primary sources they only give part of the story (all incidentally blaming each other for breaking first) and some contradict each other. It is only by carefully reading all of them and the Brigade diary does one come close to establishing what actually happened. If one were to read the published histories of these four units (secondary sources based on primary material) one would not get close to the real events as each unit embellished its own role. In many early regimental histories the truth is sometimes subordinated to preserving reputations. We see similar treatment in published memoirs and personal diaries of senior Officers and Cabinet members whose post-war reputations were on the line. If memory serves there were more than a few libel cases in the post-war suggesting that some written records were being disputed. This also happened after the Crimean War. 

 

By trawling the primary sources and cross-referencing them, we stand a much better chance of establishing the facts in my view. Relying on secondary sources alone can be fraught with problems. 

 

MG

If any producer/ presenter of a TV or radio programme was to do all this, would any programme ever be made?

I doubt it.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, healdav said:

If any producer/ presenter of a TV or radio programme was to do all this, would any programme ever be made?

I doubt it.

 

Which is why experts need to be employed who know their stuff and have already done the hard yards in the archives.. This basically comes down to the BBC commissioning editors not always understanding who the experts are, and when they do find them, occasionally losing them as they refuse to be subordinated to BBC 'creative' priorities. Some survive and make excellent programmes. Some programmes are clearly made by people with insufficient knowledge of their subject.  MG

[dink_and_pip]

As Arthur C Clarke used to say "and the answer to that is we don't rightly know "

 

[Moonraker]

One might also reflect on the number of tales reported in "primary resources" that have been debunked in the last twenty years and shown to be myths. I have a score and more of examples in Wiltshire of contemporary anecdotes that were based on rumour and exaggeration. My own early experience of conflicting primary sources was when I was researching the first appearance of aircraft on army manoeuvres, in 1910.

There are several varying accounts of exploits by Dickson and Loraine, the confusion best summed up by a Daily Mail reporter describing the conflicting rumours about Dickson landing and he and his aircraft being captured: "some said the aeroplane had been captured, some said it had not … let us each speak of that which he sees and thus shall we arrive at the truth". Comprehensive army reports (surely an obvious primary source) referred only in passing to the presence of aircraft, which 'were not able to do much' (an unfair comment). Just as dismissively, the reports claimed that 'Captain Dickson had his hands full in managing his machine' and his information 'was … mainly negative … and unimportant'. Loraine's role is not even mentioned in his biography by Winifred Loraine, Robert Loraine, Soldier, Actor, Airman.     

 

It was apparent to me that one reporter could not accurately cover everything that was going on on Salisbury Plain in a particular day and rush his copy back to London in time for the next day's papers. It would have been even more difficult to do so on a battlefield.

 

Until the Web came along, comparing and assessing primary resources must have been very difficult: locating records, accessing them, comparing them with other records and discussing them with other "experts". (In my early days of research I had to wade through printed catalogues at Kew, sometimes relying on serendipity.) Now it is so much more simple, even if the Web has led to cutting & pasting by people of greatly varying abilities.

 

Moonraker

 

[Moonraker]

1 hour ago, healdav said:

If any producer/ presenter of a TV or radio programme was to do all this, would any programme ever be made?

I doubt it.

Or would any book ever be written and published?

 

As with copyright clearance, some of the strictures voiced here are the counsel of perfection. No doubt there are many authors and researchers who would love to spend a long time checking, double-checking and treble-checking "facts" - if the budget extended to paying for it. And perhaps some experts expect too much remuneration for their involvement?

 

Moonraker

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Moonraker said:

Or would any book ever be written and published?

 

As with copyright clearance, some of the strictures voiced here are the counsel of perfection. No doubt there are many authors and researchers who would love to spend a long time checking, double-checking and treble-checking "facts" - if the budget extended to paying for it. And perhaps some experts expect too much remuneration for their involvement?

 

Moonraker

 

The thread specifically addresses the BBC (and incidentally its own guidelines on standards); An organisation with £3.7 billion in annual income that employs professional  commissioning editors, producers, writers, researchers and commissions Great War 'experts' such as Dan Snow, Max Hastings Niall Fergusson and a galaxy of other professional historians as programme advisors to make documentary programmes which, according to the BBC, are supposed to strive for accuracy. They do this for a living. 

 

MG

[Guest]

On 8/28/2016 at 22:06, David Filsell said:

Winter was of course been judged by academics to have been less than honest about  claims he made in a book about Douglas Haig. He certainly was an author with an agenda - although I suspect his figures of aviators killed were an error  rather than an attempt to big up the figures.

 

Here is a page of reviews on Amazon of Denis Winter's book on Haig, written back in 2003. Click

 

If the researcher did indeed use Denis Winter's numbers for pilot fatalities, simply searching his name on Amazon would have quickly alerted them to some rather critical assessments of his other work and allegations of fabrication. 

[David Filsell]

I recall the issues over the Haig book well - having closely followed the research into the author's assertions at the time of publication and which effectively destroyed his reputation. That said, and despite the incorrect figures in regards to aviator's deaths, the reputation of his book on aviation and the - then - ground breaking Death's Men are very sound and well researched works.  Certainly his aviation book is considerable better than a number of more recent books on the subject.  

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, David Filsell said:

I recall the issues over the Haig book well - having closely followed the research into the author's assertions at the time of publication and which effectively destroyed his reputation. That said, and despite the incorrect figures in regards to aviator's deaths, the reputation of his book on aviation and the - then - ground breaking Death's Men are very sound and well researched works.  Certainly his aviation book is considerable better than a number of more recent books on the subject.  

 

I recently purchased Deaths Men but it keeps being pushed down the pile of books to read. Did you ever write a review of it? MG

[Perth Digger]

I cannot see how anyone could trust any of Winter's writings once it was shown that he quite deliberately manufactured quotations (mangling quotes by splicing together words from different places etc) in order to support his views. He had an enormous chip on his shoulder about the British offering up Australians as sacrificial lambs and, in particular, for the death of one of his forebears in the war. He seemed to blame Haig personally for this family tragedy.

 

Mike

[Guest]

1 minute ago, M.Durey said:

I cannot see how anyone could trust any of Winter's writings once it was shown that he quite deliberately manufactured quotations (mangling quotes by splicing together words from different places etc) in order to support his views. He had an enormous chip on his shoulder about the British offering up Australians as sacrificial lambs and, in particular, for the death of one of his forebears in the war. He seemed to blame Haig personally for this family tragedy.

 

Mike

 

 It sounds like a good subject for a case study on 'Truth and the Great War'

[Perth Digger]

After you, Martin!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, M.Durey said:

After you, Martin!

 I am reading Deaths Men right now...armed with a red pen...stand by. 

[Perth Digger]

I'll start getting worried when you begin using green ink.

[Airshipped]

Unfortunately the BBC player is acting up and so I can't see the documentary, but the figures quoted are quite alarming. The 8,000-pilots/aircrew-in-training myth has been well-covered but what about the 17-days-in-1917 for a pilot?

 

It doesn't accord with any known statistic but I suspect that it may be an honest misunderstanding arising from the extrapolation of data. For example consider "Bloody April" and the horrific attrition rate of pilots and observers (200+ killed, 100+ PoWs). Then average that down a little with a back-of-beermat calculation for the other 11 months, perhaps blended with a misunderstanding of the strength of the 25 squadrons operational on the Western Front in April 1917. The figure could well produce a survival rate of 17 days, much in the way that an asteroid strike will only occur every couple of millions of years but it will wipe out billions of us and so would therefore produce a strikingly high probability of the average man on the street being killed by one instead of being run over by a double-decker bus or tripping over a dog lead etc.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Airshipped said:

 but what about the 17-days-in-1917 for a pilot?

 

It doesn't accord with any known statistic but I suspect that it may be an honest misunderstanding arising from the extrapolation of data. For example consider "Bloody April" and the horrific attrition rate of pilots and observers (200+ killed, 100+ PoWs). Then average that down a little with a back-of-beermat calculation for the other 11 months, perhaps blended with a misunderstanding of the strength of the 25 squadrons operational on the Western Front in April 1917. The figure could well produce a survival rate of 17 days, much in the way that an asteroid strike will only occur every couple of millions of years but it will wipe out billions of us and so would therefore produce a strikingly high probability of the average man on the street being killed by one instead of being run over by a double-decker bus or tripping over a dog lead etc.

 

Why would any professional researcher even start thinking there could possibly be an (average) 'life expectancy' in any single year. It implicitly has to assume 100% fatalities within the period otherwise the maths is impossible. A child could work this out. This is sub O Level mathematics (I am reliably informed is now called GCSE)

 

Regardless of any required knowledge of the Great War, it reveals a level of basic education (elementary mathematics: averages) among its programme makers that is so low it quite frankly is beyond belief.  My main interest is how this can happen. Where exactly do these people come from? How can someone write a script and make statements as ridiculous as this?  

[David Filsell]

I did not review Deaths Men, indeed I was not doing any reviews at the time. Whilst I am  sure modern research will have overtaken the book in some areas, it was considered ground breaking and important at the time. I choose my words with care but those who knew Winter have indicted to me that he was 'not the same man' who wrote the two earlier books when he savaged Haig. I have heard reasons put for this but do not know the truth of them. 

I hold no particular candle for  Winter and the unraveling of his analysis of Haig took some time, and a number of people, to be done. Certainly his views on Haig are  seriously flawed but despite views of his judgements, honesty, research and authorship I am not aware that he has ever sought to justify the work. Sadly, like the writing of Clarke, Laffin and other donkeyistas, Winter's views are on record and hard to dispel. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, David Filsell said:

I did not review Deaths Men, indeed I was not doing any reviews at the time. Whilst I am  sure modern research will have overtaken the book in some areas, it was considered ground breaking and important at the time. I choose my words with care but those who knew Winter have indicted to me that he was 'not the same man' who wrote the two earlier books when he savaged Haig. I have heard reasons put for this but do not know the truth of them. 

I hold no particular candle for  Winter and the unraveling of his analysis of Haig took some time, and a number of people, to be done. Certainly his views on Haig are  seriously flawed but despite views of his judgements, honesty, research and authorship I am not aware that he has ever sought to justify the work. Sadly, like the writing of Clarke, Laffin and other donkeyistas, Winter's views are on record and hard to dispel. 

 

I am finding it real slog. It is not an easy read. Two chapters in, lots of anecdotes clumsily cobbled together and not a single reference. Not footnotes or endnotes and lots of highly subjective interpretations of motives etc. A difficult read and not particularly enjoyable. I suspect I will abandon it at some stage.

[David Filsell]

Oh well, can't please everybody. Mind you I suspect that your approach to the book now might, for obvious reasons, have been less open than my own all those years ago.  I certainly do not recall the book as hard reading or particularly clumsy and cannot recall if it was referenced, footnoted or contained a bibliog. I can however confirm that Winter researched his  work extensively. We both used Wandsworth library which then contained a wonderful 'reserve'collection of Great War material in its book stacks from works withdrawn from libraries all over London after a decision was made to centralise collections in certain borough libraries by subject. I think there was some kind of bidding process. Libraries valued old books then. I have no idea if the collection survives today.

[Black Maria]

3 minutes ago, David Filsell said:

Oh well, can't please everybody. Mind you I suspect that your approach to the book now might, for obvious reasons, have been less open than my own all those years ago.  I certainly do not recall the book as hard reading or particularly clumsy and cannot recall if it was referenced, footnoted or contained a bibliog. I can however confirm that Winter researched his  work extensively. We both used Wandsworth library which then contained a wonderful 'reserve'collection of Great War material in its book stacks from works withdrawn from libraries all over London after a decision was made to centralise collections in certain borough libraries by subject. I think there was some kind of bidding process. Libraries valued old books then. I have no idea if the collection survives today.

If anyone , like me, is interested in Great War memoirs, then 'Death's Men' has an excellent bibliography .

[David Filsell]

Having been prompted  by your reply I have checked the first reprint (1979 - first edition 78). It does contain references - six pages, noting  "Works cited are only those specifically in the text or secondary works from which particular examples were taken." In total some 200 pr so works - memoirs, unpublished diaries, newspapers and periodicals, works on local history, statistical works, social history, the British Army,  and etc.

Whilst this broad brush approach to notes and refs would not be considered adequate now, it was very common around 40 years ago.

His approach to referencing "The First of the Few (1982) was rather similar.

Edited 3 September , 2016 by David Filsell

[Guest]

1 hour ago, David Filsell said:

Oh well, can't please everybody. Mind you I suspect that your approach to the book now might, for obvious reasons, have been less open than my own all those years ago.  I certainly do not recall the book as hard reading or particularly clumsy and cannot recall if it was referenced, footnoted or contained a bibliog. I can however confirm that Winter researched his  work extensively. We both used Wandsworth library which then contained a wonderful 'reserve'collection of Great War material in its book stacks from works withdrawn from libraries all over London after a decision was made to centralise collections in certain borough libraries by subject. I think there was some kind of bidding process. Libraries valued old books then. I have no idea if the collection survives today.

 

It is hard to form an opinion simply because of the lack of references in the body of the text. One has to believe everything (or not). Personally I want to see the references to follow the research trail. With Death's Men it is impossible (my kindle version at least does not have a single fact referenced to anythin in the first two chapters). I am determined to keep an open mind. I shall persevere as it claims to focus on Kitchener's men - a subject that is of great interest and one that has been extremely well covered by Simkins. MG

 

 

Edited 3 September , 2016 by Guest

[Terry_Reeves]

I quite agree with Moonraker, primary sources cannot be regarded as absolutely reliable, they are just a starting point. Nor should secondary sources be disregarded, they can often very useful because they put some time and space between "hot off the press" and cool analysis gathered  from post-war documents based on a variety of documents from individual and official documents.   

 

I would also point out that war diaries and regimental histories do not necessarily constitute two separate and independent sources of research as has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum. Regimental histories, particularly those produced in the inter-war period,  are often based on war diaries with some regimental comments thrown in.  

 

TR

Edited 3 September , 2016 by Terry_Reeves

[alex revell]

Leaving aside the esoteric and the  minutia, for the moment. For me, the problem is that having seen and heard the  numerous, quite glaring  errors in subjects of which I have some knowledge, it's hard to know the validity of those documentaries on a subject of which I have little or no knowledge.

Edited 5 September , 2016 by alex revell
formatting