The Western Front Association (WFA)

[The Scorer]

I have a lot of agreement with Meurrisch and others about the need for "The Bulletin" and "Stand To!", and I think that there is scope for amalgamating them into one publication.

 

I'd keep most of the from each current publication, but they wouldn't all be included in every issue, only where appropriate - see below:

 

"The Bulletin" 

ExCo Matters (where appropriate)

Event Reports (where appropriate)

News from Ypres

Education Matters (where appropriate)

Annual General Meeting information (where appropriate)

Branch Meetings and Contacts

Branch Lines (I understand Steven's point about this, but I think that it could be retained but maybe a little shorter?) 

Communication Lines 

 

"Stand To!

Communication Lines

The Camera Returns

Garrison Library

 

and then add a number of articles about particular aspects of the War as they are contained in both publications at present. However, could they maybe made them a little easier to read for those of us who glaze over when we see lots of charts and statistics, please?

 

A quarterly magazine along these lines would, I think, be very good. 

 

Finally, I'd also support the idea of it being available on line if required. I'm a member of a number of national organisations who offer this, and it's very worthwhile.

 

Just some thoughts …. if anyone has any questions, please let me know. 

[Ron Clifton]

As regards the magazines, the theory - and for many years the practice - was that STAND TO! is about the war, and the Bulletin is about the activities of the association. The timing of the publications also reflects the need to include the accounts and notice of the AGM, and to allow fairly timely reporting of such events as the Armistice commemorations and such matters as centenary observances.

 

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Yes Ron, but "timely" at the moment is thrice per annum, whereas a merged edition would be more timely as quarterly.

[Ron Clifton]

Thrice per annum each, so one every two months, which is more frequent than quarterly would be.

 

Ron the pedant.

[Muerrisch]

The timing of the publications also reflects the need to include the accounts and notice of the AGM, and to allow fairly timely reporting of such events

 

Yes Ron, but surely the Bulletin alone carries the items that you list?

[Chris_Baker]

Answering the original questions A and B.

 

A: I joined the Association in (I think) 1990 and remained a member for 28 years. For part of that period I was active at local and national level. What did I like and why did I stay?
(i) I found that ST! gave me high quality information that I would not have found or even looked for elsewhere.
(ii) I enjoyed the branch community. Good comradeship; some good talks (and some bad); some trips to France and elsewhere.
(iii) The annual seminar at Abergavenny. A genuine "must not miss", for me. I regretted its passing and still do.
(Iv) I quite liked being associated with something that at the time could rightly say that it was the prestige organisation with an interest in the subject.

B: I left last year. But I had come close to it for at least a decade before that. It was only inertia that spun it out. Why?
(i) I began to find that ST! was becoming much less useful to me and it reached the point where I at best skim-read certain articles. I can only assign this to the increasing availability and timeliness of information elsewhere, as the publication itself remained good. The Bulletin I never found to be of great value, particularly once information about meetings etc became available via the internet.
(ii) I do not need to be an Association member to continue to attend my local branch. Together with (i) this made me begin to question value for money, although it is not terribly out of kilter with other membership fees.
(iii) Passage of time. Many of the people that I knew locally and nationally left or passed away and I felt my own loyalties of network and community had shifted elsewhere.

(iv) Certain policies and approaches adopted by the Association did not sit well with me. The Affaire de la Butte was the final straw.
(v) My perception of the prestige and position of the Association changed, particularly during the centenary years when it appeared to me to be as good as invisible.

 

I have often pondered the Association's future and am not at all sure where it might go. The world has greatly changed since its formation and the original raison d'etre. I wish you and it luck in coming to conclusions that prove to be successful.

[Gareth Davies]

Thanks Chris (and all the others).

[charlie962]

a.  Are you a WFA member. If so what encouraged you to join?              What encourages you to stay?

          Yes.            Pension records and all those back issues of ST.        Pension records and all those back issues of ST

 

 

b.  Have you previously been a member of the WFA? If so, why did you leave?  n/a

c.  If you have heard of the WFA but haven't joined, despite your very clear interest in the Great War, why haven't you joined ?  n/a

[Fattyowls]

On 10/12/2019 at 19:44, Gareth Davies said:

a.  Are you a WFA member. If so what encouraged you to join? What encourages you to stay?

b.  Have you previously been a member of the WFA? If so, why did you leave?

c.  If you have heard of the WFA but haven't joined, despite your very clear interest in the Great War, why haven't you joined.

 

a) No

b) No

c) I have always had the sense that the WFA is purely interested in the British and Commonwealth involvement in France and Belgium. My interests are wider, and anecdotal information has given me the impression that some WFA members have a very skewed and narrow view of even the Western Front. Like HtB I have a sense that my interests are not compatible with those of the Association. I've also been aware of the controversies that have emerged here on the forum and found that a negative.

 

That said I have attended monthly meetings of my local branch to hear interesting speakers and found a warm welcome each time. Unfortunately the location means the journey is just slightly too long for me to pop in, and I don't regularly find out who future speakers are, so I've not been for a while.

 

Pete.

[Gareth Davies]

Thank you all for your comments which I have sent off to the WFA working group. Thus this thread is probably finished but just on the off chance that there might be something earth shattering that one of you wants to put forward I will leave it open for another week. My summary of your comments was (* means mentioned more than once):

 

Likes:

• Stand To! (and archives) *
• Branch programme
• Access to pension records *
• You Tube channel
• Suffolk Branch – talks and social media presence
• Branch near Stockton on Tees has good programme

 

Dislikes:

• Too much Somme/Flanders
• Limited membership concessions
• The WFA is not raising the right sort of awareness/Very poor involvement in the 14-18 centenary *
• Lack of interest in the membership from the EC*
• Get much more info from the GWF
• Age profile
• Lack of response from Chair
• Absence in 14 – 18
• Lack of value for what a member gets
• Lack of info on the WFA and what it does available to the wider public
• The majority of battlefield tour attendees have never heard of the WFA
• Not sure what the national WFA adds other than the magazines & conference*
• Bulletin (no editorial policy, what is its purpose?, why isn’t it a digital product?)*
• Lack of connection between national WFA and branches *
• WFA needs a better social media presence*

[keithmroberts]

I would only suggest that "Dislikes" might be replaced by "Concerns".  In the end we all want the WFA to continue and be a success, so semantics can be important despite all the ill will that flowed not so long ago.

 

Keith

[johntanner]

Been away for a few days so only just picked this up. Joined c 1983 and have remained a member, although perhaps more out of a sense of inertia. Set up and chaired a branch, have given and occasionally still give talks to branches.  Observe that I was at the very left hand end of the demographic when I joined, before going to university. Feels that I’m still there. To attract new members an organisation needs a USP. It’s probably the pension record cards now. Agree with the thoughts on publications.

[Muerrisch]

All the above are serious and sensible pluses and minuses.

 

Please please promote the suggestions that the Bulletin could be merged with ST! ......................

[Gareth Davies]

I will try. Up to now most of my suggestions have been rejected. But I am sworn to secrecy on what has been decided, you will have to wait for a missive from the EC.

[Ron Clifton]

Gareth

 

You and your colleagues may be interested in the following, which appeared in the Bulletin in late 2003.:

 

Report by the Historical Information Officer: WFA Membership Survey 2003

A total of 1,951 responses were received up to 14 September: 657 from UK branches, 134 from overseas branches (almost all from USA) and 1,160 via the Bulletin. This represents about one-third of our membership, which is a good result and in line with my rather optimistic expectations, although I had hoped for a better response from Branches.

The results are as follows. They do not contain any real surprises but at least the Committee now has confirmation of the basic profile of our membership, which will greatly assist us in future planning.

Our membership is 87% male, 13% female. The percentage of ladies is slightly higher among those who attend branch meetings regularly (85 to 15).

Only 7% of our membership is under 40, and 51% are 60 or over. The pattern for those attending branches is slightly older still. There is good scope here for members to recruit their children! They may not be able to attend meetings as regularly but "passing on the torch" is important to our task of REMEMBERING.

12% of our members joined in 1980-1984, and 52% have joined since 1994. 12% of those attending branches more or less regularly are not WFA members.

43% of members never, or almost never, attend branch meetings. Some of these gave ill-health or work commitments as the reason, others the distance which they would have to travel. There are some identifiable areas where a new branch might be established, or where an existing branch might meet in more than one venue (I noted particularly Sheffield and the Isle of Wight in this respect). 17% attended a branch one to three times a year, 11% four to six times, 10% seven to nine times and 19% ten or more times. Of course, not all branches meet every month, even in the UK.

Research into family members and strategy and tactics represented the most popular main interests at 24% each. Research on a particular unit was the main interest in 15% of cases, many, but not all, of these involving a regiment local to the members' areas. One-third of members indicated no single main interest. Among interests listed under "other", the most popular were battlefield and memorial visits and the stories of individual soldiers' experiences.

Among other theatres, Gallipoli easily led the field, with some 63% of members including it, often as the only non-Western Front theatre. Egypt/Palestine interested 24% and Italy 23%, with even the African theatre holding interest for 14% of members. Only 15% of members showed no interest in any theatre other than France and Flanders.

65% of members have access to the Internet at home, a further 7% having access through work, school or elsewhere. 58% have an E-mail facility at home, a further 6% having access through work, school or elsewhere. These proportions are slightly higher among those who do not regularly attend branch meetings than among those who do.

Ronald Clifton
14 September 2003
 

The proportion of members with access to the Internet and e-mail will undoubtedly have increased, but I see no reason why any other results would be very different if another survey were to be taken today.

 

Ron

[Perth Digger]

Just had an email from the WFA to say that they have digitised Alf Peacock's 55 volumes of Gun Fire and that it is now available to members.

 

Mike

[Hedley Malloch]

Sorry for lack of response due to time pressures elsewhere: Here is my contribution.

 

1. There is a steady decline in membership, about 200 a year for the past 4 years or so. WFA is a high fixed cost organisation and loss of members will expose its financial weaknesses eg it only has £9 of assets per member cf Gallipoli Association which has £110 or so. Declining membership has to be addressed and not accepted as a fact of demographic life, or in the WFA's case, death. Cutting the services provided to members, such as 'rationalising' the number of publications will buy time, but it will not solve the problem. Think about it as starting the water-pumps on the Titanic. We need more members - where can we find these?

2. To signal that we are open to new members we need to do a number of things. In no particular order, these are: (1) Diversify the membership of the Honorary Vice-Presidents to include some women and non-anglo saxons: Annette Becker, Margaret MacMillan, Isabel Hull, Philippe Nivet are names which come to mind. At a push, I would even take Dan Snow. Their collective message might be that there was more to the Western Front than the German and the British slogging it out in Flanders Fields. A lot more. (2) Open up membership of the Trustees. I have been a member of the WFA for 30 years and I cannot recall a single contested election - so where are new ideas to come from? Clearly not from the membership. Change the WFA constitution to give kindred external organisations a place at the Trustees' meetings. These could include: the CWGC, British Legion, First World War Studies, Souvenir Français ... . There are many others. This would import some new ideas and help with (3) Build links with other organisations eg in tourism and education - I could expand on this, but I don't have the time or space

3. The Honorary Vice-Presidents, the Trustees and the Members operate in separate worlds, whose orbits occasionally collide as in the case of BdW. The VPs and the Trustees need to be more involved in what is happening in the Branches. Sponsoring the restoration of local war memorials might be one way. The Trustees' policy is not to do this, but they do when it suits their book. Pick three memorials a year that need renewal and work through the branches to restore them. Some branches desperately need a bit of money. Ask branches to put forward development projects and give some seed-corn money to the best ones. And save some for the worst proposals, because they will come from the branches that need it most.

 

Elsewhere, I am not optimistic that the WFA will actually do anything about the pressing strategic problems it is facing. i do not detect any motivation to change. The BdW should have been a wake-up call, but it was not. I cannot recall a single letter in either ST or the Bulletin about this sell-off, which means that either there were no letters written by the members, or that they were filtered out. There was no discussion board on the WFA site. Instead, all internet comments went through someone's FB page or Twitter account. The abiding impression is that the WFA's policy was to bat the BdW away into the long grass in the hope that it would crawl away and die. Which it has done. But not the problems which produced it.

 

I appreciate that much of this will be deeply unpopular, but what else are we going to do?. Nothing remains an option - survival is optional, not compulsory.

 

[Muerrisch]

Quite the contrary ...... I suspect that the above will be well received here on the GWF.

 

Correspondents' views are not necessarily the same as they were back in the day. I once counted myself a WFA loyalist, now I am a reactionary.

 

The one shining light has been the standard of ST! ................. without it I would be long gone. The anniversary editions of ST! reflected great credit on the editor and the contributors. Beyond that I see the WFA as moribund, and the BdW farce as an early death-throe.

 

In these matters nothing is for ever. I suspect that the age profile now is even older than Ron's research of yore. With that comes a disinclination to take the trouble to research and write up fresh articles. 

 

And if I see one more photograph of sartorially challenged misshapen beardies clustered round a blasted heath [in glorious technicolour now, so obviously better] I shall probably scream, falling to a whimper.

 

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

Edited 16 December , 2019 by Muerrisch

[zippy.72]

On 10/12/2019 at 19:44, Gareth Davies said:

Dear All

 

I am part of the Working Group that is looking at the future of the WFA. Quite a lot has been said about the WFA on the forum but I am not sure anyone has surveyed the wider GWF for a comprehensive set of views so I am going to give it a go.  First, a few rules.

1.  If you want to libel someone, please go elsewhere. In fact please keep individual names out of this.  

2.  If you want to say something was/is bad, please tell me why and what should be being done instead, and please add what you have done to try and change things.  

3.  If you have nothing to say on the subject but want to show how wonderfully clever you are, as with Rule 1 please go elsewhere. 

 

What I would like to know please is:

 

a.  Are you a WFA member. If so what encouraged you to join? What encourages you to stay?

b.  Have you previously been a member of the WFA? If so, why did you leave?

c.  If you have heard of the WFA but haven't joined, despite your very clear interest in the Great War, why haven't you joined.

 

a. I was and recently re-joined after a 3 year gap

b. The amount of money that was being spent on the website/being paid to ex-committee members to store papers on their property

c. N/A

 

 

[Muerrisch]

other than write literally dozens of articles [all published], ask the WFA to consider merging the Bulletin with ST!, and pay my subs since issue 6, I confess to have done nothing.

Others have possibly done less.

[keithmroberts]

One thing that is clear I think. It is far too late for another WFA forum. We are however able to ahve these discussions here, and obviously they are open to all GWF members including those who are former or present Trustees, so I doubt there is a need. I'm not a GWF Mod any more, but I feel confident that this and related discussions will be permitted with minimum restriction, some courtesy, and  a lack of personal abuse. With the Butte issue resolved, I hope that the current Trustees will welcome threads like this.  We'll never all agree about everything, and on behalf of our members the Trustees have presumably signed contacts  for some services. They might inhibit rapid changes, and we are still dealing with friends who are volunteers.

Apart from the flack, the saving of the Medal Index Cards, and now the Pension Records are real achievements, together with the contract that makes them available without charge to WFA members. ST has some excellent articles, I'm guilty of not paying enough attention, and the editor of the Bulletin is I'm sure working very positively to his brief.I agree that times have moved on, and that there really does need to be a fresh approach to our publications. But some of the boring background jobs that have been done really must be appreciated  - the digitisation of back numbers of ST, and today's announcement of the digitisation of Gun Fire show that changes are happening in at least some positive directions.

[petwes]

Gareth

I'm sorry if I've missed this in a fairly long thread:

What are your answers to the question you posed?

Also I'm a bit concerned about the the membership of the WFA working group you are speaking for; who are they and how were they elected?

You stated earlier you are all sworn to secrecy... hmm..

After your previous comments regarding the BDW  surely a secret committee is the last thing the WFA needs!

 

Peter 

[stiletto_33853]

A: Joined sometime in the mid 90's. Left as I spent most of my time working overseas and was not receiving ST or any benefit.

 

B: Rejoined once I became solely UK based. Left once again due to certain policies. The Butte affair was the final straw.

 

Likes

ST although after returning home from periods overseas and reading through them they are too Somme and Ypres based and only briefly skimmed through them.

Friendship at local branch level, which I do not need membership to enjoy.

You-Tube lectures, although I do not have to be a member to view them.

 

Dislikes

Now finding the ST is becoming bland when there are so many subjects to cover. Some of the most interesting articles have been provided by this forums members.

Lack of presence in this modern age.

Lack of anything significant in the centenary years, hardly promoting the WFA. 

Actions over the Butte which left a foul taste in my mouth.

In the stone age with present day communications and availability of more pertinent information. I wish the WFA well but it does need to be more active in todays world and modernise which is maybe beyond them.

Bulletin which should be amalgamated into the ST and shortened, or, preferably sent by electronic mail.

 

Would I rejoin, possible but it would need to prove to be more open and progressive.

 

Andy

Edited 16 December , 2019 by stiletto_33853

[Kate Wills]

 

a.  Are you a WFA member. If so what encouraged you to join? What encourages you to stay?

First joined in the mid 1980s, thanks to a chance conversation when fielding a enquiry at work as a news librarian. The enquirer was a Great War researcher, and recommended enhancing my own enthusiam by joining. I hadn't heard of the Western Front Association, and despite efforts made, its existence still appears to be a closely guarded secret. Sadly I let my membership lapse due to being busy (pity, I must have had quite a low membership number) and rejoined on the formation of our local branch. I'm still very activley involved, and enjoy the meetings, local events and friendships very much. The WFA appeals to a wide audience with its combination of scholarship, branch meetings and remembrance. The push for the restoration of the two minute silnce on 11th November was a huge achievement for the Association.

 

b.  Have you previously been a member of the WFA? If so, why did you leave?

Lack of a local branch, moving house and there not being enough hours in the day led to a lapse. It has already been noted that WFA members tend to be, let's say, well matured. I don't think the WFA should worry unduly about this, as I think many organisations tend to attract people in their middle years because by then life has usually developed a fixed pattern. Youngsters often have a busy social life, plus careers, house moves, kids and much else to fill their days and nights.

 

 

c.  If you have heard of the WFA but haven't joined, despite your very clear interest in the Great War, why haven't you joined.

This question should not need to be asked, and is central to why the WFA has not prospered during the centenary. My bugbear has always been the very name 'Western Front Association'.

 

Western Front - Despite the laudable mission statement of remembering the the participants of all combattant nations, John Giles insistence that the war was won on the Western Front effectively excudes so many and so much that should be included (navy, other fronts, home fronts, non-British theatres of war etc etc). This is particularly important in these days of googling. Who searches for 'Western Front Association' if they haven't heard of it already?

 

Association - fine.

 

To echo previous replies, I too would like to see The Bulletin bundled into Stand To! and be available digitally, and thereby easily searchable. Indeed, I would like the option of a digital membership at a much-reduced price. That may well provide the increase in membership that has eluded us so far.

[Gareth Davies]

11 hours ago, petwes said:

Gareth

I'm sorry if I've missed this in a fairly long thread:

What are your answers to the question you posed?

Also I'm a bit concerned about the the membership of the WFA working group you are speaking for; who are they and how were they elected?

You stated earlier you are all sworn to secrecy... hmm..

After your previous comments regarding the BDW  surely a secret committee is the last thing the WFA needs!

 

Peter 

 

Are you a WFA member?