The Western Front Association (WFA)

[glassblower]

a. I am a current member who joined 2019. Joined mainly for the pension records. I will remain if access to the pensions records is maintained as part of membership.

b. Previous membership in the 1990's but left after 5 years due to my own lack of interest.

c. Not applicable.

[Derek Black]

Well that's a quick turnaround 

 

[Muerrisch]

Cloth-eared re the Bulletin.

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, Heid the Ba said:

 

 

I suspect we are in danger of contravening Gareth’s third rule here.

 

Sorry.

 

With serious reference to Post 65, has any similar audit been taken since 2003? Is the memership as old or older? Is the male/femal split the same? Etc, etc. Presumably such information would be useful to inform any planning for the future. (If this has been discussed already in the thread I apologise, but I've not been following it with too analytical an eye)

[Cheshire22]

The latest Bulletin on page 38 Branch Principles. 
 

it basically reads you can use our Name but we don’t want anything to do with you.  
 

I wouldn’t have used the words in point 3 ‘a nightmare workload for the National treasurer.  
 

the treasurer and the accountant are people who have the right skills and qualifications to look after the books, therefore are qualified to do this type of work on a large scale.  
 

I would like to know what my annual £29.00 subscriptions are used for i.e. a breakdown of the costs for the bulletin, stand to and to run the WFA office etc.

Furthermore, they have a Chairman’s Conference every year but as the branches only use the name and the National entity has nothing to do with branches 

 

surly the branches can say we don’t need to send the chairman or a representative as we are clearly independent of the main as clearly you disown us from all legal and accounting responsibilities 

 

 

[Buelligan]

On 17/12/2019 at 09:16, Gareth Davies said:

 

Are you a WFA member? 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, your response to petwas, but if you really are seeking reasons why people don't join, this kind of (apparently) defensive reply, could be one of the answers you're seeking. 

 

For what it's worth, I'm female, very interested in the Western Front, put off by the cost of joining, lack of local meets (I live in France and work long unsociable hours) but the main bugbear, my Waterloo, was the Butte (which I note, you didn't list in your list of cons above, despite it being mentioned repeatedly).  Cards on the table, lack of transparency, (seemingly) not learning, not listening, these qualities are unattractive in themselves, most people are unwilling to pay to enjoy them. 

 

I hope you take my thoughts in the spirit in which they're being offered, which is comradely honesty and apologise in advance, I would genuinely hate to offend you or anyone else.

[The Scorer]

Can you answer some questions for me, please, Gareth? 

 

I see from the Bulletin that the "Governance Working Group" had a meeting on 9th December, and that a report will appear in the next Bulletin (issue 116).

1. I'm assuming that this Group is the one of which you're a member and as such have undertaken this exercise - am I right?

2. I think that the exercise is well worthwhile, and I'd thank you for it, but will the report include the results of this survey, or will it just be about the December meeting?

3. If it is the former, that's good, but if it's the latter, won't it be rather out of date by the time that it's published - April 2020?

 

Please understand that I'm not having a go at anyone (especially you!), I'd just like to know the situation.

 

Thanks. 

[Hedley Malloch]

11 minutes ago, Buelligan said:

For what it's worth, I'm female, very interested in the Western Front, put off by the cost of joining, lack of local meets (I live in France and work long unsociable hours) but the main bugbear, my Waterloo, was the Butte (which I note, you didn't list in your list of cons above, despite it being mentioned repeatedly).  Cards on the table, lack of transparency, (seemingly) not learning, not listening, these qualities are unattractive in themselves, most people are unwilling to pay to enjoy them. 

 

Quite.

[Hedley Malloch]

2 hours ago, Cheshire22 said:

The latest Bulletin on page 38 Branch Principles. 

Furthermore, they have a Chairman’s Conference every year but as the branches only use the name and the National entity has nothing to do with branches 

surly the branches can say we don’t need to send the chairman or a representative as we are clearly independent of the main as clearly you disown us from all legal and accounting responsibilities 

 One of the problems - and just one - is that the three parts of the WFA organisation (Honorary VPs, Trustees and Branches) have nothing to do with each other. Most (all?) of them are white, elderly, male, ex-Army Staff College, and probably Haig Revisionists. I have nothing against Haig Revisionism, but there are other perspectives and these should be represented. They are quite inward looking. I venture to suggest that the vast majority of WFA members had never heard of the last Honorary VP to be appointed.

But the biggest problem is declining membership. Unless this is addressed in the next five years or so, there won't be any other problems to worry about. A merger with the Gallipoli Association is probably - but the WFA will need them much more than the GA will need the WFA.

[Perth Digger]

Hedley

Do you mean other perspectives should be represented on the various boards? If so, I have no opinion one way or the other but wonder, if most of the positions appear to be voluntary, whether there is a long queue of potential applicants who may or may not be divided into Haig Revisionists and others. As long, that is, that all perspectives have an equal chance of being published in Stand To! and the Bulletin if such articles are submitted. I have no reason at all to suspect that they are not treated on their merits.

 

Happy Christmas.

 

Mike

[Hedley Malloch]

16 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

Hedley

Do you mean other perspectives should be represented on the various boards? If so, I have no opinion one way or the other but wonder, if most of the positions appear to be voluntary, whether there is a long queue of potential applicants who may or may not be divided into Haig Revisionists and others. As long, that is, that all perspectives have an equal chance of being published in Stand To! and the Bulletin if such articles are submitted. I have no reason at all to suspect that they are not treated on their merits.

 

Happy Christmas.

 

Mike

Honorary VPs don't apply - they are nominated by existing VPs. Unsurprisingly nominees tend to resemble those who nominate them. Haig revisionism is one perspective, but only one. How about a French, German or Belgian military historian? Or someone who can mix civilian and military views? Or a diplomatic and/or political historian? Perhaps a female or someone who is not white, anglo-saxon, male and over 65? This connects with the problem of declining membership: if we want new members, then we have to signal that we are open to new business and willing to accept change. This starts with a very clear, strong signal coming from the very top.

The same remarks apply to the composition of the Trustees. In theory there are elections, but no-one ever stands. So Trustees nominate their mates because they have no choice. Force change by co-opting people in from CWGC, Souvenir Français, IFWW. Anybody, really.

[Gareth Davies]

2 hours ago, Buelligan said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, your response to petwas, but if you really are seeking reasons why people don't join, this kind of (apparently) defensive reply, could be one of the answers you're seeking. 

 

For what it's worth, I'm female, very interested in the Western Front, put off by the cost of joining, lack of local meets (I live in France and work long unsociable hours) but the main bugbear, my Waterloo, was the Butte (which I note, you didn't list in your list of cons above, despite it being mentioned repeatedly).  Cards on the table, lack of transparency, (seemingly) not learning, not listening, these qualities are unattractive in themselves, most people are unwilling to pay to enjoy them. 

 

I hope you take my thoughts in the spirit in which they're being offered, which is comradely honesty and apologise in advance, I would genuinely hate to offend you or anyone else.

 

Defensive answer?  Quite the opposite. It's an accusatory/offensive answer. If he is a member he will have received details of the WGs. I am very happy to raise criticisms of the WFA - if you search the GWF and Twitter you will see that I have been very critical - but I am also critical of people who don't read information that is sent to them. There is no secret committee. 

 

[Buelligan]

3 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

Defensive answer?  Quite the opposite. It's an accusatory/offensive answer. If he is a member he will have received details of the WGs. I am very happy to raise criticisms of the WFA - if you search the GWF and Twitter you will see that I have been very critical - but I am also critical of people who don't read information that is sent to them. There is no secret committee. 

 

I don't want to argue with you or upset you, I hope I've made that abundantly clear and I'm certainly not implying anything about you or your position, how can I?  I have no idea of it.  I am just saying that your response does not come across as open, listening, transparent or interested in supplying a response to the questions petwas posed.  Again, as I said, I may be misinterpreting you.  I'm simply saying that's what it looks like to an outsider, which is, I hope, helpful.

 

You say that there's no secrecy and yet, only one page ago, you said "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."  So, I hope you can appreciate any confusion.  

 

Again, I reiterate, I really don't want to fight with you or upset you in any way over this or anything else.  Please bear in mind, you did ask people for their opinions and that decision is usually fraught with danger and disappointment in my experience.  I wish you a merry Christmas and I trust that you will forgive my impertinence in speaking about this subject which I clearly know little of.

 

 

[Gareth Davies]

Yes, you are massively misrepresenting me.

 

I want answers to my questions not conspiracy theories, and Petwas was to my mind creating the latter. On a point of fact I didn't say "that there's no secrecy". I said, in repose to Petwas's allegation, that there is no secret committee.  

[Buelligan]

2 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

Yes, you are massively misrepresenting me.

 

I want answers to my questions not conspiracy theories, and Petwas was to my mind creating the latter. On a point of fact I didn't say "that there's no secrecy". I said, in repose to Petwas's allegation, that there is no secret committee.  

 

Jolly good.  Please remember, misrepresenting is not the same thing as misinterpreting.

 

 

[Gareth Davies]

Thank you for the language lesson. I am well aware of the difference. You are misrepresenting me. 

[Muerrisch]

Gareth is doing his best with a tricky remit.

There is no suggestion that the result of the deliberations will be kept secret, rather that premature leaks are inappropriate.

WFA members or prospective members have a dog in the fight. Others not.

It might be best (and I have offended here) to stick to the terms of the OP.

Happy Christmas Gareth.

 

[Gareth Davies]

And to you Sir.

[Toby Brayley]

Over the past couple of weeks I have seen so much more WFA content on social media (Facebook). Some great talks and events from a variety of locations around the UK. 

 

At least two I hope to attend.  I have seen more in the 2 weeks than I have through 2014-2018.  Thank you. 

Edited 4 January , 2020 by Toby Brayley

[Toby Brayley]

Just a few from recent notifications. Looking really interesting. 

 

[chaz]

Im not a member, and dont do facebook, still to be convinced.

will the WFA be represented at Yate this month for the militaria fair? surely a good opportunity to promote in my area. that way could be an opportunity to question members on the future or try to enrol new ones.  

 

[charlie962]

Allied Occupation of Constantinople

Is the WFA widening it's remit to Other Theatres and incl post-war knock-on ? The narrowness of W Front was a factor that discouraged me from joining, prior to Pension Cards.

 

For me that would be a good thing; where there isn't a specific theatre Association there is a need to ensure that discussion and thus remembrance continues. Where there is such an association then collaborative initiatives would be great. I appreciate that the WF should dominate.

 

charlie

 

[Gareth Davies]

The Western Front Association has always included other theatres. It's very rare that I talk to WFA groups about the WF, I normally speak about Palestine. 

17 hours ago, chaz said:

 

will the WFA be represented at Yate this month for the militaria fair? 

 

 

Good question!

[healdav]

2 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

The Western Front Association has always included other theatres. It's very rare that I talk to WFA groups about the WF, I normally speak about Palestine. 

 

Good question!

You should have seen the letters when there was an article in Stand To about the Russian Front.

And equally, when there was an interview with a French dignitary, and he was sitting in front of the EU flag as well as the French flag (a legal requirement).

 

[Dragon]

Someone has told me that the calendar hasn't previously included a photo illustrating the German participation in the war. (I don't know whether that's true or not but he's seen more calendars than I have.)

 

My obviously erroneous perception that the WFA mainly only addressed the British sectors arose from somewhere and put me off taking an interest in the organisation.