Have the battlefields become too commercial?

[trenchwalker]

its just when i think when i first went to the battlefield of a lad of a 8.you could run free across newfoundland get pushed to the bottom of lochnager.(i have the pictures to prove it. But now you go to newfoundland now and its a one way system all the way round with the little student trying to take power out of the whole thing . they dont know a mills bomb from a boiled egg.

im sorry to sound like this.

but its true.

[Chris_Baker]

I know what you mean, trench, but I have to say I am not overly concerned.

Increased tourism has an inevitable effect in commercialisation, physical development and sanitisation of the the battlefields. In general, I think this has been handled well, and sensitively, at the 'hot spots'. And I don't think increased battlefield tourism is bad: if it means more people do not forget, then I'm happy.

But the Western Front was 400 miles long: the British at some point or other occupied 125 miles of it. The areas affected by most traffic are only - what, 30? - miles of that. There are still plenty of places to find quiet; places where the WW1 historian can find a very great deal of interest.

I believe we are living through a period of the Great War being fashionable. It is not only evidenced by the tremendous increase in battlefield tourists, but the number of books, videos, TV programmes, etc. I am willing to bet that it will not last. My guess is that in less than a decade popular historians and the like will have moved on somewhere else - and so will the tourists. And then even Newfoundland Park and Lochnagar crater might be back to the way they were not so long ago.

[Paul Reed]

If you feel like this Trenchwalker, why do you want to work as a battlefield guide?

[Tom Morgan]

its just when i think when i first went to the battlefield of a lad of a 8.you could run free across newfoundland get pushed to the bottom of lochnager.(i have the pictures to prove it. But now you go to newfoundland now and its a one way system all the way round with the little student trying to take power out of the whole thing . they dont know a mills bomb from a boiled egg.

but its true.

True it may be but there's no charge to visit Newfoundland Memorial Park or Lochnagar Crater, so there's no commercial motive, as you suggest in your topic title.

I think that what we are seeing at these two places is a necessary action to protect war memorials which are essentially just made of grass. There are tens of thousands of pairs of feet each year walking through these places, and they have to limit the potential damage. (They are also thinking, no doubt, of making sure that visitors don't hurt themselves. This is a really important consideration at Lochnagar.) The days when you could go where you like at Newfoundland Park, or scramble down the sides of the Lochnagar crater are gone, at least for the present. A little sad, but there is a reason for it and it's a good reason, I think.

[Hedley Malloch]

If you feel like this Trenchwalker, why do you want to work as a battlefield guide?

Perhaps this is a little unfair on Trenchwalker? I wouldn't confuse battlefield guiding with commercial exploitation of the battlefields. Most battlefield guides are not paid to do it; they do it for non commercial reasons such as wanting to share what they know; transmit their enthusiasm for the subject ... .

[Marco]

Most battlefield guides are not paid to do it; they do it for non commercial reasons

Communism is as good as dead Hendley. If I state that I think most people do it for a commercial reason (even if it’s only travel expenses, which means costless time ‘over there’) I can not prove it, but neither can your statement be proven. Interest is on the increase, people making money from it on the increase and if you don’t like it then avoid the ‘red zone’. This is not the one at Verdun, but the areas usually included in 3-4 day tours.

Regards,

Marco

[Dragon]

Hello Trenchwalker

I visit mainly Alsace and the Vosges partly for the some of the reasons you imply: overcrowding in some popular areas. It’s usually very easy to find peaceful, interesting sites where I can think and reflect alone; and the landscape is very beautiful in its own right. If you’re reasonably fit and active, it’s a wonderful, challenging area to visit with many undisturbed trench systems and remains of buildings once you know where to start looking, if that is what appeals to you.

When I was in the Somme a fortnight ago, I was saddened by the number of British registered vehicles which would pull up by fields or in sites of interest, disgorge a handful of youngish males (I’m sorry, but they were) carrying buckets, who then set off across the fields picking up shrapnel and materiel without even raising their eyes from the soil or apparently giving any respect to the events which had happened there. The men would then pile back into the car and head off somewhere else; we saw one bunch of them several times. I found this far more distressing than the occasional crowd management in place at some famous sites.

It is also quite intimidating, especially to a woman, to be walking thoughtfully in the lonely countryside and find herself surrounded by small groups of excited, hyper males intent on trawling the ground for whatever they can pick up, regardless of who is in the way and almost challenging her to say something critical of them. I realise I may be a naïve country girl, but personal safety isn’t an issue for me at any time walking alone in the large city near to where I live; I was depressed that I should feel vaguely threatened by battlefield tourists in this way.

Given the quantity of stuff they pick up, I believe they are going to sell it. That's a form of commercialism with which I am very uncomfortable.

Do try areas outside the Somme – they are worth the effort!

Gwyn

[Paul Reed]

Perhaps this is a little unfair on Trenchwalker? I wouldn't confuse battlefield guiding with commercial exploitation of the battlefields. Most battlefield guides are not paid to do it; they do it for non commercial reasons such as wanting to share what they know; transmit their enthusiasm for the subject ... .

I am not trying to be unfair at all - I am just curious as to why someone who publicly on this forum declared his interest to work as a paid battlefield guide in the commercial battlefield tour sector would make such a comment.

The second part of your statement is simply incorrect - except if you can redefine what you mean by "most" battlefield guides.

[CROONAERT]

its just when i think when i first went to the battlefield of a lad of a 8.you could run free across newfoundland get pushed to the bottom of lochnager

You still can ,Trench. (If you really want to!!!). Try visiting "off season". February/early March is good. The odd tour and school party may arrive, but generally you have the battlefields to yourself (I always did like the Newfoundland Memorial Park in the snow!).

Dave.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

From my experiences in the U.S. the current situation of the battlefields tells me they are in good hands. If left to their own divices people will alter them in any way that suits them. By controlling and maintaining the most popular areas this can be avoided.

At Fredericksburg, Va. the Federal government is in the provess of tearing down dozens of houses in order to restore the major battle area near the stone wall and sunken road. At another you need to get past J.C. Penny's parking area to see the monument of the fighting that tookplace on the mall property. At Gettysburg by Howard Ave. (11th Corps, 1st Day's fighting), you can almost picture the Confederate advance past the Ford F-150 pick up trucks and large neon sign at the car dealership.

I have been to the front twice, once before the major changes at Newfoundland park and once after. The area could easily be altrered and ruined if tourism is left to overrun the area. Now it can be appreciated for years.

As the others have said there were many areas we visited from the Somme to Flanders that see few visitors and until now have no fear of development. Then you have the Diggers in Belgium trying to save historic sites from the development of the area.

I say go with the flow and preserve as much as possible.

Ralph

[CROONAERT]

Try visiting "off season". February/early March is good. The odd tour and school party may arrive, but generally you have the battlefields to yourself (I always did like the Newfoundland Memorial Park in the snow!).

P.S. It's also cheaper to get there!!!!

Dave.

[Mark Hone]

Afraid to say that you might meet more than the odd school group in future, Dave. From admittedly anecdotal evidence, school tours in February seem to be on the increase. It's partly a matter of fitting them in to calendars already bursting with ski trips, sports and music tours etc.

[trenchwalker]

ok ok ok maybe commercial is the wrong word. but when i think how the battlefield have really changed over the years. Its just when you walk down a street in ypres and see choclate brodies for sale and so kit on a scooter trying to sell you cap badges you just have to think about it.

i do really want to be a tour guide as i just love the battlefield and the storys that goes behind every copse every hill.

so that my generation will not forget it when the last veteren finally passes away.

[Hedley Malloch]

Perhaps this is a little unfair on Trenchwalker?  I wouldn't confuse battlefield guiding with commercial exploitation of the battlefields.  Most battlefield guides are not paid to do it; they do it for non commercial reasons such as wanting to share what they know; transmit their enthusiasm for the subject ... .

I am not trying to be unfair at all - I am just curious as to why someone who publicly on this forum declared his interest to work as a paid battlefield guide in the commercial battlefield tour sector would make such a comment.

The second part of your statement is simply incorrect - except if you can redefine what you mean by "most" battlefield guides.

I cannot see the connection between trenchwalker's comments and his desire to be a battlefield guide - paid or unpaid.

A look round Tyne Cot or Beaumont Hamel on any summer day shows that the majority of people acting as battlefield guides are teachers, youth club leaders, those in charge of boy scout, sea scout and girl guide groups and others like them, such as the odd WFA member roped in by some group on an ad-hoc basis. Their jobs and pay packets do not depend upon them rendering this type of service. Furthermore, Marco, they would be shocked by the suggestion that in donating their services free they were in some sense 'communists'.

'Professionals', working for the big tour operators, or plying for hire round Albert or Ypres are, numerically, in the minority. I think my observation is far from being 'incorrect'

[Guest Pete Wood]

I must admit that I, like Paul, am a bit confused about the title of this thread, based on one of Trenchwalker's first statements on this forum.

But if I read the content correctly, then I believe that what Trench may (!!??) be suggesting, and which some have picked up on, is that the battlefields are now far busier that it once was - and some of the guides which are being used, to fulfil the needs of a larger audience, have been chosen because they are young and 'cheap' - rather than knowledgeable.

If I have misinterpreted and twisted your question, Trench, then please accept my apologies.

If the above is correct, then it appears to me that good, experienced battle guides are much in need.

Chris, I am confident that interest will NOT die down in the next decade. The time span you refer to takes us to 2013, which is going to be a massive event that will run until 2019, when the 80th anniversary of WW2 will take over. It will be fun to see how much extra interest is gained - which hopefully generates funds for the coffers of RBL, WFA, FoWM and other similar groups/organisations.

[Guest Pete Wood]

It seems that Trench and I were responding at the same time.

[Chris_Baker]

Teapots you are undoutedly right. Perhaps my "decade" should read "two decades". That's about the length of time I've been going over there, and seen the dramatic rise in activity. I'm convinced it will all move on again.

[Geoff Parker]

I agree with Chris. I've see how the collectors market has its fads. At the

moment Great War articles are very expensive, and if anything mentions

MGC you need to take out a second mortgage.

I think we're reaching the stage now where the number of veterans from

WW2 are becoming fewer every day and as they fade away the interest in

that period will come to the fore. Obviously 2014-2018 will see a massive

interest especially on the battlefields themselves. But having said that, how

will be media cover the centenary. There will be nothing to show thats not

already available and already be done to death in numerous other

documentaries. The Great War refought in computer graphics (definitely not

for me).

I think after the centenary interest in the Great War will deminish as far as the general public is concerned only the die hards will be left.

Geoff

[Hedley Malloch]

Whether or not the Front and WW1 have a future depends upon how it is marketed to a future generation. Why should we expect today's youngsters to remember soldiers who are as remote from them as those who fought in the Ashanti Wars were from us when we became interested in WW1 during the 60s and the 70s?

One way forward is to grasp the peace nettle. Few youngsters will sign up for memory for memory's sake. Why should they? But they will sign up for peace. They are idealistic and forward-looking; peace has a lot of appeal to them.

I was very impressed by the efforts of the VDK (?) the German equivalent of the the CWGC to promote their work to youngsters as a way of promoting peace. There's a pamphlet called 'Work for Peace' to be found in many of their cemetery register boxes. It has a very strong message for young people that war graves are a way of communicating a need for peace. Lots of evidence, too, of groups of young people engaged in cemetery and memorial maintenance. I can't see any of this active engagement of the young in, say, the CWGC's work.

[Tim Birch]

I think after the centenary interest in the Great War will deminish as far as the general public is concerned only the die hards will be left.

Geoff

I have been visiting the Western front now for 40 years. It used to be empty - there could be weeks, even months between the dates in the cemetery visitor's registers. The revival of interest has been steady but has accelerated during the last decade for the reasons discussed in another thread.

It is now history for all of us, and for the majoity of visitors there is no longer any direct link with those who fought. I knew my grandfather, but to-day's generation have never known a relative who fought in it. It is "ancient" history to them on a par with 1066 or Agincourt; something you read about in books. Yet the interest continous to grow. I believe the reason for this is the sheer futility of it all and the appalling loss of life. There is the tangible evidence of the thousands of regimented graves in the Silent Cities, no other early war has left such a legacy. If for this reason only, I believe that the interst will be sustained through future generations.

Many on seeing the cemeteries will be driven, as they are now, to learn more about the War either through reading or guided tours. I cannot see the interest waning any more than it has in South Africa where more and more people are visiting the sites of Zulu and Boer War battles which are now all over a hunderd years old. As a society we are becoming increasingly interested in historical events which took place in "foreign fields".

Tim

[Mark Hone]

There was an interesting, if occasionally inaccurate, article on this in 'The Times' on Friday 31st October. You can read the text at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly...-874703,00.html

[Peter Beckett]

Mark,

if its not breaking the rules is it possible to post the extract from the Times as I get this message when I tried the link "The area you wish to access is behind registration" and I dont want to cough up 5 quid to see it.

Peter

[Tim Birch]

Interesting article Mark.

I have noticed that the "interest revival" tends to concentrate more and more on the numbers who died. And there is also a tendancy to get the numbers wrong, many such reports confuse casualties with deaths.

The number of deaths was tragic and overwhelming, but so was the number of wounded and mentally scarred. These men where just as much victims of the war as the dead. Their numbers far exceeded the dead, and many went on to face a lifetime of misery, yet their memory is generally overlooked and forgotten by this revival of interest.

Tim

[Dragon]

Peter - keep trying. It eventually gets bored and gives up asking.

Gwyn

[burlington]

Oh dear, there are so many different threads to this topic.

I agree that there is too much commercialism to the WWI sites, driven more than anything I suspect by tour groups AND by the locations themselves. Where would Ieper be without WWI tourists/ Ditto the Somme or parts of it.

Also, and this really gets me going, is the practice of cafes/sites or whatever (no names no packdrill) giving backhanders to tour guides or coach drivers to take their clients to their particular site or museum or whatever. Poor punters are just the victims to this.

As for me, I spent some days walking on the Somme in September (to be repeated next May) and the only people I saw was a couple from Wales who were doing ditto.

I mislead you. I did see two coachloads of young people from the UK and, my, they were so well behaved AND respectful.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves- if we don't go and respect what happened and who died, who will?