May I please be controversial?

[burlington]

Can I please be controversial?

We have very few WW1 veterans left now. We need to honour them as veterans BUT the stories they tell are undoubtably influenced by age, much re-telling, and so on.

I think that if we are trying to get a 'handle' on what it was really like we should listen to the 'talking heads' from eg the BBC Great War series of 1966, and from any other similar programmes from all ages AND FROM ALL THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL, of which there must be a great deal..

This is not to say that we should not honour and venerate those who are still with us but time has passed them by and we need to seek other sources for our material.

Programmes on TV use the remaining veterans as back-up for what they are saying.

What brought this on? I am doing a bit on the father of a friend of mine. He said nothing at all to his family about the War and his part in it, and this in retrospect seems to have been a bit of a disservice.

Now anyone who is left can't stop talking about it-surely at the encouragement of the media.

And what about other nations? where is their archive? do we mention it? how do we find it?

I did warn you!

[John_Hartley]

Burlington

There are times when I'm happy to put my head above the parapet on a contraversial issue. This aint one them.

John

[Terry_Reeves]

I don't see that this as a contraversial issue at all. You are quite right to question how the press and TV use people of whatever generation to make a particular point. The use of the "silent" interview is a case in point in respect of TV. You don't hear the question actually put, but you are expected to follow follow the theme from the narrators comments. The statements are clipped in to reinforce the programme makers particular theme.

Oral history is a particular problem. Much depends on the skill of the questioner. Those being questioned can often give answers which they think may satisfy the interviewer. Individual points of view, whilst interesting, may not be factually be correct and indeed may have been corrupted by the passage of time or by other peoples writing on the subject.

Limited space and time, coupled with commercial considerations can often serve to mislead. That said, trying to give a balanced point of view is always likely to be difficult. satisfying everbody is an impossible task.

From a personal point of view; question everything and double check all sources.

Terry Reeves

[dycer]

I have to agree with you Burlington.

Documentary evidence from the War suggests that Soldiers were reluctant to talk about their experiences when on leave and indeed resented the civilians who had no comprehension of what they were seeing and enduring.

Similarly after the War they would not share this information other than with fellow comrades.My Mother growing up in the 20/30s was always told by my Grandmother to avoid going near the Ex-Servicemen's Club which she now realises is where the men went for a relaxing drink and a game of snooker with comrades who had shared their experiences.

It is fair to say Families shared their loved-ones experiences.I know of a World War 2 veteran who knocked his wife's teeth out reliving a battle experience during a bad dream.

Probably with the passage of time veterans have become more talkative for the reasons you suggest but equally I am sure there is much buried still in their minds which they would not wish to share or indeed has been erased naturally and possibly thankfully over the years.

George

[Simon R]

Isn't this just a question about the critical appreciation of historic sources?

We might consider Fussell's arguments regarding diary and memoir in this instance.

[Tim Birch]

Interesting point. A couple of years ago I had the privilege to meet a Veteran of 104 on a social basis, and who has now sadly passed on. He was fascinating to talk to but he did become somewhat confused when he spoke, and I did gain the impression that some of his reminiscing was a little embelished, and some seemed to be a result of ideas which had been suggested to him by "researchers" who had been pestering him for interviews.

Bearing in mind that his war experiences only accounted for a few months in over a century of events in his lifetime it would be surprising if his recollection of everything was chrystal clear.

You have only got to listen to the statements of witnesses to an accident or crime to see how their recollection of events will vary between their first description and events they later recount. All of us do this. The human brain is generallly a poor recorder of events. Just try looking at your holiday snaps after a few months or years and see how they differ from how you remember what you saw!

So yes, I agree that any recollection of events which took place 80+ years ago needs to be treated with a degree of caution. However what are often well remembered are the emotions and feelings which were experienced by that person. Being scared, terrified, sad or disappointed are emotions we do remember, but what we tend to get confused by is remembering the actual events which triggered these emotions, particularly when we have had a lifetime of being told the "full picture" by the press, books, historians and even others who might have been involved in the action but in a different part of the battlefield.

Tim

[burlington]

An addendum to this- but from WW2

The mother of my ex-sister in law was a Land Army girl. Every so often she reminisces but as she is getting older what she says becomes more of a ramble.

If we knew what we know now, and were as aware of archive as we are now, she would have been recorded before her memories go.

Too late I'm afraid but it is a lesson for the future. A lot has been lost.

On families, my wife's uncle in the RAF was killed in 1944. None of the family, especially her father, ever talked about what happened. It took a friend to find his CWGC grave and citation in 2001. Even now, the grave has not been visited.

As one who does not know his blood family I find all this very sad.

[john w.]

This is not new.. if you get a chance to see Forgotten Men you will understand what I mean. It backs up what has been said in this thread, that programme makers show what they want to have in their programmes.

Those featured in the programme were able to answer the questions clearly and to the point. But they were not allowed to go any further than the content of the question. This programme was produced in 1934.

Nevertheless like all programmes.. and right now I am taping the UK History programmes on the Great War, they cannot be dismissed.

Unfortunately I have no idea where to find other sources of information, I just use what I need for whatever I am researching.

John

[salientpoints]

There was an interview with Henry Allingham (107) in Mail 8th Nov. He was invited to attend in the Cenotaph Ceremony on Rememberance Sunday - he was one of the vets in the vintage car.

To quote:

"...I'll be thinking of those blokes I knew who burned...I don't like this business of resurrecting the past. I hope after Sunday, that will be that and I can forget it. There's good things to remember - the camaraderie of knowing you can depend on your mate. But not the other stuff..."

Ryan

[mordac]

Bearing in mind that his war experiences only accounted for a few months in over a century of events in his lifetime it would be surprising if his recollection of everything was chrystal clear.

You have only got to listen to the statements of witnesses to an accident or crime to see how their recollection of events will vary between their first description and events they later recount. All of us do this. The human brain is generallly a poor recorder of events. Just try looking at your holiday snaps after a few months or years and see how they differ from how you remember what you saw!

Tim's point on the recollection of events as time passes is bang on. However, I've read of Great War veterans who after smelling a particular odour will remember with clarity their time in the trenches. There seems to be a number of odours that would trigger these memories: unwashed bodies, bully beef, blood, and of course death.

I think odours act as a memory cue for all of us. When I smell cloves, I can close my eyes and clearly picture having an Easter baked ham supper at my grandmother's house.

Garth

[hmsk212]

My own experience in this type of thing stems from talking to crew from the Corvette in which my late grandfather served in during WW2. I am trying to write a book on the subject and after arranging several reunions for the shipmates a trend started to appear in their stories. Quite a few started to remember actions which, diplomatically, I couldn't point out to them, they were not even aboard for. As the reunions progressed and the fire water flowed memories of the hun coming out of the sun abounded. These where later taken up as memories by others not involved, they couldn't have been as they had yet to be posted to the corvette. One of the crew quite clearly remembers Arctic Convoys and sinking a U-Boat but he didn't join the Corvette until a year after the events. This is not to say the crew were deliberately lying but just that if Fred said he saw it and I served with him then I must have seen it as well. Memories are a very strange thing and people genuinely start to believe these false impressions. I now will not take a fact on face value until it is corroborated by at least 2 other crewmen and even then I try to locate official sources to help confirm it. Still, I would take nothing away from all of these great men and I cannot admire them enough for what they have done for this country of ours.

Steve

[182 CEF]

With my Historical Society we are fortunate to have a couple of Members of CSIS on board, also a memeber of Military Intell. When we find someone that has info that may further our efforts we send one of these guys out to "question" them. Some people have been asked qusetions before about Camp X, however using the people we have does get more info. HOWEVER You still gotta ask the right questions, and alought some of my friends are better at getting info out of people they can and do miss a lot of info. Most of this is due to them never having been in the Military so they see things in a differant way than a Military man would. I have asked that certian question be asked, our man didn't understand why I wanted these answered and I wouldn't tell him. Once he got the answers he understood.

Yes time does cloud memories. I have been told things by Vets that I know to be wrong, HOWEVER ( my favorite word) I NEVER correct them, I ask if they are teasing me or pulling my leg. On more than one occasion apon refelction a Vet. has thought about it and corrected himself.

Remember we all do try to put many bad happenings in the back of our minds, Sometimes it is very hard for these men to remember the hard stuff, but many will, if they see you really care and want to learn.

Dean Owen

Whitby Ontario

[Mark Hone]

The reliability of oral evidence is a problem for e.g. the police when interviewing eye witnesses five minutes after an event, let alone eighty years later. There are all sorts of problems connected with the phenomenon of 'schema' whereby witnesses alter their recollections of events to fit their existing knowledge, expectations of what they believe should have occurred or suggestions by the interviewer. Interestingly the pioneer work on this was done during the First World War by Cambridge psychology lecturer Sir Frederic Bartlett. His most famous experiment involved forcing unsuspecting undergraduates (often people Bartlett met cycling along the road) to read a Native American folk story 'The War of The Ghosts' and then getting them to retell it in their own words at various intervals of time afterwards. He discovered that the students remembered certain features of the story well, but altered or ignored other points to fit in with their 20th Century European outlook. Bartlett's work has had a profound influence on our understanding of memory, with applications in e.g the development of artificial intelligence. An interesting recent offshoot has been work on so-called 'false memory syndrome'. Researchers have discovered that it is relatively simple to convince people that they have had experiences that are clearly untrue. The most famous example is the ability of researchers, using simple techniques of suggestion, to convince a majority of people who have visited Walt Disney World in Florida that they met Bugs Bunny there. This is palpably not the case, as Bugs Bunny is not a Walt Disney character and is not featured at the theme park, but many people will adamantly swear to the fact that they encountered the carrot-munching coney there. There is no implication that these people are deluded or stupid, merely that the human memory is very fallible. The same applies to war veterans and anyone else for that matter who 'adjusts' their experiences through the filter of the mind.

A recent Radio 4 documentary covered all this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/mindchangers3.shtml

[munce]

Apart from the problems of memory, there's also a phenomenon called the Hawthorn Effect, which is that when people are interviewed (for whatever reason), they have a strong tendency to tell the interviewer what they think the interviewer wants to hear. Researching in education, as I do at the moment, one has to be very careful to get 'triangulation' of sources confirming each other, and never rely solely on data from interviews.

[john w.]

Studies at the Open University also showed that when people watched the TV news for example and were then asked to write up their account of a particular event, lo and behold the news report or seires of reports figured heavily in the replies.

We are influenced often by what we see on the news etc, rather than our own experiences as they can be limited

John