Forgotten Voices of the Somme (not yet released)

[4thGordons]

In today's Observer, to be released in October by Ebury Press

[David Filsell]

I'm beginning to think that I never want to read another book with forgotten voice in the title. If they're forgotten how come so many of them keep being found?

[4thGordons]

I'm beginning to think that I never want to read another book with forgotten voice in the title. If they're forgotten how come so many of them keep being found?

Presumably because they are "forgotten but not gone"?

but I do know what you mean....

[Steven Broomfield]

If it's as good as Forgotten Voices of the Great War by Max Arthur, then I'll avoid it.

A cut and paste job with no context and little apparent understanding of the subject matter.

[keithmroberts]

I totally agree with Steven.

I suspect from the hype that it will be just as (un)interesting as the other forgotten voices. if it was any good they wouldn't need to sell it by pushing the sex angle. I have better uses for my money.

Keith

[David Filsell]

It seems to me that trawling the IWM archives - which seems to be the source of all these forgotten voices - is too easy a way to 'write' a book. In journalistic terms they are truly paste and scissors work, long and detailed perhaps but, but. The only man who really takes this to another level, in my opinion, is Peter Hart, who takes the source material, adds to it and analyses it. If you want to see how forgotten lives can be brought to life, without even using the term, try Bloody April or Aces Falling. As for the rest, I just havn't got room on my shelves or memory bank. Before someone clouts me round the ears, let me underline that these comments are in no way meant as a slur on thsoe who participated in the conflict and who recorded their experiences.

[Steven Broomfield]

I have to confess that I was given the 'original' Forgotten Voices book (now, there's an oxymoron) for a birthday a few years ago.

It has the maudlin distinction of being one of only two GW books I disposed of to a second hand book shop. I even kept P Warner's Battle of Loos book, so it shows what i thought.

[Michelle Young]

And what was the other one Steve? I got rid of Forgotten Voices and War Walk by Nigel Jones.

Michelle

[paulgranger]

if it's books we got rid of we are discussing "To The Last Man" by Jeff Shaara was mine. A dreadful novel, the first part of which was supposed to be about the British Army in 1915, but not the one I recognised. The rest of the book might have been OK, but I was so put off by the opening chapters, I didn't bother. I did keep Philip Warner's book on Loos, though!

[Steven Broomfield]

And what was the other one Steve?

Michelle

PM sent. The author recently passed away and I don't want to be thought to speak ill; it was just a book I didn't get on with.

[PMHart]

People would think you're having a laff!

Pete

[Nigel Marshall]

Hi,

I have had Forgotten Voices of the Great War in book form and on CD for a number of years now. I have to say that I have enjoyed both, however the audio version gets more use than the book. I realise that as a record of the war it is of little use and that the segments quoted are in no particular order, but if it is peddled to the mass market and some of it sparks an interest that makes a person want to look deeper into some aspect of the Great War then surely it can't be all bad?

For me, hearing VC recipients describing their exploits is fascinating, and although I have no more than a cursory interest in the RND through one of my War Memorial men, the voice of Richard Tobin is mesmerising.

As for Forgotten Voices of the Somme, I probably wouldn't rush out and buy it but nor would I be too upset if appeared at Chrstmas.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Chris_Baker]

As David says, its a pretty easy furrow to plough.* Must be money in it, though.

* I wonder if you played the recordings through some voice recognition software, you could actually totally automate the production of a book. I can see it now: "Forgotten voices of Mesopotamia", by CP3O, ed. Robert the Robot.

[Steven Broomfield]

People would think you're having a laff!

Pete

But they'd be wrong.

[pmaasz]

I have researched in some detail one of the stories quoted by a WW1 veteran in one of these so-called 'personal memories' type books, and have concluded that most of the events 'recalled' were false and were pure invention. Either that or the story was a confused amalgam of many half-remembered events from 80 years before. I have also spoken with someone who accompanied one of these book authors on their recording trips and the view was formed that the old soldiers were embellishing their stories because that's what the author wanted to hear. I would prefer not to be quizzed for details and names, but I suggest these supposed factual accounts sometimes need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

[David Filsell]

Good point. Some years ago I interviewed a veteran of 7th Infantry Division attached cavalry. He told his story and then gave me a transcript of his interview with the IWM. They were almost word for word - or event for event. He had clearly re-read the transcript and then repeated it to me. Sadly I got nothing of any real help from him (charming as he was and brave as he had been). I concluded that there was a mental stop point at which retelling the old stories was a record of the retelling not the actual events. Post event all kinds of influences come into action blurring accurate recall. I think that most good aural researchers are aware of this, it is a recognised phenomenon. However I do feel safer using contemporary material and that collected shortly after the war. I have mentioned Peter Hart already, he is an aural historian of repute and it would be interesting to get his take on this problem. However it is pleasing to know that I am not (for once) on my own in feeling that these books, popular though they clearly are, little more than pot boilers and of little serious merit to those who are really interested in the Great War. I can't even sum up any feint praise for them.

[SMG65]

I am always wary of reading veterans accounts that the veteran has recalled many years later.

The best accounts are those that wrote about it at the time.

If we take a modern day example of recollection we can look at my job as a Police Officer.

One of my 'specialist' tasks is to take statements from witnesses of serious incidents, sometimes tragically involving a death.

I tend to find all witnesses can give you what happened at the incident, but timing, descriptions, chronology and who was there can be very varied.

Last week I took three statements from witnesses of a serious incident, the statements each took 3 to 4 hours on seperate days.

Although the witnesses described what happened their timings varied by two hours, they all differed on who was present and in what order events had occurred.

They could recall some minute details yet missed out some important events that I knew they were present at.

They had nothing to hide and were not lying, they were ordinary decent people, but the brain works in mysterious ways and can only take in so much information at a traumatic event.

A person threatened with a knife or gun will describe the weapon in great detail but can only tell you vague information on the person carrying it.

Compare the above to asking veterans to recall traumatic events years later and you are entering a minefield.

Sean

[PMHart]

I have researched in some detail one of the stories quoted by a WW1 veteran in one of these so-called 'personal memories' type books, and have concluded that most of the events 'recalled' were false and were pure invention. Either that or the story was a confused amalgam of many half-remembered events from 80 years before. I have also spoken with someone who accompanied one of these book authors on their recording trips and the view was formed that the old soldiers were embellishing their stories because that's what the author wanted to hear. I would prefer not to be quizzed for details and names, but I suggest these supposed factual accounts sometimes need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Now this quote above is I think you will all agree is a contemporary document. So now I will put it through the sort of process that an oral/personal historian would carry out before taking any credence of it!

1. What do you mean by researching in some detail?

2. Why are these books 'so-called' a clearly perjorative term employing a time-honoured spin doctor weasel-word?

3. Did you listen to the whole interview thus placing the story in or out of context? Or did you just take the historian's word for it. In other words did you consult the original source before attacking on the internet the elderly gentlemen concerned?

4. Why do you believe the oral testimony of your so-called friend who accompanied the authors? Is this more believable because he is a friend of yours? I would take his opinions with a very large pinch of salt!!!! If it is who I think it is then these interviews were recorded long after the IWM had suspended serious interviewing as the veterans were just too old. The average length of these 'last ditch' interviews was between 1 and 2 hours! The best oral history interviews average 8-15 hours? Ever heard one? Which one?

5. How reliable were the other sources you consulted in your detailled research? Are you aware of the variety of minefields that exist in using contemporary diaries, letters and war diaries to establish facts?

6. Why are you using an example which you will not define in any way to rubbish other people's work who have published and clearly annotated every single thing they quote?

Put up or shut up! By the way if by any chance you meant me then please be aware that I always interview alone and I do have a lawyer - he is both my saxophone player and my cricket team captain - his nickname is Pygmy Bully!

Annoyed Pete

PS I will answer David's more temperate points later on when I have recovered my natural good humour!

[George Armstrong Custer]

Ouch! You should have been a punk rocker, Peter.

[J Banning]

Once again this comes down to the argument between oral history and those who prefer a ‘drier’ take on things. I recall there being much discussion on the merits of each camp before in previous posts. In order to gain a valid take on events I would suggest both should be studied and neither written off in such a manner. I always raise a smile at the people who decry oral history, claiming Regimental, Divisional or even the Official History as their favourite book on the Great War. Of course, there is no bias or compromise in any of these texts at all………!

Each to their own I guess, but I know they would be just the sort of people I would avoid should I meet them on the battlefields.

As for the actual subject of this topic, Joshua Levine’s new book, I can fully understand the adverse reaction to yet another book from the poorly researched cut and paste ‘Forgotten Voices’ series. I would be amazed if Levine finds startling new material that Peter Hart, who after all actually did the interviews, had not used in his eminently readable Somme volume. I would be interested to hear Peter’s comments on this matter.

All best,

Jeremy

[pmaasz]

No, Peter Hart, the author I referred to without name is not you. Note my position at the foot of my post. I do have some experience and knowledge in, it's true, a fairly narrow field of WW1 history. But I also have the utmost respect for the professional person who told me that the old-soldiers' stories in that person's experience were often exaggerated. After all, it would be a perfectly understandable thing to occur in the context of recording war stories. I will not provide chapter and verse on the story that I have found to be untrue in many respects, but it is documented in my regiment's archives. And since it affects no-one any more I am content to leave it there.

[charlesmessenger]

This is an interesting topic. The key to firsthand accounts is putting them into context. The problem with Max Arthur’s original Forgotten Voices was that he did not really do this, although many of the accounts themselves are of value. Having often used I Was There accounts, including from Pete Hart’s superb oral collection at the IWM, I do think that they add important flesh to the bare bones of history, as well as bringing life to events long ago.

One does, however, need to identify where the individual is coming from and to cross check with other sources, especially if the account is many years after the event in question. Memory does play tricks and there is also to tendency to embellish, as well recount what the subject thinks that the interviewer wants to hear. Following on from this, the skill of the interviewer in oral history recordings is very important. It is the ability, using tact, patience and understanding, to tease out the salient points that makes or breaks a good oral history recording. From my experience of the IWM Sound Archive I have always been impressed by the quality of interviewer and what they have been able to establish.

On the other hand I know at firsthand of a ‘military historian’ who interviewed a Chelsea Pensioner who had been in the SAS during WW2. He wrote it up and obtained a contract from a publisher to turn it into a book. Sadly, a good portion of it proved to be total fiction after a doing a little cross-checking, but the interviewer himself refused to be budged, claiming that it all must be true since this is what the Pensioner, who had been genuinely decorated for bravery, had told him. Needless to say, the book was not published, if nothing else to protect the Pensioner himself. How do I know? I was the publisher’s reader.

Charles M

[Moonraker]

...Sadly, a good portion of it proved to be total fiction after a doing a little cross-checking, but the interviewer himself refused to be budged, claiming that it all must be true since this is what the Pensioner, who had been genuinely decorated for bravery, had told him...

Charles M

To go (briefly I hope) outside our period of interest, I believe that the published exploits of at least two recent SAS members have been questioned. And many autobiographies - not necessarily of military people - have raised eyebrows because of the perceived embellishments. To return to our period of interest, there has been some convincing querying of claims made by Lawrence of Arabia. I'm no way qualified to judge any of these, but in my own very parochial research I come across many instances of occurrences being misremembered and different accounts of the same incident.

Moonraker

[PMHart]

Hi Again,

I have now recovered my poise and would like to flesh out some of the points I have made before about the use of oral history and personal experience accounts. Skip this if it bores you because I have said much of this before. However I do feel this is important!

The IWM Sound Archive was founded back in the early 1970s and has been added to year on year ever since. I firmly believe that its assortment of detailed unsentimental interviews is second-to-none and that their scope is so wide that almost every author could benefit greatly from immersing themselves in our copious recordings for a week or so. As indeed do authors like Charles Messenger. Yet it remains a fact that very few take the trouble! Indeed some prefer to scribble platitudes about the sanctity of contemporary sources.

Yet there are problems with all forms of historical evidence. We all cheerfully quote from heavily-edited memoirs that were often written down years after the fact, contemporary diaries can be works of pure fantasy, or merely reflect transient feelings and impressions, while letters reflect all the news that is appropriate to the mothers, friends or girl friends who were their intended audience, rather than the grim reality of life on the Western Front. In my latest book I quote from two letters written on the same day: one to his mother (everything hunky dory and saying he was quite safe!) and one to a friend (The misery the despair and going into the line next day!) He was indeed killed next day. And of course the first purpose of war diaries and official reports is always to exculpate the colonel and adjutant of the battalion or unit from all blame for any reverse in the field – after all it was always the unit on the right (always the right!) that gave way and never, ever their own men.

The stance of authors who believe everything they read and nothing that they hear can leave their books incomplete and lacking a hard-edged focus as a direct consequence. Of course oral history has to be treated with exceptional care, indeed I entirely agree with Sean that battle stories are often garbled under the manifold effects of stress or distance in time since the event - I have always used the policeman/murder scenario to illustrate that very point! Yet oral history excels in the mundane, the crude realities and the minutiae that no-one in their right mind would ever write down. If we ignore oral history interviews lasting up to 20 hours that meticulously chart an individual’s progress before, during and after the war, then we miss out much of the nitty-gritty detail and ‘real’ personal feelings that are simply not recorded in diaries and letters home or in the slightly self-conscious post-war memoirs. In some cases this results in a literal sanitation of war: the crude horrors of war are omitted as unsavoury, the ‘men’ fear nothing, everyone is always dreadfully disappointed not to be going over the top and everyone always fought to the very last round before even considering surrender. All sources need to be treated with care and all authors make mistakes in judging evidence; after all in the end it is down to a matter of personal judgement whether to believe an account or not. But like the British generals of the Great War, the historian needs to use ’all arms’ at their disposal and cannot ignore any valid sources if they are to get the whole raw picture of men at war. And just to make it quite clear I regard the IWM Department of Documents collection as the single most important resource in researching the history of the Great War - not the Sound Archive! That's the sack for me then when the boss reads this!!!!

The IWM Sound Archive were perhaps in a sense caught out by the Great War - due to technological constraints we simply started too late. Yet we moved on from there: in the Second World War the wonderful Conrad Wood interviewed literally thousands of combattants over 20 years while I started five projects interviewing 50-100 men from the five differnt units (250 from the DLI - I am from Stanhope orignally!!!!!) These interviews may still mislead, men may still lie or be mistaken, but we can do a meticulous cross-check with 5-10-even 20 men describing the same incidents - the same Stuka attack etc etc. We were simply too late to do that with the Great War - to be honest we didn't think of it till the early eighties. There is nothing we can do about it now! At the moment I'm interviewing as many as possible of the lads back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Strangely the depth and detail of wartime memories doesn't seem to change much - if they remember it at all - until the minds collapse through senility and sheer pressure of time.

I'd like to point out that both Max Arthur and Josh Levine are good chums of mine and whatever you may think of their books I respect them for their awesome success in popularising our subject. As - like me - Great War geeks you may not like their books - but a lot of people have come to the subject only through reading the Forgotten Voices series. Many are fascinated and move on - perhaps to my books, (Yippee!) perhaps to Charles Messenger The Day we Won the War or even to the excellent Bryn Hammond whose new masterpiece Cambrai 1917 is due out in a week or so. In the end I think we all benefit from any increase in interest in the Great War: more books are commissioned, more research done, more TV programmes made and of course more hard work and concentrated thought put in to the results on forums like this.

Finally, in truth, I didn't like that awful 'sex article' either and I'm not surprised it caused trouble. But just think - the Observer has never reviewed one of my books across 15 years - but it found space for that. In the end it was just well targeted publicity. I know by the way that Josh has listened to pretty well every Somme interview - more than I did as I used more documents - and he is a meticulous researcher. His recent book on the Air War On a Wing and a Prayer was absolutely excellent. I am sure his book will be full of good, exciting knock about stuff and well worth a read to get a feel for the battle. Just don't believe everything you read because whatever you do it will never all be true - it never, ever is!!!!!!

Pete

[Steven Broomfield]

Just to pour oil (if that's the right expression). Peter Hart 'did' my old dad's memoirs/reminiscences/ramblings of his WW2 service. Now, having been privy to quite a few of the tales over the years, i was amazed at the clarity with wihich Peter drew out the stories from my dad when I received the 5 CDs Peter sent me. I appreciate that, 60+ years on, dad had embellished some, misremembered others, and probably (to be fair) 'borrowed' some from other people.

But the great skill a good oral historian (and I would certainly put peter in this) demonstrates is, as pointed out above, to put it all into context, and in his books, I believe no-one would disagree with that.

My beef is the cut and paste "Lost Voices". they're not even bloody lost!

And another thing: each year I attend at least one TA reunion (1970/80's class), and every year I hear the same stories, and every year they have become a little grander, a little bolder, a little funnier. Was it Macmillan: Old Men Forget?

And finally, I see Salman Rushdie has just won damages from a company publishing the memoirs of a former police protection oficer who had published some rather dubious memories of his time protecting Salman.

Me, I can't remember what i did yesterday without asking my wife.