Day the war ended

[JPAE]

Excellent programme. Congratulations to all concerned.

There did not appear to be any comment on the Artillery using up shells to the last. I would have thought that this aspect of the conflict would have been covered.

My locals appeared to have celebrated that Fawkes chap's demise rather early, and the programme had a relevant explosive backdrop throughout!

Phil.

[bruce]

I enjoyed the programme. The American attitude at the end of the war was new to me and the behaviour of some of their generals was criminal. Did I pick this up wrongly, or did the programme give the impression that the railway coach, in which Palin described the signing of the armistice, was the original one?

The programme didn't mention that Hitler had the original blown up.

Joseph Persico's book, "Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour" is also a good read.

[KIRKY]

Great programme, well done to all concerned, what a waste of lives though! Imagine the horror of initally hearing war is over to find your son killed for a wasted effort,reasons never to forget.

Tony

[ulsterlad2]

I thought it was an excellent production. Well done to John and the rest of the team. Palin did a great job presenting and the contributions from the various historians were superb. Some very thought provoking and poignant moments there.

It was brilliant to actually see fellow forumites Paul Reed and Christina Holstein.

[pandect]

Yes, an excellent programme, congratulations to all involved.

The section on injuries was unusual: my father used to have a booklet full of similar pictures of injuries as those shown in the programme - unfortunately long lost. I have a vague feeling that it was some sort of propaganda publication does this ring any bells for forum members?

I don't think he would have needed the booklet for information about wounds or from prurient interest because he served in WW1 (including High Wood and Passchendaele, worked at the Star and Garter Home in the 20s and spent WW2 working at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton!

Dog Fox

[Jon Haslock]

With reference to the attacks on 11/11/18, they weren't all entirely unjustified (although the majority were). According to military law, an armistice is a temporary cessation of hostilities so it is conceivable that the fighting may have flared up again and it was important that key positions such as river crossings were in the hands of the Allies when the armistice took effect. Great programme, I really enjoyed watching it.

[SiegeGunner]

The section on injuries was unusual: my father used to have a booklet full of similar pictures of injuries as those shown in the programme - unfortunately long lost. I have a vague feeling that it was some sort of propaganda publication does this ring any bells for forum members?

http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pres...cesOfBattle.pdf

http://www.gilliesarchives.org.uk/

[Gunner Bailey]

I enjoyed the programme. The American attitude at the end of the war was new to me and the behaviour of some of their generals was criminal. Did I pick this up wrongly, or did the programme give the impression that the railway coach, in which Palin described the signing of the armistice, was the original one?

I had the same impression on both your points Ian. Regarding the carriage, Joe public is probably not concerned that the orignal carriage was nicked by Adolf. I think the behaviour of Pershing was far more revealing.

Gunner Bailey

The programme didn't mention that Hitler had the original blown up.

Joseph Persico's book, "Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour" is also a good read.

Bruce

I thought it was taken to Berlin and was destroyed in an air raid?

GB

[towisuk]

Palin and Paul, sounds like a good double act ....and was, well done.

regards

Tom

[hillgorilla]

I found that the Doctor at Sidcup made a good point - to remember those who survived. The pictures of the wounded soldier with the facial injuries really brings home to one what can happen in war. I wonder what sort of life that soldier had?

Also a great programme. Good to see mentions of casualties from different sides.

[NigelS]

Sobering and informative; thanks to all involved. Pity the Beeb doesn't spend more of the license payers' money on this type of production, which it generally does very well.

NigelS

[zippy.72]

Thought it was a very good programme-even the wife enjoyed it! There were a few errors but nothing we should get worked up about! I agree that the BBC should evote more funding to WW1. There is a lot of interest out there and they would surely get more viewers than some of the rubbish out there. May I suggest a programme about those left in asylums after the war, some of which remained institutionalised into the 1980s?

[George Armstrong Custer]

A bit of a curate's egg in my opinion. Paul Reed and Christina Holstein were both very articulate and made their points well in the segments in which they were used, and they cannot be held responsible for the overall impression which the whole programme gave as to what the main forces at play in 1918 were.

Palin gave the distinct impression, as has been pointed out, that he was speaking from the actual railway carriage used for the signing of the Armistice, rather than the replica which it is. That wasn't so important, though, as the grossly misleading overemphasis on the importance of the deployment of US troops in combat to the Allied victory, and the significance one way or the other of whether Pershing thought the war ought to have been continued to the gates of Berlin. The significance of US involvement was the threat of its imminence from winter 1917, which was a motivating factor in the German last throw of the dice in March 1918. However the German's last gamble had been stemmed and the tide had turned without US deployment in the field. The British advances from July 1918 to 11 November would have happened anyway without US deployment. You wouldn't have thought so from watching this programme, though.

ciao,

GAC

[Barry Q]

I suspect that the American involvement within the program was slightly overstated to aid sales to American TV stations.

Very good program though.

[Le_Treport]

Did MP really say that the US had the highest No. deaths of all the nations?

As an intro to the scene in the US cemetery in the Argonne, I could have sworn he made reference to '...the nation with the highest No. of deaths...' and I was thinking 'that'll be Russia, or Germany' then we see the US crosses!

I'll go and look at iPlayer.....

(Later the same day.......)

Technically he did say that 'one nation [the US] suffered more battle deaths than any other' but I guess the implication is that that was on the last day....

[George Armstrong Custer]

I suspect that the American involvement within the program was slightly overstated to aid sales to American TV stations.

I agree with you as to the reason for the US-centricity of the programme, but my impression was that it was rather more than 'slightly' overstated. Quite apart from the content, two out of the four talking head historians used were American. Hardly representative of America's true involvement and significance in the closing months of the war compared to the French and British Empire forces who had brought about November 1918 through four bloody years of attrition, culminating in the '100 Days'.

ciao,

GAC

[trenchtrotter]

Was he referring to the highest no of deaths on 11/11/18 only? I suspect so.

Anyhow really good documentry, well done. And from my point anything with a US angle is to be welcomed as there is so little on the battle of the Meuse Argonne.

Regards

TT

[Doug Lewis]

A well made programme, informative, very well presented but why the American biase?

Regards Doug.

[montbrehain]

Just watched it on I player , And was very happy with it. You can split hairs and say this and that about it , but remember programmes like this are aimed at Mr average and not you dyed in the wool hard core forum member . If it encourages only 1 young person to research/collect/ or learn more about the Great War then job done. well done to all involved. "MO"

[George Armstrong Custer]

Just watched it on I player , And was very happy with it. You can split hairs and say this and that about it , but remember programmes like this are aimed at Mr average and not you dyed in the wool hard core forum member . If it encourages only 1 young person to research/collect/ or learn more about the Great War then job done. well done to all involved. "MO"

MO, I'm not splitting hairs over elements of detail - I'm talking about the major theme which came across frrom watching the programme, which to me was an overemphasis on direct US involvement in bringing about the Armistice on 11 November and the exaggerated importance given to the opinions of Pershing, much of it voiced by an overrepresentation (50%) of US historians.

ciao,

GAC

[JimSmithson]

Any programme on the Armistice has to have a fairly large American involvement. This programme was not trying to give the impression that 'America won the war' in Hollywood style but was pointing out the importance of the involvement of the US in bringing about the Armistice as early as it was. The OHL (Oberste Heeresleitung) had asked for a ceasefire as early as September 29th, claiming that although the German Army was undefeated (sic) the arrival every week of thousands of American troops meant that the situation could not be held. (They could then blame the politicians for any defeat). Woodrow Wilson was in negotiations with the Germans all through October making it clear that America was committed to doing whatever necessary to bring the war to an end. The 'Octoberreformen', an attempt to tie negotiations with the Allies with reforms to the state failed, simply leading to a collapse of the political structure within Germany. When Erzberger was confronted by Foch's intransigence he could only contact Hindenburg who, experiencing the situation in Germany, said that a cease fire was necessary on any terms.

Any programme which tries to bring together so many complex issues into one hour and whose major role is one of remembrance will always fall foul of some, depending upon where the 'schwerepunkte' have fallen. I feel that last night's programme managed the task admirably, touching upon so many themes without devaluing any of them. I especially applaud the section on the 'forgotten', i.e the wounded.

[truthergw]

I watched the programme and was vaguely disappointed. It was very North American oriented with a heavy emphasis on American involvement and a lot of what General Pershing thought, said and wanted. I got the definite impression that the programmers were saying, if only we had listened to him, there would have been no need for WW2. A rather simplistic analysis, I thought. I think Haig got about as much coverage as Hitler. Anzacs might feel a bit hard done by. I thought that Christina and Paul both came across very well, with a good presentation of their deep knowledge of the areas under discussion. Palin did an adequate job with a rather dull script. There was no sense of the shock and horror that war creates. Nothing new, nothing startling. Perhaps the BBC reserves that for comedy shows. All in all, not a bad programme but far from good enough.

[phil andrade]

First class. Well done !

Phil.

[JimSmithson]

There was no sense of the shock and horror that war creates. Nothing new, nothing startling.

Tom

I don't think the programme makers were aiming at an attempt to portray the horrors of war, more one of remembrance with a central theme of the last day. The general public will have found much new and perhaps even startling in it, even if we hardened veterans did not.

Jim

[Ron Clifton]

Congratulations to John, Paul, Michael P and the rest of the team on a thoughtful and balanced programme. (In passing, virtually all the Timewatch programmes on WW1 have been very good too.)

It would have been even better if the visit to St Symphorien Cemetery had been able to visit the grave of Pte Parr, only a few yards away from those of Ptes Ellison and Price, who was the FIRST British soldier to be killed in Fance. This would have made the "circularity" of the conflict, already brought out in regard to Mons, even more poignant.

I have one comment on MP's article in Radio Times, in which he said that "Britain alone lost eight per cent of its population." The true figure, for armed service personnel (and merchant seamen) alone but including deaths from disease or natural causes, is close to two per cent. Was he referring to total casualties (still only about six and a half percent) or including civilian deaths from enemy action (a very small fraction of the total) or the influenza epidemic?

MP's references to the burial markers (white stones for British and Commonwealth dead, black for Germans), whils literally true, seemed to me to carry an unfortunate if unintended impression although neither John nor Paul can be blamed for that.

Ron