Day the war ended

[Alan Tucker]

MP sent me on a wild goose chase this morning using his Radio Times article which referred to his great uncle Harry and Caterpillar Valley Cemetery where he is not listed but is on the Caterpillar Valley New Zealand Memorial - he was in a Canterbury unit.

[Gunboat]

I was rather touched by the very simple reference to the death of Palin's own relative it gave some authority to his challenge to the posittion that a death on or near the armistice was aactually no worse than any other death in the War

[Neil Mackenzie]

Whilst I did not see the whole programme, what I did see I thought very good. As it was a programme about the last day of the war then the extra emphasis given to the role of the Americans was, for once, appropriate.

The point that remembrance concentrates on the 'glorious' dead was well made. This is something we are probably all guilty of from individuals doing research - so much easier if they died - to our recognition of war dead via CWGC. Their remit is to commemorate men who died up to what seems a relatively arbitrary date - if you died after that (as was probably the case of that man with half his face blown off) then tough luck - your sacrifice is not officially commemorated at all. I appreciate that this is not something within the control of CWGC as it was constituted.

Neil

[John Hayes Fisher]

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

George

Picking up on the 2 points made

1) The carriage at Compiegne is a replica, but the table, chairs, even ash trays were the real ones from 1918. Palin was right when he said 'at this table' or gesturing to the table. I took the decision not to mention the fate of the carriage after 1940 as it just seemed one fact too many.

3) I have to disagree with your point about the Americans. For all our research we discovered that its unlikely that more 30 British and Commonwealth soldiers actually were killed in action on the Western Front on the final day of WW1. The same is not true of the Americans. As Joe Persico told me the official figure is well over 300 american battle deaths and if you look in his book he makes a very valid point that these figures just dont add up to what was being reported by infantry officers on the ground and that the fiugures of US deaths were more likely to be much much higher.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed what we attempted to do which was for a general tv audience and there is nothing like a good healthy debate.

Best wishes

John

[John_Hartley]

I understand the points being made by those who indicate an undue Amercian spin on the programme. As we know, it was not until late September that US forces significantly took to the field, and I think it reasonable to say that, by then, the war was already all but won.

However, if we are talking about the final day, as the programme was, then it seems reasonable to put emphasis on the US forces, due to the stupidity of their senior command and apparent careless disregard for their men. I hardly viewed it as pro-American.

John

[John Hayes Fisher]

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 American's true involvement 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

Again George to answer your point.

One of the Interviewees was Joe Persico who wrote a very good book about the final day of WW1. We also had a Canadian as it was Currie and the Canadians who took Mons and the other American is a Military Historian from Liverpool University who is an expert in the German Military. Surely you wont be having a go at the wonderful Christina Holstein as being British and talking about the French (Trebuchon) and the Americans (Gunther)....

And no there was no US co-production money, simply the Americans were fighting right up to the last minute.

[Just Barbara]

I am glad I watched this programme, it was interesting and thought provoking. I was shocked by what happened on the last day, and the fate of the poor devils who were sent to die right up untill the bitter end. Also, I'm glad mention was made of the maimed, three years of operations for that soldier to get any kind of a face back, but also impressed at the efforts made to give him one. I would like to have known what happened to him. But many congratulations to the makers of the programme.

Barbara..

[armourersergeant]

I have to sort of support JAC stance to a point. I sat shouting at the tele last night, such as "We will see Errol Flynn hove over the horizon in a minute!", whilst still enjoying the programme and the factual way it was presented. Both forumites did well and Palin delivered a balanced contribution. On reflection though I have to say I learnt something. I was not aware of the American involvement as being so large on that day.

With hindsight-its a lovely thing you know- I have to say that it was a programme about the 11th November, not Brititish involvement, thus if more involvement was taken by the Americans then that has to be reflected. In a smug sort of way it showed that perhaps by this time British commanders were willingly to be less gung-ho?

A good programme.

Regards

Arm

[montbrehain]

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

GAC , I am not having a go at you But to me ANY programme that raises the profile of the Great War , be it good bad or absolutely atrocious is to be welcomed. If it creates a spark of interest that encourages anybody to further research then I welcome it. Many times I have seen programmes slaughtered by critical words that then puts people off further research. Best to point out to people that it may not have happened that way but ...........

"MO"

[George Armstrong Custer]

But to me ANY programme that raises the profile of the Great War , be it good bad or absolutely atrocious is to be welcomed.

Disagree with you there, MO. If a programme is bad or absolutely atrocious, it's better that it's not made at all in my view. There's been more than enough crap churned out on the Great War on TV without adding to it. This programme doesn't fall into either of these categories and was, as I've said, good in parts. We are, however, entitled to expect such documentaries to be made to the highest standards possible - particularly when they are part of such a prestigious series as the flagship Timewatch programmes.

ciao,

GAC

[George Armstrong Custer]

3) I have to disagree with your point about the Americans. For all our research we discovered that its unlikely that more 30 British and Commonwealth soldiers actually were killed in action on the Western Front on the final day of WW1. The same is not true of the Americans. As Joe Persico told me the official figure is well over 300 american battle deaths and if you look in his book he makes a very valid point that these figures just dont add up to what was being reported by infantry officers on the ground and that the fiugures of US deaths were more likely to be much much higher.

Thanks for your comments John. However, I made no criticism or observation on the point of Americans suffering higher relatively casualties on the last day. What I was criticising was the impression I was given that the tide did not turn against the German March offensive until US troops took the field in significant numbers in the part of the film dealing with what made the Germans come to the Armistice table in November. The architects of the series of punches which stemmed and reversed the German's last gamble were Haig and his subordinate BEF commanders and staff, and the cutting edge was delivered by British and British Imperial forces. There was no reference to that whatsoeer, nor on the British High Command's take on the Armistice. There was, however, much time given to Pershing's views - disproportionately so, in my personal view.

1) The carriage at Compiegne is a replica, but the table, chairs, even ash trays were the real ones from 1918. Palin was right when he said 'at this table' or gesturing to the table. I took the decision not to mention the fate of the carriage after 1940 as it just seemed one fact too many.

Are you sure about that, John? My understanding is that the carriage was completely destroyed by Allied bombing whilst on display in Berlin during WWII. I find it remarkable, therefore, that the table, chairs, ashtrays and other knick knacks are claimed to have survived that devastation intact - and found their way back into French hands as a complete collection after the Red Army had trawled through devastated Berlin in 1945.

Regards,

George

[Paul Reed]

Are you sure about that, John? My understanding is that the carriage was completely destroyed by Allied bombing whilst on display in Berlin during WWII. I find it remarkable, therefore, that the table, chairs, ashtrays and other knick knacks are claimed to have survived that devastation intact - and found their way back into French hands as a complete collection after the Red Army had trawled through devastated Berlin in 1945.

Regards,

George

George, as you will appreciate, we don't do shoddy research for a 'prestigious series' like Timewatch. You are incorrect when you say the carriage was destroyed in Berlin. It was in fact taken to a forest at Thuringe and blown up. Prior to that the contents had been removed, and found it's way back to France in the late 40s/early 50s. A few years ago a dig was made on the site of where the carriage was blown up and many original features, fittings and other artefacts were also recovered. So, while the wagon is an identical example (it is not a copy, but an original from the period of the same design), everything else was there on 11th November 1918.

[Chris_Baker]

Although I can't say that I have ever really looked at it, I've not heard that about the coach before, Paul. What is the source of the info about bits of it being recovered (both in the 1940s and more recently)?

[Paul Reed]

The source is the museum at Compiegne, who have an extensive display of the recovery work at Thuringe, and are also the custodian of all the artefacts, of course. You can image we worked quite closely with them - the museum is in fact run by the French military - to ensure that the detail was right.

[Chris_Baker]

Thanks. Interesting that the Germans felt the need to blow it up in a forest. They could have done it on site. Strange motivations.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Thanks for that info Paul, and I'm not dismissing it. But I'm a bit dubious, just on the say-so of the French authorities who are displaying it, that this material was able to make its way back to the French - the table and all the chairs as well as all smaller artefacts now on display? - without some further detail on the means through which this was achieved. This is particularly so if what you say is correct about the Germans deliberately destroying it and what it symbolised (presumably just so the French couldn't redisplay it) rather than it being destroyed as I've read in several sources in an air raid on Berlin. Why would they destroy the carriage yet - apparently - preserve the contents, including the table on which the hated Armistice terms were signed? And how did these remain togetrher and miraculously turn up as a complete collection in France in the late '40's and early '50's? On the face of it, and without more specific provenance, it seems little more likely than the authenticity of the relics of Saints displayed by various ecclesiastical centres with a vested interest in promoting their authenticity in the Middle Ages.

As I've already said, this detail - though undoubtedly fascinating as a footnote to history - is not the area that I had most concern over in the documentary. I take it, too, that criticism of the programme won't be regarded as an attack upon it or those who were involved in its production, but as fair comment expressing a genuine individual point of view.

Regards,

George

[Steven Broomfield]

Looks like we're revisiting the Forum Fight in an empty room stage again.

If anything, I agree with Harters: by emphasising the losses the Yanks suffered, largely because their commanders wanted promotion, glory and medals, I would have said this was for from pro-American.

Having had huge reservations about it beforehand, I actually thought it was pretty good. In an hour, in a programme aimed at a releatively mass-market, on the sort of mega-buck budget the Beeb would give it ( ), I think it did an excellent job.

But, hey, if the Forum couldn't start a fight, where would we all be, eh?

[George Armstrong Custer]

I see alternate takes on parts of the programme, Steve. I don't see a fight.

[Paul Reed]

Looks like we're revisiting the Forum Fight in an empty room stage again.

...

But, hey, if the Forum couldn't start a fight, where would we all be, eh?

I am disappointed in the reference to 'fight'. Comments of this nature bring the forum down. I wasn't going to respond to anything in this thread to be honest, as everyone is entitled to their view and anything on TV is seen as fair game. It goes with working in this territory. I shall hereafter stick to my original intention.

[healdav]

The good doctor's thoughts on wounds etc at the end ... powerful.

Well done to all - especially the forumites I know of .. PR and Christina Holstein ... excellent presentations by both. VG marking for prog.

But I HATE the stock footage being used out context. And the two contributors above probably agree!

Des

The 'good doctor' was Andrew Bamji. He is not a member of this forum, but is and has been for many years a member of a e-mail on-line discussion group.

He is a consultant surgeon (specialising in orthopaedics and reconstructive), and as a hobby runs a museum of war medicine at St Mary's, Sidcup; hence he had all the records of men wounded. He is always on the lookout for any and every document, photo, etc on he subject as well as medical instruments that he hasn't yet acquired.

[Kate Wills]

Looks like we're revisiting the Forum Fight in an empty room stage again.

But, hey, if the Forum couldn't start a fight, where would we all be, eh?

Steve,

Perhaps this was just a slip of the typing fingers; but I do not see a fight here, but the Forum at its best, tabling a collection of informed and thoughtful comment. That's called a DISCUSSION.

__________

Back at the discussion:

How many perfect programmes have been made on any subject, let alone the Great War? For the most part, I admired the production. My one criticism is that which has already been expressed so well by GAC, John H and Arm:

"I made no criticism or observation on the point of Americans suffering higher relatively casualties on the last day. What I was criticising was the impression I was given that the tide did not turn against the German March offensive until US troops took the field in significant numbers in the part of the film dealing with what made the Germans come to the Armistice table in November. The architects of the series of punches which stemmed and reversed the German's last gamble was Haig and his subordinate BEF commanders and staff, and the cutting edge was delivered by British and British Imperial forces. There was no reference to that whatsoeer, nor on the British High Command's take on the Armistice. There was, however, much time given to Pershing's views - disproportionately so, in my personal view." - GAC

Perhaps a future documentary (better still, a series) could focus on American involvement in WW1. I for one was enthralled by Mr Perisco's commentary on the US forces under Pershing's direction. One can sympathise with Pershing's wishes to carry the conflict to its origins back in Berlin. However, with just a few months fighting under his belt, and that on the tidal wave of victory provided by France, and especially by the British Imperial forces, Pershing managed to skip the course modules on hard slog and the grim realities of disappointment. A (dare I say) salient point which was omitted, and need only have occupied a few sentences in the script.

[amelialongcroft]

There's an interesting panel discussion about the making of the programme available to download (or read) from the BBC Timewatch website here

[salesie]

I too found the over-emphasis on Pershing's view a disappointment - in my opinion, the programme gave the impression that Pershing alone believed that an Armistice at that time would leave the German Army believing it hadn't been beaten, he wasn't.

That said, I would like to congratulate all involved for making a programme that looked at events from an unusual angle - but I doubt it will become a classic simply because, in my opinion, an hour long programme will always create more questions than answers for those with some knowledge, and for those with little or no knowledge its inevitable shallowness will make it easily forgettable.

Cheers-salesie.

[Rab]

but I doubt it will become a classic

Cheers-salesie.

It may or may not become a classic, but as someone with very limited knowledge of WW1, I found it very interesting and the programme has increased my curiosity about the Great War. My 2 sons were also gripped by it. Therefore classic or not - I think if the programme set out to create interest in WW1 and provide an entertaining way to bring out some lesser known aspects of the war, I think it's been very successful.

Of course, my knowledge has been further enhanced by the additional information and discussion on this thread. The icing on the cake, I suppose.

Rab

[montbrehain]

VOILA ! "MO"