Day the war ended

[TonyE]

I am with GAC on this one. Generally a very good program, competently assembled and presented, but too obviously aimed at US television sales.

Regards

TonyE

[John Hayes Fisher]

I am with GAC on this one. Generally a very good program, competently assembled and presented, but too obviously aimed at US television sales.

Regards

TonyE

Tony

I genuinely enjoy constructive criticism. Im completely happy if people want to question the content of our programmes after all most of you (me included) are license fee payers. I tried to make it clear why I chose to include so much US material. The facts were - as I saw them - was that the British had just fought this 'last set battle' on the Sambre-Oise a week before The Armistice and perhaps as a result were re-grouping or resting. The fact was too that on the 11th as far as I (& Paul) were concerned there were no major engagements involving British (& Empire troops) whereas as Persico says there were with the Americans. We chose the General Wright story, but we could have chosen several more.

I don’t know what I can do to convince you that it was not aimed at US television sales. Our co-producers were the Open University and BBC Worldwide who can then try to sell the programme on to whoever they can. If they sell to America, Canada, Australia or even Belgium then it’s the BBC as a whole and not Timewatch who gets the money ...because the programme has already been made and broadcast. (Sorry if that sounds dull)

I just would though like to thank everyone on the forum for the (generally) kind comments and particularly for those who helped me a year back when I made my original posting. Thanks too should go to Paul Reed and Christina Holstein who actually appeared on screen as well as background help.

The reality is that on Timewatch we get a certain amount of time and money to make these programmes. We try as hard as we can not to make mistakes and hope that in the end we make something interesting which is slightly different to the normal diet of tv programmes.

All the best

John

(Producer /Director - Timewatch - The Last Day of World War One)

[59165]

I liked it,John.

I dont have a telly so I watched it on BBCi player at about 1am & again this afternoon,just to clarify that I got the same impression without the influences of tiredness & alcohol

One thing I'd like to see discussed is Pershing's 'advance until the last minute' approach.I started off by wanting to go back in time & kill this idiot but,as the story came to its end I kind of agreed with his approach to the armistice idea & how (& it did)it would lead to more/later conflict.

I'm really torn over his approach to the idea of continuing on to Germany,the pointless deaths caused by this thinking contra was it just a quick & easier fix for Europe.

At this time,I'm wavering towards 'git' rather than soothsayer.Need more info.

A grand episode of TW & I hope the budget allows for many more.

Got me thinking.

Dave.

[Steven Broomfield]

OK, slip of the typing finger.

Discussion it is.

Sorry.

[armourersergeant]

One thing I'd like to see discussed is Pershing's 'advance until the last minute' approach.I started off by wanting to go back in time & kill this idiot but,as the story came to its end I kind of agreed with his approach to the armistice idea & how (& it did)it would lead to more/later conflict.

I agree in principle that he wanted to push, to show the Germans they were defeated. Yes he was proved right twenty years later. However-and its a big however- the programme clearly showed that the allies were in the driving seat. The Germans were literally prepared to accept any condition. The Allies were also obviously prepared to accept an armistice. To my mind that makes his actions totally irrelevant and almost criminal. His actions did not prove anything to the German High command and it seems to say with hindsight that his actions had more to do with his 'ego' than with anything to do with an unconditional surrender, which was beyond his doing. Unless of course he believed he could push on regardless.

As soon as the allies realised the Germans were willing to accept any conditions then all offensive action should have been suspended, certainly by the 11th day. Thats easy to say I guess though when you haven't spent the last four years beating the hell out of each other.

Regards

Arm

Edited 2 November , 2008 by armourersergeant

[Chris_Baker]

As soon as the allies realised the Germans were willing to accept any conditions then all offensive action should have been suspended

Had we been there, I would love to have heard you telling that to Clemenceau or Foch.

[59165]

So,do you reckon it was a case of 'I haven't come all this way just to leave after a minutes barney'?

We all have heard tales of officers round the 11th doing reckless things to advance themselves rather than the line & at a pointless cost of their men's lives.

Thats the 1st impression I had but,am still not sure about Pershing's personal agenda.

What's his history?Was he involved in the Mexican debacle? Would like an American input here

Dave.

[John Hayes Fisher]

I agree in principle that he wanted to push, to show the Germans they were defeated. Yes he was proved right twenty years later. However-and its a big however- the programme clearly showed that the allies were in the driving seat. The Germans were literally prepared to accept any condition. The Allies were also obviously prepared to accept an armistice. To my mind that makes his actions totally irrelevant and almost criminal. His actions did not prove anything to the German High command and it seems to say with hindsight that his actions had more to do with his 'ego' than with anything to do with an unconditional surrender, which was beyond his doing. Unless of course he believed he could push on regardless.

As soon as the allies realised the Germans were willing to accept any conditions then all offensive action should have been suspended, certainly by the 11th day. Thats easy to say I guess though when you have spent the last four years beating the hell out of each other.

Regards

Arm

Its a really interesting point. While I was making the programme I too was swayed from thinking that Pershing was a butcher to the idea that the Armistice was a cease fire and not a surrender and perhaps he had a point. As one historian told me, the British were re-grouping and preparing for a final advance on Berlin. There was also a suspicion that the Germans were simply playing for time and could have carried on. If my memory serves me right Luddendorff changed his mind about probing for peace feelers several time in the Autumn of 1918.

One thing I never really came to grips with was why the Americans were not there at Compiegne and I also found it strange that the British representatives were Naval people rather than Army. Ahh all stuff for another programme. Hopefully something that Prof David Reynolds will answer in his Armistice programme on BBC4 at 21.00, which Im sure we all look forward to.

John

[armourersergeant]

Had we been there, I would love to have heard you telling that to Clemenceau or Foch.

The thought of me addressing Clemenceau or Foch, in my very, very poor French brings a smile to my face as I am sure it did to you!

On a serious note, though that is why I stressed at the end, easy to say for me-I have not been fighting for the last four years. I am thinking with a nice sanitised clean mind.

Regards

Arm

[bruce]

Dear John,

You were possibly on a hiding to nothing here, for we are a pedantic bunch of old gits (and gitettes?).

From the general tone of all the postings here, you are to be congratulated. We all have minor points to pick at, but you alone, I suspect, have been faced with trying to get all the story over to a general viewership, and all in an hour. You went to the right people in Christina and Paul for expert assistance, as well as further expertise from Joseph Persico and a Liverpool University expert. If there were 30 odd British and Commnwealth casualties on that day, and over 300 American, then the balance seems right too.

I enjoyed the programme, and hope that you get the opportunity to do more of similar ilk.

Thank you.

Bruce

[towisuk]

Dear John,

You were possibly on a hiding to nothing here, for we are a pedantic bunch of old gits (and gitettes?).

From the general tone of all the postings here, you are to be congratulated. We all have minor points to pick at, but you alone, I suspect, have been faced with trying to get all the story over to a general viewership, and all in an hour. You went to the right people in Christina and Paul for expert assistance, as well as further expertise from Joseph Persico and a Liverpool University expert. If there were 30 odd British and Commnwealth casualties on that day, and over 300 American, then the balance seems right too.

I enjoyed the programme, and hope that you get the opportunity to do more of similar ilk.

Thank you.

Bruce

Hear, Hear!! more like this please John. I know we are a forum with a vested interest in this type of programme, but even so I'm sure anyone who watches it will have learned something about the last days of the war which they never knew before. Also, must say that your "on the ground" historians Paul and

Christina put their knowledge across without being to "anoracky" for the majority of viewers who have a passing interest in this type of programme.

I hate the use of "celebrity" for celebrities sake, but in Michael Palin I knew he was in the Ian Hislop class of presenters for a topic such as this.

Many thanks

regards

Tom

[armourersergeant]

There was also a suspicion that the Germans were simply playing for time and could have carried on. If my memory serves me right Luddendorff changed his mind about probing for peace feelers several time in the Autumn of 1918.

IIRC, according to General Maurice, one of the reasons that the Allies considered the armistice was that they were out stripping their supply lines. Pushing on in to German held territory was a double edged sword. I wonder how much gain the Germans would have got by playing for time, it would also allowed the Allies to bring up supplies etc. Germany was starving, the Navy strangling their supply lines and a blockade could/was still in place. That said I do understand the importance of the Allied attacks 'boxer punching' the Germans to the position they were in and part of that was not giving the Germans time to breath.

I am thinking on 'my no more attacks' comment from the point that the Germans sent that message mentioned in the programme that was in clear, not sure of time this happened. But I am firm of the opinion that once it was then the correct thing was to cease any advances that could endanger life. At this time it should have been clear that ground was no longer important, surely?

Perhaps I am expecting too much from the little time frame and stretched communications to suddenly stop any proposed attacks? Also as I have stressed it is easy for us/me to sit here and make these observations, untarnished emotionally from four years of bloody war.

regards

Arm

[Le_Treport]

I can recommend the related Podcast too!

[Frank_East]

I am sure that all Pershing was enacting in the days leading to the armistice was wish to conclude the war in the US military style of the time by pursuing the enemy to his lair.This was the technique adopted by the US miltary leadership in establishing and maintaining their SW border with the Mexicans.It was also the pacification technique in the dealing with the "troublesome" Indian tribes.

Moreover, the US after mobilisation were anxious to gain the maximum experience in what was a highly industrial based conflict in a foreign land.I would think that its commanders in the field were personally motivated to this end.However,it is difficult to accept that Pershing had long term views that his wish to press on to Berlin would alter the course of history 20 years later.

I think the documentary reflects the happenings during the closing days of the war.The US AEF were part of that history and are rightly represented along with the other main Allied Powers.Pershing was the only Allied miliary leader who would have continued into the heartland of Germany and on to Berlin.Interestingly after the Armistice,in Berlin, the German Army were received as conquering heroes by cheering crowds and encouraged by President Ebert's welcome of "no enemy has conquered you".The military leadership had melted away leaving the new democratic civilian government the task of drawing a line under the proceedings dictated by the Allied Powers.

The railway carriage at the Clairiere de l'Armistice was said to have been removed and stored in Berlin from 1940, then lost in an air raid, the present one being a replica, post 1945.I do believe this fact was recorded at the present memorial and is recorded elsewhere.

[Pete1052]

...not sure about Pershing's personal agenda. What's his history?

Pershing commanded the Punitive Expedition in Mexico. Click here for a biographical sketch of him.

[unitedsound]

Thanks to everyone concerned for an excellent programme.

David

[rendellers]

John

I have just watched your programme. I think it had a clarity and touch that would make it compelling for most viewers especially the family historian. I personally found it very informative and will research those points that I found most intresting. To be arqumentative, given the remit of dealing with casualties on the last day, I am suprised that non USA countries were mentioned as much as they were! Removing my tongue from my cheek I think it was the little touches such as the stone mason at work which added to the whole as an educational piece. I would also like to echo those sentiments already expressed about the need to examine the lives of survivors in a meaningful way on TV-that I think would be very challenging.

Thank you

[Chris Noble]

Hi John/Paul,

I enjoyed the programme last night and found it very interesting. Being a local lad, the National Roll of The Great War 1914-1918, Section VIII - Leeds, which has a permanent place on my desk, I have a question to ask. Can you enlighten me, John or Paul, what the "New" information received was and the source please regards Ellison?

Regards,

Chris

[John Hayes Fisher]

Hi John/Paul,

I enjoyed the programme last night and found it very interesting. Being a local lad, the National Roll of The Great War 1914-1918, Section VIII - Leeds, which has a permanent place on my desk, I have a question to ask. Can you enlighten me, John or Paul, what the "New" information received was and the source please regards Ellison?

Regards,

Chris

Hi Chris

Thanks for your comments. In relation to Ellison we actually found out more than we could include. What had shocked me was the fact that much that had been written about Ellison was plainly wrong. For example you will find several internet sites which say he was in his mid 20's including a book which came out last year (Which I believe Chris Baker reviewed...in not too glowing terms!). Anyway for example we found out George Ellisons birth - 1878 in York (from vaccination & marriage certificates) which showed that he was 40 and not in his mid 20's when he died. We found out that in 1912 Ellison was a coal miner (marriage certificate) and yet as Paul Reed deduced the fact that he was there at the outbreak of the war he had to have been a serving soldier. Paul also said that his service number indicated someone who had joined up in the early years of the 20th century. We found out about his family (from the CWGC) that he had a son who was 5 days short of his 5th Birthday when his father was killed. We found a picture of Ellison from Dec 18 in the Yorkshire Evening News (many national newspapers had been looking) which was not great quality but not even his grandchildren had seen a photo of their own grandfather .... so I guess that's new too. Oh yes I suppose for me the greatest discovery we made was finding the family as even they were unaware that their grandfather is generally regarded (CWGC/Rose Coombs) as the last British soldier to be killed in action in the Great War.

Hopefully Paul is going to gather together the information and put it on his own website. What I’m really hoping is that this programme and discussions like this will bring even more information out about Ellison. Information which the family would love to know.

Its one of those weird things that many have talked about that John Parr is buried opposite George Edwin Ellison and if Im correct Parr was just 16 and Ellison 40...neither the usual 18 year old conscripts that we so often think of in WW1.

All the best

john

[Bernard_Lewis]

I was away and will have to catch it on the 11th.

On the Armistice being (potentially) just a temporary ceasefire, the Swansea Battalion certainly spent a lot of time post 11 Nov on training in the field. Just in case...

Bernard

[keithfazzani]

With regard to the railway carriage, in one sense I agree it is a minor point but as many have pointed out Timewatch is noted for its historical accuracy. Rose Combs in Before Endeavours Fade says that after the war the coach went back into normal service and then in 1927 it was taken back to the forest where it was put in a special shed and "the interior laid out as it had been nine years previously". In 1940 it was taken to Berlin and put on display and it was eventually burned in a tunnel in a place called Crawinkel in 1945. She then says "On November 11th 1950......................a new shed having been built a railway carriage similar to the original, was run into the shed and fitted out with replicas of the documents, furniture and pictures...........in 1991 fragments of the original coach - the steel SNCF emblem and lettering from its side surfaced in the former East Germany ..............they were donated to the Clairiere de L'Armistice Museum in 1992 " Of course there may have been new developments since she wrote.

[Paul Reed]

Keith - as Rose died in 1991, she can't have written the last section of that quote. As I have stated before, the details we have on the Armistice Carriage come from the museum itself, which is a branch of the French military. If people here wish to suggest they have some motive to tell untruths about what they have in their collection, then I can only wonder at that.

[keithfazzani]

Paul, I was quoting from the revised edition published in 2006. But as I fully admitted there may well have been new developments.

[wainfleet]

What a great programme. Many thanks to JHF and his team for getting it just right. Well I thought so. There was none of the portentous music, over-emotionality and bad re-enacting that so often characterise programmes about the War. Instead we got a documentary that was pretty much factual, striking what I thought was just the right balance of sensitivity and respect. MP did a very good job, as I’d expected, but then he is clearly a decent and thoughtful sort of chap and thus a suitable choice. I’m not sure that, say, Kate Garraway or Jonathan Ross would have been quite as effective.

It is virtually impossible to please everyone with any big project, be it TV or anything else, as anyone who’s ever had overall responsibility for one knows. I didn’t think they got very much wrong at all, or that the American angle was overplayed, as I can’t see how the US could have failed to be crucial to how the last year of the war was played out, and thus to victory. Just my view.

No-one has mentioned what I thought was the stroke of real genius in all this, namely the highly effective driving home of how particularly poignant, and often pointless, it was for all those men to die on the last day, then right at the end to “casually” throw in that it wasn’t actually all that brilliant to die on any day of the War. The most effective tactic I’ve yet seen for bringing home the tragedy and waste of it all. Well done.

[chrisharley9]

My opinion for what is it is worth - the programme was well balanced - it covered the main players on the 11th - Michael Palin was the right choice for the presenter keeping everything straight to the point - the only thing I thought that was missed was the last Belgian casualty, but then you only have an hour to play with. The most poingant part for me was for George Ellison to make through the Great War only for him to be killed more or less where it started for him

Chris