A post by Gateways' Dr Sam Carroll on our recent First World War Question Time event at Bexhill Museum, East Sussex.
On Thursday 19th March 2015 Gateways to the First World War held an event organised in partnership with Bexhill Museum. Bexhill Museum's First World War Question Time invited people to explore the history of war with a panel of experts and those attending were asked to send questions in advance. The panel included:
- Claire Eden, Bexhill Museum – Bexhill during the First World War and war memorials.
- Dr Lucy Noakes, Reader in History at the University of Brighton and a member of the Gateways team – Experiences of the home front, women and memory.
- Dr Chris Kempshall, First World War Project Officer, East Sussex County Council – East Sussex in the First World War.
- Geoff Bridger, Military Historian and author of The Great War Handbook - Local regiments, etc.
We were warmly welcomed at the museum on arrival with tea, coffee, sweet and savoury snacks and brief tour of the First World War exhibition. The audience was smallish, more than ten and less than twenty, but this actually worked rather well in the museum's compact education room. In my capacity as Community Heritage Researcher for Gateways I chaired the event and will now list the questions that I put to the panel in turn, with a summary of their responses. The questions came both from the floor and from Twitter.
Left to right: Claire Eden, Lucy Noakes, Sam Carroll, Chris Kempshall and Geoff Bridger.
Question 1
The Gallipoli campaign has been described as an extremely costly diversion and in terms of what happened, it was, but had the operation been better prepared, co-ordinated and executed, could it have realistically achieved the intended strategic objectives of diverting German resources from the Western Front; neutralising Turkey, opening up the assistance of the hard pressed Russians, thus shortening the war?
Geoff argued that a simple response to the question would be yes. He explained that due to the fact that the opposing armies had dug in all along the Western Front there was no way through without huge costs. The idea at the time was to go on a diversion and if it had been better planned they might have been successful. They could have pushed through the “soft under-belly of Europe”, come up behind enemy lines and diverted the German army back from both fronts. He added that the Gallipoli Peninsular was an extremely difficult terrain to fight in and the allied soldiers were not prepared or trained for it. The only success of the campaign, Geoff argued, was the evacuation in December 1915.
Lucy raised a couple of things to bear in mind concerning Gallipoli. One being the importance of the campaign for Australians in terms of cultural memory; it is regarded by many as the point at which the nation was really created. It is similarly so for New Zealanders. For them, Anzac Day is more important than Armistice Day, and if you go to Gallipoli now in late April it is teaming with back packers. This year, being the centenary, it would prove impossible to get onto the peninsular; everything is fully booked up. Secondly, when looking at the First World War, we tend to forget about the Ottoman Empire and other events that went on in the Middle East. The break up of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the Armenian genocide and we can still see its legacy in geopolitics today.
Chris argued that while Gallipoli is remembered as a largely Anzac affair, it is important to add that the British and French were there too. Also, people often uphold the idea that the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were propping up Germany. Chris explained that it was actually the other way round. The Crimean War was in fact fought to prop up the Ottoman Empire in order to prevent the Russians from having a warm water port into the Mediterranean. A successful offensive at Gallipoli would probably have removed the Ottoman Empire as an obstacle, but it was still a long way from the Dardanelles to Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire might have been the “sick man of Europe”, but the Turks were fighting on a ground of their choosing.
Geoff added that whilst Anzac Day is a major part of the year for Australians and New Zealanders, it is often forgotten that the British were more heavily involved. Anzac losses were rather less than 12000 fatal casualties, the British had about 32000 casualties and the French 10000.
Question 2
Looking at two rolls of honour in a local church. One is for all the men that died and the other all the men that served. There are 45 names on the first and over 80 on the second. They don't match up at all. Also, there are 11 men who died who aren't recorded on the list of those who served. What is the panel's opinion on this?
Claire explained that this sort of thing is not unusual. On the Bexhill memorial, for example, they have 331 names and very few of them have anything to do with Bexhill. It might be that their grandmother lived in the town or they once worked there. Another scenario might be that they enlisted in Hastings and weren't included on that memorial, so they were represented in Bexhill instead. It is often very hard to get a comprehensive list because the names of the people to be included in memorials depended on other people submitting them. If someone's family didn't live locally or hadn't survived the war then they might not get on. Claire added that it also depended on when the memorial was erected. The one in Bexhill was erected in 1920, so those that died before then, even after the war from wounds or illness, were included.
Lucy added that it is always easier to find out about those that died rather than those that didn't because we have the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. War memorials were set up by local committees. There wasn't a standard way of doing things or any guidelines as this was the first time that soldiers were commemorated publicly by name on such a scale. Different committees therefore made different decisions as to who went on the memorials and who didn't. Lucy then made reference to historian Jay Winter's work saying that he argued that the main purpose of war memorials was to remind the town of which families might need support for having lost loved ones. She also pointed out that there were economic repercussions around who was regarded as a casualty of the war. If a man died in 1928 of emphysema that resulted from gassing, it was not necessarily the case that his widow would get a war pension.
Chris explained that when looking at memorials it was often helpful to “follow the money”. One should investigate who paid for the memorial and how much it cost to get the names on it. He added that there were also elements of local rivalry. Towns often competed over having the biggest memorial or the greatest number of casualties.
Geoff added that nearly all memorials are listed by name in alphabetical order, but this was not always the case. He recalled an example story of one memorial that started off with the name of a lieutenant that no-one knew of, or of his connection to the place. After some research they learned that the fundraising for the memorial had not been doing well after the war. Eventually a local colonel paid for it himself and in return made that sure his own son went on it, right at the top, even though he had lived miles away and had no association with the town.
Question 3
How much should commemoration of the First World War focus on those who died in it?
Chris explained that we should remember that 88% of those that served in the First World War came back from it. How we commemorate it now isn't the way it has always been. Back in the 1920s the quiet remembrance service was often followed by an Armistice Ball. This was for the veterans to dance and enjoy themselves and to pay tribute, being thankful that there were alive. The idea was that if roles were reversed they would want others to be doing this. The press, however, had differing views. The Daily Mail regarded it as being disrespectful. Eventually such pressure changed things and turned commemoration into the solemn thing it is today.
Geoff argued that, for him, those that didn't come back were foremost in his mind. In that, he also includes those not commonly commemorated; the opposition forces. He explained that Commonwealth war graves are well attended, but he has hardly ever met other people in a German cemetery which are often stark and unwelcoming.
Lucy added to this, saying that German cemeteries often made use of a dark stone with a different “architectural vernacular”. She drew attention to the role of the red poppy in commemoration. These are sold by the British Legion to raise funds for injured combatants, both British and Commonwealth. In the 1930s, however, the Women's Cooperative Guild began to sell the white poppy in order to raise money for victims of war globally. These were very contentious, with occasions of white poppy wreaths being trampled on at memorials. Lucy then added the point that up until around the end of 1915, a child under 5 years old in a working class area such as Pimlico had a higher chance of dying than a soldier on the Western Front.
Claire stated that it is often easier to commemorate the “glorious dead”. However those that returned had to suffer the living memory. Bexhill was interested in all who went and served and money spent was focused on returned veterans having somewhere to get together. In fact, the town didn't really want to remember the war. Many Bexhill residents had a German heritage and in the Edwardian resorts such as this one would often find Germans bands playing. The Bexhill hotels also had many German and French workers and they had a German mayor. There was also a German school where the Kaiser's nephew attended in 1914. The Kaiser's sisters were even visiting the resort in 1914. The war was regarded as a terrible inconvenience that interfered with the holiday season. It was clearly not a conventional town regarding attitudes towards the First World War.
Claire Eden discusses Bexhill and the First World War.
Question 4
What is the most significant legacy of the First World War for women?
Lucy stated that it has been the misguided belief that the First World War won women the vote that has probably been the biggest legacy for women. She argued that, in fact, what won women the vote was the long running Suffrage campaign, not the work that women did during the war. At the beginning of the war, the suffragettes threw their “full weight and capacity for drama”, behind the war effort. The suffragists divided, but the majority decided to suspend their activities for the duration of the war. A small minority broke away and formed the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Lucy explained that to get a clearer picture one should look at the parliamentary debates of 1918 concerning voting rights. Mostly the debates were about enfranchising men and the women's issue got tacked on to that. A lot of politicians argued that if women were given the vote, they would think that war was beneficial for them. Essentially, the vote would be given to warmongers who wouldn't ever have to go out and fight.
Dr Lucy Noakes discusses the legacy of the First World War for women in Britain.
Claire talked about how the local suffrage campaign in Bexhill wasn't very well organised. Saying that, it carried on until well into 1915 and then after the war the Suffragettes stepped down from campaigning. Claire agreed with Lucy's argument that it was the years of campaigning prior to the war that were instrumental in gaining the vote for women.
Chris added that the war massively limited the amount of voting power that women received. It was certainly not universal and only for those that owned property and were over 30 years old. This was designed because most of the fatal war casualties were aged between 18 and 30. The government didn't want to create a voting block which outnumbered men by women of the same age group.
Geoff argued that perhaps the main legacy for women was in their trying to find a husband after the war. They would also have to fight to maintain their jobs when the men were returning looking for work.
Lucy added that regarding the lack of husbands, the government subsidised the migration of women to the colonies such as Australia and Canada. It didn't work out very well.
Question 5
What is trench foot? Did it slow the troops down and was it curable?
Geoff talked about the conditions on the Western Front. That the men were likely to be up to their knees in water and they could be sodden for a couple of weeks at the time and this meant that their feet often started to rot. Towards the middle of 1915, when this problem was realised, the officers were made responsible to look after their men's feet with regular inspections. They encouraged them to change their socks (although these were often wet too) and their feet were massaged with whale oil to try and keep the problem at bay. A tremendous amount of men reported sick with trench foot and it was very debilitating.
Chris explained that the German trenches were much better equipped as they were designed to hold their position. The French and British were set on pushing forwards so they didn't spend too much time on making their trenches habitable. He added that looking after the feet was also a problem much later on in the Vietnam War and it eventually became a court martial offence.
Geoff stated that the German trenches were generally on the higher ground too.
Question 6
Why do some stories from the war become marginalised and others remembered e.g. Battle of the Somme and Battle of Boar's Head?
Chris explained that it often depends on the context, not only when it happened, but when it is being remembered. The obvious example here is the Battle of Boar's Head which is colloquially known as the “day that Sussex died”. It was a diversionary attack at Richebourg near a line called the Boar's Head (due to its shape). He argued that it was a fairly undisputed disaster and wasn't remembered because it took place the day before the Battle of the Somme. We also often focus on particular areas depending on their national meaning, the French, for example, don't tend to talk about the Battle of the Somme, they talk about Verdun. The British in return don't talk about Verdun, indeed they don't tend to discuss the French participation in the war much at all. He added that before the Somme, people talked much more about Ypres. A popular image of the First World War soldier is up to his knees in mud and that would have been in Flanders and Ypres, not at the Somme where it was more chalky, and certainly not so wet on the 1st July 1916. The Somme came to represent a little bit of everything. It had the enormous casualty count and therefore made the headlines.
Geoff added that on the battlefield tours today people mainly go to Ypres or the Somme. They spend five days in one area and then put their foot down and “go hurtling past all the battles in between”.
Lucy mentioned the work of Dan Todman who has looked at how the memory of the First World War has changed over time. From the 1920s and 30s “Lost Generation” with the writing of Siegfried Sassoon and Vera Britain. Then through the Second World War there was not much thinking back to the First World War going on at all. Then in the early 1960s we reached the popular memory of “Lions lead by Donkeys”, a term introduced by politician Alan Clark. More recently, the Michael Gove and Blackadder debate and the notion of a “Just War” has made the headlines. Lucy agreed with Chris that the context of time shapes what gets forgotten and what gets remembered.
Claire discussed the importance of what gets taught in schools. That there is a cultural knowledge that is hard to challenge and if your memory doesn't fit with the national memory you get marginalised.
Question 7
Could the panel say a little about how we should be remembering the war in global terms and the impact it had?
Lucy discussed some recent work she has been doing in order to help create a website for primary schools in Brighton about it having been a hospital town for Indian Solders in the First World War. Stories that are often marginalised, such as this, are really very important to bring to the foreground of our shared cultural heritage and knowledge.
Chris explained that he finds himself infuriated every year, around the time of Remembrance Day, when “a pernicious hate campaign” emerges, one that is particularly aimed at religious and ethnic minorities. He argued that some individuals try to take ownership of the First World War as being a white person's war and suggested that they should keep out of it if they don't know the facts, that many people from India, the Middle East and Africa came and fought in the war. He also drew attention to the appalling way that the colonial troops were often treated. At the beginning of the war, for example, West Indian men weren't allowed to fight, but after a strong campaign to join, this changed. While this was going on, back in the West Indies there was a series of strikes around civil liberties and by now the army were worried that they had shown these men how to use guns. They weren't keen on sending them home to join an uprising, so at the end of the war they transferred them by boat to Venezuela and left them there. Now there is a community of West Indians in Venezuela. Chris also explained that Chinese labourers were very badly treated during the war. Britain hired them in 1916 and shipped them from China to Canada where they were offloaded as cargo to avoid paying a docking fee. British officers were not interested in learning their names and so they were given a number to hang around their neck. After removing their humanity in this manner and getting them doing extremely hard jobs, they were left stranded in France rather than taken home again to China. Chris argued that this was clearly not a “nice middle class white war”. It was a world war because it was fought by people all around the world.
Chris Kempshall discusses the global impact of the First World War.
Geoff added that the first shot of the First World War was in Africa by an African soldier and there were very few places not involved in the war. We are only just really starting to properly remember the fact it was a global war.
Lucy mentioned the impact on Sussex of it being a global war. For many at home, it was the first time they had ever seen troops from India, Canada, South Africa and Australia and workers from China and Africa. In the Royal Pavilion they had to erect barriers to stop the public of Brighton gawping, especially the ladies.
Chris added that the barriers weren't only to stop ladies from Brighton getting in to the Pavilion, they were designed to keep the Indian soldiers inside. They were topped with barbed wire.
Question 8
How might one best get at regimental records?
Geoff explained that unfortunately there were never papers kept on what individual soldiers did in the war. Official papers recorded a soldier's career to a degree, but most of these were destroyed in an air raid on 1940 in London. Those that survived were digitally copied and are housed in the National Archives or can be found on family history websites. They can tell you the soldier's physical characteristics, their unit, and perhaps their disciplinary and medical records. However, regimental records might be more useful. A battalion was around about a thousand men and each unit of battalion size or greater were obliged to keep a record of what they did. These war diaries are archived at the National Archives and vary in quality; they are as good as the men who wrote them.
Question 9
Did positive public feelings in the first part of the FWW continue or did public sentiment change?
Geoff explained that at first everyone believed that it was all going to be over by Christmas. He argued that the British were masters of propaganda and that the news was greatly manipulated during the war to keep the public on side. As more casualties came back and soldiers said what it was really like, however, scepticism did creep in. Less so, in the British army than in the French where there were occasions of mutiny.
Claire discussed how in Bexhill, a quote in the Observer demonstrates what factors affected levels of recruitment there. Men weren't enlisting at first, then as soon as the harvest came in, recruitment went up from 249 men to over 1200. She argued that after the harvest they would have been unemployed and so signed up for economic reasons.
Question 10
One of the things raised as an issue in the Bexhill Observer before the Canadian soldiers arrived was around apprehension. It said that “The locals shuddered inwardly at the thought of these untamed sons of Canada coming to the town.” How widely was this perception across other areas of the country?
Chris explained that there was a “pyramid of people that we liked” with those who were considered to be from a European background at the top (Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders) and then you work your way down through the colonies. Within the armies they often hated each other. He argued that, interestingly, when the Americans began to arrive the French loved them as they shared republicanism. The British army deeply hated them and viewed them as people exposed “to too much democracy, they didn't know their place”.
Geoff argued that the Canadian troops often wrecked the local buildings whilst training and so this was sometimes a problem relation-wise. Americans were regarded as swaggering and disrespectful and their contribution was seen in terms of their potential rather than what they actually did.
Chris added that there were also discrepancies around soldiers' pay. Local prices would go up when Canadians turned up as they were better paid. There were also discrepancies around rules. Australian soldiers for example weren't allowed to be shot for desertion. This caused some lingering resentment.
Question 11
A great uncle was evacuated from Gallipoli and as soon as he got home he deserted and they never caught him. What was the attitude in the country towards people like that?
Geoff argued that people were certainly not very impressed with deserters. There would be an entry on the war medal role to say they weren't getting any for deserting. They had to keep in hiding for a couple of years after the war before there was an amnesty.
Lucy added that there were networks and safe houses for deserters and conscientious objectors especially in the North West of the country.
Claire pointed out that the Bexhill tribunals were printed in the local newspaper. One man argued that he couldn't go to war as he had to look after his sick mother. Then a year later when his case was reviewed it turned out that she had been dead for a while. A man called Henry Sargent was a conscientious objector from Bexhill and he was locked up and treated terribly. After the war he became assistant curator at the museum. In 1920 he was about to be promoted, but people in the town objected to him becoming curator due to the fact that he has been a conscientious objector. He was eventually given the job and stayed in post until retirement.
