Who Do You Think You Are? [UK Series]

The pronunciation of Wytschaete was wrong.

Good episode though, but not as good as the Patrick Stewart one.

 

The pronunciation of Wytschaete was wrong.

Paul, by ‘wrong’ do you mean different from the way an inhabitant of Wijtschate (the modern spelling), speaking in the local dialect would pronounce it?
Or different from the way a representative Flemish-speaking Belgian living in Brussels would pronounce it?
As a Dutch speaker living in the Netherlands I know how I’d pronounce it, but I suspect that would be different to either of the above.
D’you know of any site that covers this point with sound or IPA?

Good episode, better than the over-rated Patrick Stewart one IMO.

 

Good episode, better than the over-rated Patrick Stewart one IMO.

Overrated care to explain why you say this.

 

Here’s why I found the Patrick Stewart programme unsatisfactory.

The programme was beautifully, competently made to tell a certain story in the most effective possible way. But when you analysed it afterwards that story all rested on one tiny scrap of evidence: the two words ‘shell shock’ in a local newspaper in 1940. Without that there was no story.

To believe in the programme’s story, and perhaps be moved by it, you’d have to find that tiny scrap strong enough to prove the case, and you'd have to discount as irrelevant the fact that the father went on to serve with distinction in a confident, mentally strong way for the last five years of war, and also to discount the point that many tens of thousands of men had terrible experiences during the war which haunted their dreams for decades, and yet only a small minority behaved as unpleasantly as the father seems to have done.

So there may or may not be something in the story told by the programme but the balance of the evidence provided for it was very weak IMO.

 

Alex Kingston tonight BBC1 9pm

Lesley

 

The pronunciation of Wytschaete was wrong.

Good episode though, but not as good as the Patrick Stewart one.

The Hugh Dennis episode was notable for the fact that he did not cry. The definition I read somewhere from a child was that the series "Who Do you think You Are?" ( sub-title: What did Grandpa do in the Great War rather than the Crimean War these days ) was the " telly programme in which famous people cry in libraries."

The no tears approach was much better: I felt I had learnt something about the horrors of the First World War, so congratulations to those responsible.

The "Patrick Stewart" one was not as good: more of a puzzle as to why a newspaper would print what they did.

 

Tonight BBC1 9pm
William Roache

Lesley

 

An excellent instalment; not one mention of either War, unless I missed something! Truly amazing story about Alton Towers; didn't know any of that.

Steve W.

 

Late entry to the debate about the Patrick Stewart WDYTYA but thought I could add something to it as the bloke who handed him the cutting about his father.

Bart150 is absolutely right to say that a newspaper cutting is not enough evidence to hang the whole story on. Having said that, I can assure you that it wasn't the only piece of evidence, just the one to make the cuts during editing. The earlier criticism from Roy about not mentioning Op Aerial blamed 'historians' - again, it's down to how much detail they can fit into a 60 minute programme aimed at a general, non-military history literate audience. We give them information, they use what bits they choose to give the gist of the story and keep it as simple as possible.

I'm obviously not going to discuss off air conversations but can assure you that the theme of the show was valid. I speak as someone with 25 years experience in the field of veteran mental health issues (and I was at a conference on the subject just a few hours ago to hear about the latest thinking on the subject). I'm also the author - shameless plug because I don't get any royalties from it - of a fund raiser book for Combat Stress on the subject called 'Courage Under Fire' (pub by Elliot & Thompson).

Alf Stewart's story was, to me anyway, an incredibly moving one of a man who devoted his life to the military and found a home there but was unable to cope with life after such distinguished service. A story I've heard all too often from veterans of every war of the last 70 years. Since the programme I've been approached by several people who wanted to talk about their own experiences of similar issues. Whatever the programme's value as history, it helped some people start to understand veterans a bit more. That surely must be worth it.

Tim

 

I bow to the master plugger!!!


Thank you

 

Thank you, Tim. Your input from ‘behind the scenes’ is much appreciated. You are an expert and I have no specialist knowledge at all. Even so, what about the following little bit of analysis?

There are two distinct phenomena: one is ‘combat stress’ – psychological damage caused by experience of the horrors of war; the other is ‘authority loss’ – psychological damage caused by abrupt transition from life in a highly structured, authority-heavy military organisation. These are two different things: one man might suffer ‘combat stress’ while being very happy to leave the structured military organisation; another man might suffer from ‘authority loss’ on retiring after 22 years service even though he was never in a combat situation.

If a man served throughout World War 2 and then had symptoms of psychological damage, then that might be the consequence of either ‘combat stress’ or ‘authority loss’. True a bit of both might well be present, but – speaking as a complete outsider to the subject – I’d conjecture that usually one or the other would be the dominant factor.

I’d be fascinated to hear what you think of the distinction I’ve suggested. If it does have some value, then the questions arise: How does it apply to the case of Patrick Stewart’s father? What does the material cut out by the dumbing-down editor suggest? Was the main factor ‘combat stress’ or ‘authority loss’?

Bart

 

Hi Bart,

Interesting point but I'm afraid it's even more complicated than that.

'Shell shock' gets bandied about a lot, as does Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and it's worth clarifying those things.

'Shell shock' is best understood as a psychological reaction during operations. The terms 'battle fatigue' or 'combat fatigue' are also sometimes used. Today people refer to 'Combat Stress Reaction' or 'Acute Stress Reaction'. These are dealt with close to the front and can be fairly short term with the affected person being able to return to the unit quite quickly.

PTSD, by its very definition, is 'Post' the event. After a lot of effort, the British military finally acknowledged this just 25 years after the internationally recognised medical diagnostic criteria were set down. This can mean it surfaces years later (Saving Private Ryan was blamed for causing flashbacks in WW2 vets over 50 years after the event). Currently, Combat Stress say that on average it takes 14.9 years before veterans seek help.

In between is the sort of adjustment difficulty you refer to as 'authority loss'. Basically, it's the problem of returning to civilian life and standards.It takes weeks of intensive training to create a soldier but only a signature to turn that soldier into a civilian again. If you've spent the last few years having to be totally in control of yourself and your men, it's hardly surprising if this translates into controlling behaviour against your family that can become abusive - as the programme showed.

The programme was an attempt to consider how military experience shaped Alf Stewart and how this then affected Patrick and the family. Obviously you can never categorically state that Alf suffered 'Shell shock', PTSD or anything else because he's dead and we can't ask him about his experiences. What we can say is that clearly his experiences had a profound effect on him and that once the war was over he returned home an angry and bitter man and it's hard not to see some sort of connection between the two things.

The reference to 'shell shock' in the paper came at the end of an extremely traumatic experience for the 2/4th KOYLI with whom he served in May/June 1940. My book, 'Dunkirk 1940: Whereabouts Unknown' details what happened to the battalion in the retreat from Abbeville and at Pont de l'Arche. Given their state of readiness when they were sent into battle, it would be surprising if any came back without some (temporary) emotional upset.

Long answer short, your distinction is valid but the problem is always knowing where one thing starts and the other stops. Someone can be completely debilitated without meeting the criteria for full blown PTSD - imagine PTSD as flu (not man flu, the real one that means you're in bed for days). Now imagine a really bad cold. They're not the same thing but they share a lot of the same symptoms and have very similar effects on the sufferer. In terms of veterans mental health today, it's a complex business to tease out which behaviours relate to which condition. The upshot is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of ex-service people drinking themselves to death, committing suicide or generally failing to cope with civilian life. There's nothing new about it and it has affected veterans of every war. The only thing new about it is that we are finally acknowledging that veterans are human beings with feelings and emotions.

Hope all that makes sense and thanks again for your interest.

Tim

 

Hahaha Good effort Adam

I can vouch for what Tim says about the cutting room floor-I provided some research material for a programme that was on TV earlier this year-I could have made a great emotional story out of the the man's unit and what they did in 1940-all of which very little is known.

What was finaly aired on TV was a pretty rubbish in my opinion compared to the rest of the series.

 

Tim ref your book - Is there anything in it from Telic One?

 

Hi Drew,

Nothing detailed, the book is about the experiences of soldiers from WW2 to the present taking in Korea, Falklands, Bosnia, Gulf and NI among others. The aim is to promote an understanding for civvies about what squaddies do and why they do it. Lots of personal stories about how their experiences have affected their lives since.

Falklands vet Simon Weston said yesterday that real combat veterans don't measure their wars by medals but by tears. 'Courage Under Fire' explains what that means.

Must go, I recorded 'Went The Day Well?' during the week and plan to watch it while the kids are out. That's the one 'The Eagle Has Landed' was based on but made during WW2.

Is it wrong to get all hot and bothered about Thora Hird going Rambo on the German paras?

 

Hi Drew,

Nothing detailed, the book is about the experiences of soldiers from WW2 to the present taking in Korea, Falklands, Bosnia, Gulf and NI among others. The aim is to promote an understanding for civvies about what squaddies do and why they do it. Lots of personal stories about how their experiences have affected their lives since.


Cheers-Perhaps I should explain, I'd be interested in any accounts of Telic One because I was there.

 

Hahaha Good effort Adam

I can vouch for what Tim says about the cutting room floor-I provided some research material for a programme that was on TV earlier this year-I could have made a great emotional story out of the the man's unit and what they did in 1940-all of which very little is known.

What was finaly aired on TV was a pretty rubbish in my opinion compared to the rest of the series.

Ah the cutting room floor - have seen a lot of good stuff end up there in my time. As someone who spent twenty odd years making TV and films I think it's fair to say that most of the time you're looking for the best way to tell a story and because film and TV are useless at conveying information, but great at narrative, then you go with the story. When you have someone who knows what they are doing, then this can be done with care and attention and respect to the contributors. When it's not, then what you get is a poor story and contributors who are wasted. There's simply a lot of sh***e TV on these days which is cheap and knocked out quickly.

IMHO, the problem with WDYTYA is that it's a senile format (in series 9 now?)and has been reduced to a very familiar structure that cuts to the chase without much ceremony. There is doubtless a book - or books in why WW2 is such a popular trope in our culture, but while there is television, we'll be throwing bricks at the screen because it's missed something important or made an arse of itself. If I want entertainment I watch TV, if I want facts, I read books like Tim's or come on this forum and ask.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Reed
The pronunciation of Wytschaete was wrong.

The modern spelling of 'Wytschaete' (or 'Wijtschaete') is 'Wijtschate'.
The standard Dutch pronunciation of 'Wijtschate' is
['vɛit.sxa:tə]
or as a very crude approximation: "Vites-CH-ah-ter", (CH being the sound in Scots 'loch', that is absent from the English of most people).

Wijtschate is in West Flanders and the West Flemish dialect certainly differs from standard Dutch in a number of features. Whether any of them affect the pronunciation of this particular word I haven't been able to discover.

 

WDYTYA
Tonight BBC1 9pm
Celia Imrie

Lesley