|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Equal in death?
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I just read this interesting article. article about next year's WWI centenary.
Apparently the idea has been floated by Andrew Murrison, the UK's special representative for centenary events, that this commemoration, instead of nationalistically celebrating our dead alone, we should mourn the deaths of all those who died in this tragic conflict, British, Allies and Axis alike.
The article does not support this measure. I'm not sure what I think. On the one hand, I am drawn to the breaking down of the barrier of nationalism that still seperates us from our foreign neighbours. They suffered also in WWI, even more so than ourselves. They are humans too and are surely worthy of our respect and remembrance.
But on the other hand, the article make some good points, that dying in war is special, that it is a dishonour to the dead to extricate their death from the meaning of their sacrifice.
I am not fully convinced by all the arguments of the article but it's made me think about the nature of commemoration, what it means, and what is the difference between honourable remembrance, and maudlin sorrow. And what does it mean to die 'for' something.
What do you think?
[ 12. February 2013, 17:22: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its not a new idea. At least some enemy soldiers were given ceremonial military burials or reburials in Commonwealth war graves. Some are still there, with the same kind of little headstones the allied soldiers have. "So-and-so a soldier in the Imperial GGerman Army, known only unto God" and so forth. I've seen them.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:23: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Does anyone remember ++Robert Runcie's sermon at the Falklands War service at St Paul's, and the fury it provoked in Thatcher? All he said was, IIRC, that we should remember all who died.
For a Christian, there should be no question. It just shows how superficial is the religion of the 'God, Queen and Country' types.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:25: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Axis
You mean the Central Powers.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:27: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
As it's over 100 years ago, I don't see how anyone could object. The Germans, Austrians and Turks are our friends and allies now - we should be over the old hatreds.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:29: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
As it's over 100 years ago, I don't see how anyone could object. The Germans, Austrians and Turks are our friends and allies now - we should be over the old hatreds.
You do, however, run against the historical facts that that group of people died in pursuit of a bad cause, whilst this group of people died in defence of a good cause (ok, it's not quite so simple, but you get the gist.) Whenever we commemorate the sacrifice of people in war we can't do it without remembering the context unless we sanitise history and make it all rose-tinted and dancing and fairies.
As for the question posed in the op - I don't know what my answer would be completely, I agree mostly with the article, and it raises some real points, and...
As a community we have these public commemorations to remember the fallen in our society, not other societies (though the sacrifices of the Commonwealth realms and nations are often incorporated into most of the commemorations I have attended in the UK) as these people fell for our society, in defence of our society adn not in defence of the enemies society and I guess whilst I still have family that fought in WWII alive my views are a little coloured and I will continue to think of commemorations as for the particular society in which they are 'celebrated', whilst the institutions we have created in the world, such as the UN and NATO are the perpetual memorials to all who died and that these institutions are their legacy seeking to create a more peaceful and fair society.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:31: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
As it's over 100 years ago, I don't see how anyone could object. The Germans, Austrians and Turks are our friends and allies now - we should be over the old hatreds.
You do, however, run against the historical facts that that group of people died in pursuit of a bad cause, whilst this group of people died in defence of a good cause (ok, it's not quite so simple, but you get the gist.) Whenever we commemorate the sacrifice of people in war we can't do it without remembering the context unless we sanitise history and make it all rose-tinted and dancing and fairies.
As for the question posed in the op - I don't know what my answer would be completely, I agree mostly with the article, and it raises some real points, and...
As a community we have these public commemorations to remember the fallen in our society, not other societies (though the sacrifices of the Commonwealth realms and nations are often incorporated into most of the commemorations I have attended in the UK) as these people fell for our society, in defence of our society adn not in defence of the enemies society and I guess whilst I still have family that fought in WWII alive my views are a little coloured and I will continue to think of commemorations as for the particular society in which they are 'celebrated', whilst the institutions we have created in the world, such as the UN and NATO are the perpetual memorials to all who died and that these institutions are their legacy seeking to create a more peaceful and fair society.
The problem with discriminating along the lines of "good causes vs bad causes" is that history is written by the winners, who will always make great efforts to airbrush out any atrocious acts they committed along the way. You can add to that the problem that no state had any plausible claim to have been fighting a just war in WWI, except perhaps the Belgians who had their neutrality violated. You can certainly rule out the British and their Commonwealth client states, most of their involvement was more about expanding and consolidating their colonial possessions which is hardly a just cause.
The ordinary soldiers and field-grade officers who fought on the ground during the course of a war deserve to be remembered regardless of whether they were fortunate to be on the side which won the war and wrote the history - they were all fighting the noble cause of serving their country. It is the leaders of the states involved (both civilian and military) who deserve to have their actions analysed critically, including the leaders of the winning states who got to write the official history. That ordinary soldiers, sailors, airmen and field-grade officers had to go into battle because those leaders fucked up is a tragedy regardless of which nation they came from.
One thing that makes me proud of being an Australian is the special honour given to veterans and current service personnel from Turkey if they are in Australia at the time of ANZAC Day, they will be invited to take a highly honoured place in the veterans march to signify that both nations have learned from the Gallipoli campaign which is memorialised by ANZAC Day. Remembering the context here means acknowledging that neither side gained from that conflict, and that without the web of alliances and some truly incompetent British strategic planning there was no sane reason for Australians to be fighting against Turks at Gallipoli.
I would suggest that the best way to memorialise the centenary of WWI starting would be to focus on the context of WWI starting- world leaders on all sides fucking it up - and the great shame that so many from so many nations suffered the result of that. Jingoistic memorials to "our good boys" should carry on using the dates they normally use, to avoid crowding in on the global memorial to all military and civilian people who suffered from the war.
Communities which were directly affected by a particular battle and have an already-established tradition of marking that occasion (like the ANZAC Day service at the Villiers-Bretoneaux monument to Australia) should carry on marking that anniversary in the same way they normally do.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:32: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Even during World War I itself, there were demonstrations of respect for enemy soldiers that suggest to me the lower ranks saw each other as 'doing their job' for their respective countries.
More recent conflicts may well have had different attitudes, but I don't think the people of World War I would think there was anything wrong with remembering those who died in opposition.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:33: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
That's a good point.
I would support that by pointing to the differences between WWI and WWII in terms of direct civilian impact (mainly the development of aerial bombing, but also mechanisation of armies) and the level of propaganda employed, facilitated by advances in communication technology. The contribution of this to the "total war" employed by both the Axis and Allied powers was to make it such that there was no difference between the people on the other side (civilian and military) and the army on the other side, whereas in WWI soldiers only fought against the army on the other side and attacking the civilian population was still less acceptable than it became during WWII.
<small>[ 07. February 2013, 13:48: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]</small>
[ 12. February 2013, 17:33: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli. Which is which?
[ 12. February 2013, 17:34: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
If a set of remains can be identified as UK, Empire or German forces make that notation on the marker. If a name can be attached even better. BUT I think it is time for WW I remains to be treated equeally. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 12. February 2013, 17:34: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
One of my favorite descriptions of a WWI warrior is An Irish Airman Forsees His Death. The Irish oppressed had little reason to wish to put their lives on the line for the Empire at that point. But some did fight.
People on all sides fought for different reasons, and those that died died a difficult death.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:35: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I would feel uncomfortable about formally honouring the Ottoman fallen until the Turkish state has acknowledged the Armenian genocide.
[ 12. February 2013, 17:35: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
A while back I heard a moving account of the experiences of a man from the Indian sub-Continent who was conscripted to fight on the British side.
Indian conscripts had never experienced industrialized slaughter on the scale seen in WW1 .
Something that struck a note of futility/poignancy was when he told of how he, and his Indian comrades, would pull their turbans over their eyes to protect themselves from gas while going over the top.
Coming back to OP my guess is , with the current militaristic mood, the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1 will be used to promote sense of nationalism over a feeling of tragedy.
[ 09. February 2013, 09:47: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Go back to 1934:
quote:
Gallipoli - Memorial at Anzac Cove by Ataturk.
"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives…
You are now living in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours…
You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Ataturk, 1934
The Turks had as much reason to regret the Gallipoli campaign as did anyone else, in the end. You can't say that Churchill came across well in that case.
And were the two invasions of Mesopotamia totally honourable in their intentions?
There are always questions about how the wars developed and were fought. Get over it. The vast majority of those killed/maimed/displaced had no choice in the matter, any more than the peasants killed in the Thiry Years' War did.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That is sublime of Australia and Ataturk.
I'm an armchair warrior of over 50 years and have only last year submitted to Christ as pacifist.
We are ALL equal in life, not just death. It is time we challenged Caesar - especially OUR Caesar - for sending boys to die on our behalf when Jesus has already done that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
...next year's WWI centenary...
...mourn the deaths of all those who died in this tragic conflict, British, Allies and Axis alike...
...But...dying in war is special, that it is a dishonour to the dead to extricate their death from the meaning of their sacrifice...
What do you think?
I would LOVE to see the war anniversary focus on acknowledgment that there is nothing glorious about war, lament that so many young lives were ended too soon, apology to the dead, and a call for cooler heads among those ruling nations in the future.
I don't expect to see any of that except among a few commentators on the fringes.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Belle Ringer. The especially among the followers of Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I agree Belle Ringer.
My great grandfather fought and was wounded at Gallipoli. His future son-in-law, my great-uncle, had a brother, Ferenc Békássy, killed fighting for Austro-Hungary; his name is listed in King's College, Cambridge, though on a separate wall (he had been a student there). War destroys.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I agree Belle Ringer.
My great grandfather fought and was wounded at Gallipoli. His future son-in-law, my great-uncle, had a brother, Ferenc Békássy, killed fighting for Austro-Hungary; his name is listed in King's College, Cambridge, though on a separate wall (he had been a student there). War destroys.
Either going to war because of known dodgy evidence means you can't be remembered*, or it does, or their some special 'unless it's Britain(/America)' clause. If it's the third lets be honest and replace 'never again' with 'until next time'. If the second what's the problem, the first...I really hope that's not the case.
Sometime around the 100 years anniversary seems a good to mourn all the dead, if not now within 5 years.
*and this distinction doesn't really apply to WW1 where the starting was decidedly mixed.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A while back I heard a moving account of the experiences of a man from the Indian sub-Continent who was conscripted to fight on the British side.
Indian conscripts had never experienced industrialized slaughter on the scale seen in WW1.
Strange, I thought for sure that the colonial army of India was all volunteers.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Either going to war because of known dodgy evidence means you can't be remembered*, or it does, or their some special 'unless it's Britain(/America)' clause. If it's the third lets be honest and replace 'never again' with 'until next time'. If the second what's the problem, the first...I really hope that's not the case.
Sometime around the 100 years anniversary seems a good to mourn all the dead, if not now within 5 years.
*and this distinction doesn't really apply to WW1 where the starting was decidedly mixed.
I would go with the second, but for conflicts starting after about 1995 I would go with the first.
With the limitless access to information in the western world these days, if there's to be an exception it has to be the other way around to your "except if it's Britain/America" exception. The easy access to more balanced views than the governments' official policies (compared to the minimal information available to those people who fought in WWI and especially WWII with the extreme level of propaganda activity) places a higher level of responsibility on service personnel from the western world to assess their position critically and not blindly follow orders. This is an extension of a doctrine that was established by the US and UK at the Nuremberg trials, that following orders is not a good excuse for committing or assisting in committing war crimes.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I would feel uncomfortable about formally honouring the Ottoman fallen until the Turkish state has acknowledged the Armenian genocide.
On this issue, citizens of the UK like you should be careful to avoid throwing stones in glass houses.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A while back I heard a moving account of the experiences of a man from the Indian sub-Continent who was conscripted to fight on the British side.
Indian conscripts had never experienced industrialized slaughter on the scale seen in WW1.
Strange, I thought for sure that the colonial army of India was all volunteers.
Big difference between volunteers and "volunteers" when you talk about British-oppressed colonies.
To be fair though, nobody had experienced slaughter on the scale of WWI prior to that point.
[ 09. February 2013, 16:26: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Strange, I thought for sure that the colonial army of India was all volunteers.
OK, thanks for putting me straight . It was from a TV documentary a while back , and I've watched way too many since ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) .
Although, yes, having "volunteered" I guess it was a case of ,-- your in the Army now son. Oh, and BTW what's 'Cannon fodder' in Indian ?
_________________________________________________
Having actually now read the link in OP . I disagree that we can't expect people to fight , and possibly make the ultimate sacrifice if we regard WW1 as a universal tragedy.
After-all wasn't it regarded as such throughout much of the inter-war period ? This didn't prevent our Countrymen and women motivating themselves ,(reluctantly), to repel the Nazi threat.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I agree Belle Ringer.
My great grandfather fought and was wounded at Gallipoli. His future son-in-law, my great-uncle, had a brother, Ferenc Békássy, killed fighting for Austro-Hungary; his name is listed in King's College, Cambridge, though on a separate wall (he had been a student there). War destroys.
There is a similar memorial in New College Oxford, put up at the instigation of the Warden, William Spooner (he of the 'Spoonerism').
quote:
In memory of the men of this college who coming from a foreign land entered into the inheritance of this place and returning fought and died for their country in the war 1914 - 1919
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
One would hope that the existence of a peace treaty arrived at between once-warring nations of 3 generations ago might actually hold some meaning and carry some weight.
I know: governments declare war. Governments forge peace treaties.
But a government's citizens fight those wars, and of course, that's exactly what makes it so difficult for the citizens to wage peace.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
As it's over 100 years ago, I don't see how anyone could object. The Germans, Austrians and Turks are our friends and allies now - we should be over the old hatreds.
You do, however, run against the historical facts that that group of people died in pursuit of a bad cause, whilst this group of people died in defence of a good cause
The problem with discriminating along the lines of "good causes vs bad causes" is that history is written by the winners, who will always make great efforts to airbrush out any atrocious acts they committed along the way. You can add to that the problem that no state had any plausible claim to have been fighting a just war in WWI, except perhaps the Belgians who had their neutrality violated. You can certainly rule out the British and their Commonwealth client states, most of their involvement was more about expanding and consolidating their colonial possessions which is hardly a just cause.
The ordinary soldiers and field-grade officers who fought on the ground during the course of a war deserve to be remembered regardless of whether they were fortunate to be on the side which won the war and wrote the history - they were all fighting the noble cause of serving their country.
This is true up to a point. But it ignores the case of personal ethics. Is it good enough for a soldier to invade another country without consideration of the rights and wrongs of the matter? No soldier can hide behind 'orders' and 'just doing his job'. Or can they? Is merely 'serving one's country' enough to be considered an noble cause, and worthy of honour, no matter what that service looks like?
Surely it is vital that every individual judge for themselves the ethics of their actions and obey or disobey orders of their leaders based on their free-will and conscience.
Should the German soldiers have invaded Belgium in their service to Germany? Was there any ethical reason for this? Can they be blamed for their actions?
Were the British soldiers right to have journeyed to foreign trenches to defend their allies, to protect their neighbour's land? Was it ethical to kill Germans in that situation - in their attempt to repel the German advance into their ally's country?
If you claim that a soldier's sacrifice should be commemorated just in recognition of their service, no matter what the actions and ethics of that service actually entailed, then should we commemorate German soldiers of WWII as well, most of whom willingly and enthusiastically participated in the holocaust, both directly and indirectly.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, - Wilfred Owen, Dulce et Decorum Est
[ 12. February 2013, 17:23: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
edgeofthecity
Apprentice
# 17557
|
Posted
Hi everyone. I've been a lurker on this forum for quite a while but decided to register and post as, being a former British soldier myself, this is a topic that is particularly close to my heart.
During my time in uniform, I took part in two military campaigns - the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and the counter-insurgency ***ration that took place in the years following the invasion of Iraq. Both of those campaigns were immensely complex and on neither occasion could any of the participating sides (mine included) be said to be clearly on the side of the angels. That doesn't do much for my ability to sleep soundly every night but has given me a perspective on war that goes beyond narrow national sentiment and gives me some appreciation of the fact that a conflict viewed from afar (whether in time or distance) rarely looks as it does up close. I h*** you don't mind if I make a couple of points, largley motivated by some of what has been posted so far.
If you fancy a few hours depressing - if sadly predictable - reading, just bring up a few Great War videos on YouTube and take a look at the comments underneath. Even below anti-war videos and those posted for the purpose of remembrance, you're likely to come across reams of chest-thumping comments extolling the merits of a particular country's soldiers, as well as others castigating the soldiers of other countries as cowards (and worse). It doesn't say much for humanity that we appear to have learnt precisely nothing since 1918 and will happily insult soldiers who went through hell from the comfort of our bedrooms.
From personal experience, I can say that the whole idea that there are ever 'goodies and baddies' is a complete myth and things that filter through to the popular imagination are often based more on sentiment than fact. One of the greatest lessons Bosnia taught me was that received wisdom is not necessarily based on fact. Britain may have officially gone to war in 1914 to protect Belgian neutrality but did so with one eye on protecting it's own colonial interests. 11,000 ANZACS may have been butchered as a direct result of the incompetence of the British political establishment at Gallipoli but so were 21,000 British soldiers, who certainly weren't 'drinking tea on the beach'. Turkey may have had her territory violated but was herself an oppressive imperial power. And on and on, myth piled on myth, serving only to obscure the fact that the vast majority of soldiers from every nation were ordinary men and boys who may have enlisted out of a sense of duty, patriotism or simply for adventure but had no control of the course or conduct of the war beyond the purely personal. Like soldiers everywhere and in every age, most were not heroes, cowards or war criminals. They were the same people as we are, plunged into extraordinary circumstances, and all deserve to be remembered with equal respect.
During my time in Iraq, 29 British soldiers were killed, along with over 700 Americans, 1 Australian and a number of soldiers from other coalition countries. As I was based for a time at Basra Airport, I was able to attend two repatriation ceremonies, when the bodies of eight fallen British soldiers were loaded onto Hercules transport aircraft for the final journey home. Before the union-jack covered coffins were taken up the loading ramp, an army Padre stood over them and gave a collective eulogy. What struck me at the time, and on every Remembrance Sunday since, is that Imams down in Basra would have been saying much the same sort of thing when burying the dead of the Mahdi Army and other insurgent groups. Despite the propaganda on both sides, they died fighting for their own beliefs and deserve to be remembered just as much as those who fell wearing the same uniform as myself.
The events that will take place 2014-2018 offer a unique opportunity for the former Great Powers, their former colonies and allies to move beyond tabloid headlines of 'Achtung Fritz', accusations between nations of cowardice, betrayal etc and acknowledge that not only was the war a collective experience, but that the memories of national heroism and glory, as well as the mistakes and blunders, belong to a generation that has now passed on. It is our responsiblity to learn from the common human sacrifice and we can make a start on doing that by making the commemorations collective and by making an effort as individuals to stop tearing strips off people of other nations who bear no responsibility for the real or imagined sins of their fathers.
(Off-topic but the legal principle established at Nuremburg is a bit more complicated than 'just following orders is no defence'. Individuals below the upper command echelons can only be held responsible for following an illegal order where they are competent to judge the legality of said order. Soldiers who have received basic training in the law of armed conflict all know that to murder a civilian is illegal. They are not expected to judge complex issues of international law and never have been, including at Nuremburg.)
(Also off-topic but, as stated above there was never conscription in India, or in Ireland for that matter. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that Indians were 'unofficially conscripted' or used as cannon-fodder. Quite the opposite in-fact, the Indian Expeditionary Force was moved out of the worst parts of the line on the Western Front in fairly short-order when it was realised that they could be more usefully employed in non-temperate theatres).
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge. - Wilfred Owen
[ 12. February 2013, 17:25: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 1 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Welcome, edgeofthecity, and thank you for a thoughtful and moving post. I h*** you've been lurking long enough to realise the Ship isn't always quite as crazy as this - things will settle down in a bit, so that intelligent discussion can resume. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; - Wilfred Owen
[ 12. February 2013, 17:26: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by edgeofthecity:
the memories of national heroism and glory, as well as the mistakes and blunders, belong to a generation that has now passed on
This.
The bit I struggle with is what we, as Churches, should be doing on Remembrance Sunday, and even if there is a need for the Church to mark that Sunday at all - it is not after all a traditional church festival. If we are all equal in death then we already have a festival for that: All Souls' Day (conveniently also in November).
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind. - Wilfred Owen
[ 12. February 2013, 17:28: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Welcome, edgeofthecity, and thank you for a thoughtful and moving post. I h*** you've been lurking long enough to realise the Ship isn't always quite as crazy as this - things will settle down in a bit, so that intelligent discussion can resume.
Aren't you being rather optimistic? It's good that you covered your ass with the winky smilie.
quote:
Whence then have descended the Wisdom and Love That in man leap to light in intelligent fountains? ~John Townsend Trowbridge
I have no idea what that might mean, but it sounds Noble and Significant.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
Ask, and ye shall receive
[and for H&A rules, this is probably epigrammatic enough]
[ 12. February 2013, 16:09: Message buggered about with by: kingsfold ]
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
'Strange Meeting' has me thinking of that scene in the shell-hole from 'All Quiet on the Western Front' ..... --You ,(the French soldier), Paul has bayoneted , could have been my brother--.
This was a German a novel anti-war so powerful that the Nazis saw fit to burn all copies of it.
FWIW, I think the centenary of Aug 4th 1914 could be used as an occasion to reflect the stupidity of war, and to acknowledge the losses of all concerned .
Then in the following years, when we get 100th anniversaries of the various large scale engagements (Gallipoli, Somme, Paschendale , etc.), we could honour the courage of the Allied soldiers who lost their lives if we so wish.
War, huh, good God / What is it good for? / Absolutely nothing
[ 12. February 2013, 19:48: Message buggered about with by: Gwai ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The bit I struggle with is what we, as Churches, should be doing on Remembrance Sunday, and even if there is a need for the Church to mark that Sunday at all - it is not after all a traditional church festival.
St Martin's Day. Patron saint of both soldiers and pacifists. Quite fitting.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Bit of an aside on the ethics of certain acts of war: I'd always known the bombing of Dresden by the allies in WW2 was controversial because of whether it was/wasn't a legitimate military target, but I'm ashamed to say I never looked in to the history of it. Then yesterday, being the 68th anniversary of the start of the bombardment, one of the few surviving eye witnesses, Victor Gregg, was recounting his memories of the scene on the Today programme.
I haven't been able to get the horror of it out of my head. I think it's the fact that so much thought seems to have gone into maximising the number of people who suffered absolutely horrific deaths.
The lives of the civilians lost on all sides in conflicts should be remembered as well as those of combatants on all sides.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
ken: Reminds me of what Gen. Schwarzkopf said to the effect that "any good soldier should be anti-war. And yet there are still some things worth fighting for." I wish that wasn't so; how DO you respond to a 9/11, or troops streaming across the 38th parallel, or Pearl Harbor...
Maybe I'm getting softer as I get older. I was never in a combat situation. But I occasionally get to indulge in my flight simulation hobby - the real kind where you must actually be able to fly, and you don't have arcade style weapons virtually guaranteed to vaporize your "enemy" - anyway, as I got involved in a dogfight for the first time, I'm surprised at my own tension; suddenly a Zero crosses in front of me, I give a quick burst and he catches fire, rolling away - and I was stunned - and I find myself following him down urging in my mind, "Get out! Get out!" But he never did - my burst raked his engine and cockpit, and probably "killed" him (virtually, of course), but the impact on my thinking was profound. Wars are staged by the leaders but fought by men who, at the end of the day, simply want to go home and live in peace with their friends & families.
WWI was supposed to be "The war to end all wars." Maybe, just maybe, on it's 100th anniversary, it can still be so. I kinda doubt it, but you never know...
& welcome to our new friend, good 1st post!
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have been uneasy since the idea was put forward. What are we going to be doing? Now that the last who were there have died, and cannot say what they think? I see that the idea is NOT to discuss the reasons of state involved (I quote Kipling there, in his story about Elizabeth I) behind the war, but things more local.
We do that without discussing how many names there are on some local memorials, how many from how few families.
Did Cameron at al have no-one in their family who died with their mind trapped in a field hospital in Flanders, no woman whose love never came back and has no known grave, no family Bible with a list of brothers dead?
Didn't they see "Oh what a lovely war!": didn't they read the poets; didn't they look at the art?
A letter in the Guardian today made the point about the true extent of the Christmas truce. Will we remember that and think what might have happened?
Or will we be, as the post above infers some are, trapped in the mindset of the hospital orderlies who would not nurse the German POWs who lay in separate wards in those field hospitals? (Source, my Grandad, who did nurse them, and died in nightmares in 1960.)
Just what exactly do they have in mind? The bells of hell go tingalingaling for us but clearly not for them.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
ken: Reminds me of what Gen. Schwarzkopf said to the effect that "any good soldier should be anti-war. And yet there are still some things worth fighting for." I wish that wasn't so; how DO you respond to a 9/11, or troops streaming across the 38th parallel, or Pearl Harbor...
The problem I have with this question is that it appears to assume that there are some evil people just waiting to fly a plane into a building or attack another country. Most of the time, this just isn't an accurate rendition of the facts.
In the case of the middle east and the US, we have been an exploitative force in the lives of those in that region since WWII. As my daughter said when she was a toddler, "He hit me back first!" We insist on grabbing the more-sinned-against mantle whether it fits or not.
ISTM that we need to seek justice before there are violent reactions to our injustice if we have any hope of claiming the moral high ground.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
...
...
As my daughter said when she was a toddler, "He hit me back first!"
[/QB]
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Kids! My youngest is autistic, and so got blamed for everything by the 4 older ones!
You've got good points. The Middle East is a mess of the colonial power's making, and our appetite for oil as well - but they do a pretty good job of going after each other, too. I'd feel a lot better about "American exceptionalism" if we didn't seem to have such dirty hands in so many affairs like that.
I never really addressed the question in the OP. In one way, I feel like it should be a collective repentance, that we should allow things to get so out of hand - I'm not as well-schooled in history as I ought to be, but ISTM that WWI was not as clearly about right and wrong as WWII is considered to be. The Christmas "truce" of 1914, the solemn burial by the Entente forces of the Red Baron with full Military honors, exchanges of wreaths, etc. - it just seems to me that the troops were a little less excited about this than the national leaders were, and tended to see, at least at times, each other as humans. Not that it wasn't brutal and horrible in every way - it just seemed a little different to me somehow.
Best,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
WWI was supposed to be "The war to end all wars." Maybe, just maybe, on it's 100th anniversary, it can still be so. I kinda doubt it, but you never know...
I have wondered if it's no co-incidence that the withdrawal date of British troops from Afghanistan was set for 2014 .
If a big deal is made of this in the run up to Aug 4th then jingoism is still alive and kicking.
In that case I'm sorry to say the 100th anniversary of the Great War has as much chance of ending war as did the four year blood-bath itself did.
Agreed, the world is a very different place now , and I'd like to think the 'Old' style wars have ended . Replaced by 'over-seas operations' and 'security measures'.
It would however take a brave person to confidently predict that no large scale conflict awaits mankind in the future. Esp. as this was pretty much the belief of many during the years leading up to WW1.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, that was only the soft side of me. The realistic side of me sees a world full of sinners, as selfish and fearful and prideful and jingoistic as ever.
Without a move of God, a miracle, or some such global change of thinking, I see the chance for large scale conflict increasing. I may be cynical, but every new technology that we come up with we use to more efficiently kill and/or subjugate one another.
And this is kind of wandering off-topic, but if you look at Iran, I think we're already past the tipping point there. We either let them have their nukes, or open up an very big operation against a government that hates the west, but a people that largely likes us.
No, I don't see a lot of hope for us. The older I get, the more the more apt our Lord's descriptions of us seem: Lost, blind, wicked...
But we have to try. Perhaps looking back will help us looking forward.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Yes T of T, please don't get me wrong I do share the dream, and am also content to leave such things to God .
For sadly all of our history , and the present day power balance and armament situation does indicate that true World Peace can only ever be a dream .
I suppose given reality is all we have then, as far as war is concerned , limiting the extent of the nightmare is the best we can hope for .
Both WW1 and WW2 were nightmares for many many people . I sometimes think it would be better if the memory of those events were left behind in the last Century and not to be revived with 100 year commemorations.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
One of the good things that has been going on in English secondary schools over the last 20 years, pace Michael Gove, is the way the nature of the First World War has been taught, both through History lessons, and sometimes through English lessons by the use of the poets. The folly of WWl has, I think, been very widely conveyed. The more difficult lesson, that it wasn't a case of good countries v bad countries - and oddly enough German historians often portray their country as all bad in relation to WWl and its causes - has not yet been learned a century later even by grown-ups.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
It has been said that it was a war of Alliances , and a war rooted in philosophies and attitudes of that time. An accident waiting to happen.
It does have to be said though that Germany was rather better prepared for the *accident* when it did happen than were any of the Allies.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It has been said that it was a war of Alliances , and a war rooted in philosophies and attitudes of that time. An accident waiting to happen.
It does have to be said though that Germany was rather better prepared for the *accident* when it did happen than were any of the Allies.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
Ooops, sorry. Good job my finger wasn't on the nuclear button ...
rolyn. What I had in mind was that because of Germany's 'peculiar' political system, the people of Germany were not well represented by the Kaiser, his advisers, or the government.
Also,ironically, the Kaiser had actually turned down the idea of extending conscription and making a bigger German army because he thought it would 'dilute' the traditions of the 'Prussian' army and make it susceptible to Communist propaganda. Had he not been so worried by the extent of socialism in Germany in the years leading up to the war, and agreed to a larger army, it is quite possible that the German invasion of France in 1914 would have succeeded, History would have been re-written in German, and perhaps we would have been the 'baddies'.
The German people were also badly served by Hindenburg's advisers in 1930.
Something else that suggests the rights and wrongs of international politics are not as black and white as we imagine was shown in the TV documentary the other day about the USA's plans to invade Canada in the 1930's, plans that were surprisingly well advanced. USA was concerned that Britain had a track record of eliminating her trade rivals, and the US thought they might be next on the list. Canada's rival plan (because she was obviously in the firing line) was to try to slow the American invasion down so that Imperial troops could come to their rescue. Unfortunately the British plan was not to attempt the defence of Canada, but to conduct naval warfare against the US. The reason why I find this interesting is that it shows us that it wasn't just Germany that was concerned about a British stranglehold on world trade.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It has been said that it was a war of Alliances , and a war rooted in philosophies and attitudes of that time. An accident waiting to happen.
It does have to be said though that Germany was rather better prepared for the *accident* when it did happen than were any of the Allies.
Britain was just as ready for a war, but their strategy was weighted towards a naval war primarily geared to protect their colonial possessions and make further gains.
The French plans for a mostly defensive war worked reasonably well, they might not have been able to take Alsace-Lorraine from Germany early on (the invasion failed) but they were able to dig in and halt the German advance, with some assistance from Britain.
It was inevitable for years before WWI that there was going to be a big war in Europe before long, and everybody was making plans for it - even powers not intending to get "properly" involved. Even the USA had plans to capitalise on France being defeated by seizing French colonial possessions on the western side of the Atlantic.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Something else that suggests the rights and wrongs of international politics are not as black and white as we imagine was shown in the TV documentary the other day about the USA's plans to invade Canada in the 1930's, plans that were surprisingly well advanced. USA was concerned that Britain had a track record of eliminating her trade rivals, and the US thought they might be next on the list. Canada's rival plan (because she was obviously in the firing line) was to try to slow the American invasion down so that Imperial troops could come to their rescue. Unfortunately the British plan was not to attempt the defence of Canada, but to conduct naval warfare against the US. The reason why I find this interesting is that it shows us that it wasn't just Germany that was concerned about a British stranglehold on world trade.
It's not as simple as saying "the US had designs on invading Canada and defeating Britain, how evil." The USA had war plans prepared for dealing with just about any eventuality (nothing special about Britain there) including combinations of them like the 'War Plan Red-Orange' for defending against an offensive war by the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. All the coloured plans (including the various iterations of 'War Plan Red' for fighting Britain and its client states) were primarily defensive plans to be enacted only if isolationism failed and the USA needed to be defended.
In the end, they did read the signs well and switched to the five 'Rainbow' plans in the late 1930s which included offensive plans for the first time. All of the revised plans assumed that the main enemy would be Japan and (in some of them) that expeditionary operations would be conducted against Germany to protect the buffer zones between Germany and the Atlantic.
The 'Red-Orange' plan for fighting the UK-Japan alliance of the 1920s did eventually evolve into the main basis of Rainbow plan 5 option D which was the US strategy for WWII. The catch was that the part of the 'Red' plan originally intended for Britain evolved into the strategy for fighting against Germany-Italy.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Ooops, sorry. Good job my finger wasn't on the nuclear button ...
What was it we used to say ? 'Hope I'm pissed and sat right under it'
Think it's fair to say we'll be equal death if that day should come.
Not wanting to derail a good discussion on the origin of WW1 though . It's a subject that fascinates me, and there's was a lot of new information I knew nothing of.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
