Nov 08 2009
Pro patria mori – today we remember
Today like many I will attend an act of commemoration. We will express our gratitude for all who died in the two great wars and successive conflicts. We will say they died for us. They died for our freedom. Like many I am eternally grateful that allied troops liberated Europe and Asia in the 1940s. I am in debt to the young heroes who freed the Falklands and Kuwait from aggression. I don’t know what to say about all those who were mown down by shells and bullets in the 1914-18 war. They themselves just hoped that their intense suffering would have one good purpose, that it would never happen again.
I have always had more trouble understanding the actions of the politicians and Generals of Western Europe who unleashed the mass slaughter of 1914-18 on their publics. They brought death on an industrial scale, visiting fear and destruction from massive shells and from the machine gun when they ordered troops to move out of the trenches. From the early days when I first read of what had happened I have asked Why.
Mine was a fortunate family. Both my grandfathers volunteered as boys to go to war, one advancing his age in his enthusiasm to move from his poor homelife to something different. Both survived so 40 years on as a young boy I could talk to them about it. One was injured and came home with his wound. The other had a lucky war.
My later teenage opinions of the conflict were especially moulded by the poignant haunting voices of the war poets. They captured a sense of fear, futility, and enormous bravery against the odds. They implied criticisms of the high command. It was a war which pitted young officers and their men against the might of the newly powerful war machines, leaving the Generals and politicians safely behind the lines urging them onto ever braver and less plausible deeds, given the power of the weaponry they had assembled.
Why couldn’t the war lords have advanced the invention of weapons and vehicles which created a war of movement to settle it more quickly? Why didn’t they open new fronts to break the stalemate of the trenches? Why did they persist in thinking that ever greater bombardments would kill enough of the enemy to make an attack likely to succeed? Why did the UK get involved at all? As a seapower operating globally, why did this European conflict matter to us?Why didn’t the politicians think that a negotiated peace might be a better outcome than total victory, especially as that total victory over Germany created the conditions for the subsequent rise of something even worse to haunt Europe?
These are now academic questions that cannot help those who suffered. The aftermath of the war in England transformed the party political landscape, and led to the policy of appeasement in the 1930s. Today we can ask questions about our present war in Afghanistan. We can ask are we giving our troops the equipment and support they need, to minimise their loss of life. We can ask if they are being given the political and military direction that is wise. We can ask if there is some better way of achieving the various aims the government has set for our current war.
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori? The young officers of the first world war who suffered the highest casualty rate of all as they led their death charges across No Man’s land did not find any protection for themselves in their good classical education. They were not there to think and to assess, they were there to blindly follow orders. Thank heavens some of them did write so well. On this Remembrance day of all days we should read them again and understand their general message about war. Not all wars are avoidable, but war should be a last resort, or should be undertaken pre-emptively before the forces of darkness become too entrenched. If a war has to be fought, good political leaders and Generals make protecting their troops as much as they can an absolute priority.
26 Responses to “Pro patria mori – today we remember”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
I never thought I would comment like this on a modern blog, but I have some sympathy for Sir Edward Grey the pre-WW1 Foreign Secretary, they weren’t all donkeys in the political establishment at the time. (For an interesting intellectual exercise, compare Sir Edward to the current holder of the post of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. My bet is the former knew the capital of Brazil for example.)
Militarily, the lessons of industrial age massed infantry attacks were there for all to see (had they cared to look) following the American civil war, look at the casualties from “Pickett’s charge” during the battle of Gettysburg for example, and this was primarily from canister round and rifle fire, and was largely pre-machine gun.
But if I may close with gratitude to the troops who have fought in the various conflicts and Lady Thatcher whose strong alliance with Reagan in the 1980’s kept my useless teen self out of uniform and harm’s way. Thank you.
A very thoughtful posting, but I think a little unfair on our WW1 commanders. Gary Sheffield wrote an excellent book “forgotton victory” and also Corrigans book “mud blood and poppycock” covers a lot of the issues. For example in 1914 we had no combat aircraft, in 1918 we had 20,000. Compare that with the equivalent in Afghanistan. In 1915 we had two machine guns per battallion, by 1918 we had 160,000 men specialized in these weapons in the Machine gun corps.
As to other fronts, we did open others in Italy, Greece, Palestine and Mesopotamia, as well as the disatrous Gallipolli campaign where my own great grandfather died. None of these fronts were decisive, the battles of 1918 were where the war was won. The Americans were there in numbers but rookies, the French were exhaused. It was the British imperial forces that won the final victory, using combined arms tactics evolved since 1916. Both Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sasson were back serving by then.
Lions led by Donkeys? An objective reading gives a different view to Blackadder. The current MOD and the politicians dealing with Afghanistan are those donkeys.
I don’t blame the generals or troops for either war, they were both failures of the political classes of their day. A terrible responsibility.
Time to report for remembrance parade.
Reply: I agree by the end we had a great army with seasoned troops and mighty equipment. I also acknowledge that the alternative front strategy took a savage knock at Gallipolli, but surely few can argue that the tactics and armaments were well judged in the first two years.
I wonder how many of the problems that beset this country are down to the fact that for the first time in our history there is virtually no military experience amongst our politicians. Or, for that matter, amongst the top layers of the civil service.
JR: “As a seapower operating globally, why did this European conflict matter to us?”
A question I have asked myself often.
JR: “These are now academic questions ..”
No. Very much a contemporary question. One studiously avoided by both the Tory and Labour party.
JR: “.. that cannot help those who suffered.”
But it could have avoided future suffering.
War is always wrong, sometimes it is forced on us but to start one is always utter stupidity and never benefits ordinary people. As long as we allow ourselves to be taken in by purely military arguments or ridiculous propaganda we are guilty of allowing criminality. I quote Simone Weil – “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty”.
“If a war has to be fought, good political leaders and Generals make protecting their troops as much as they can an absolute priority.” (JR).
Particularly in a run up to a general election.
“If we have to be there”, Mr Brown, why is it that we don’t really “have to be there” until after the election? Is it that the body count could loose you some votes, and after the election the body count won’t matter anymore?
I will stop here. Before I say something that JR will have to edit out because, on this day of all days, I am close to tears having read this:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mcchrystal-seeks-to-keep-uk-troops-out-of-harms-way-1817005.html
There is a direct link from the war over Kuwait to the current war in Afghanistan, just as there was a fairly direct link from our response to the German attack in 1914 to WWII. It is usually easy to see the immediate reasons for fighting but far more difficult to foresee where and when it will end. We look at past wars with the clarity of hindsight. We know what will happen and we cannot understand why people at the time did not foresee what we can now see clearly. We look at current wars without this knowledge of what will happen, and we are the ones blundering along, doing at each stage what seems the right thing at the time, not appreciating what the long term consequences will be. We don’t know what would have happened if we had not fought in WWI, if we had negotiated peace with the Nazis in 1940, if we had acquiesced in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But it is worth reminding people who point out the adverse results of these decisions that the alternatives might be worse, not better. The fact that we have a poor consequence is not a proof that the alternative would have been better.
Both my grandfathers were in France in WW1, one of them from shortly after Mons onwards and both survived long enough for me to know them.
I can recall that both of them were very complimentary about the German forces and showed no bitterness towards them, “Fine soldiers” one would say yet they were both bitter about the actions of their own generals and political leadership.
Whether this view was misplaced or not I don’t know, but it seemed to be widely held.
Wow, you are so right.
The decision to go to war is taken far too easily these days and taken in a vacuum.
Did Blair realise how many young lives he was about to steal when he stitched up his cosy little deal with Bush.
If it is to be seen as any resort at all, war must be a very last.
I have no doubt at all that the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were totally unnecessary but the lives lost are very real.
Now, the politicians will line up to be seen at the remembrance service but how many have found time to go and pay their homage at the weekly return of the coffins?
Futile would probably not be too strong a word to describe these two wars.
I think today of all who died in defence of freedom since way back in the 13 century, many died to give France freedom. Will our political leaders and their “yes men” who have now given away that freedom think of this. And this I find unacceptable, they are a disgrace to what is still my Country.
Derek
For those who have died in war all one can really say is this prayer to Our Lord:-
Eternal rest grant unto them O Lord,
Let perpetual light shine upon them,
May they rest in peace.
Our Lady Queen of Peace pray for us.
Amen.
I think that rather than just remembering the victims of war we can pray for their Souls for the sake of their Salvation. Prayer is never wasted.We should pray in thanksgiving for the courage of our troops and for their loved ones – their family & friends. We should pray for their safe return and for the salvation of the Souls of those who very very sadly have fallen in battle. A few prayers for military chaplains who do such a great spiritual task often in very harrowing & trying circumstances might not be a bad idea.
Also praying for peace so that people follow the example of Jesus and thus do not wage anymore wars in future.
Today is a sobering day as we all recall what has been done by some extremely brave people like my late Grandfather,my late Great Uncle and countless others.It is humbling that successive generations of the armed forces have put their lives on the line so that we could be free today.
So once again today is rightly a day of prayer for our brave servicemen & women and for their families and for the Souls of all who have died in war.One must hope and pray that human life is valued more in future so that warfare becomes less of a feature in future years.
Korean War should also be remembered.
At (Catholic = Irish? = pacifist???) Church this morning, I was proud to stand, for the two minutes’ silence, next to an Indian. Quite apart from North Africa and Italy where their regiments formed a large part of the British Army, the Indians distinguished themselves at Kohima and Imphal where they threw the Japs out of Burma.
After the silence, the bemedalled veteran read out the words on the Polish War memorial at Monte Cassino: “Our bodies lie here, but our hearts lie in Poland”.
John like your family mine also had a lucky war, with both my Granfather (1st World War aged 14) and my Father (2nd World War) returning home without serious injury.
From the many stories I have been told by both of them many years ago, they both lost comrades with whom they enlisted at the time. Rememberance Sunday was always, and still is recognised in our family as a time to remember those who were not so fortunate.
War is a very bloody business, and I am struck by how few politicians in our present time have neither experienced such horror first hand themselves, or seem to have their own offsping at risk during more recent times.
Whilst I am no raving monachist, it is good to see that the Queen, Prince Philip, and many members of their family have served.
Also interesting to hear all of the long list of Commonwealth Countries who came to our aid in our time of need. One is forced to compare their attidude then, with those currently in Europe now.
John,
I think you’re rather out of touch with the modern historiography of the Great War, as one or two others have already commented.
The current majority view, I think it’s fair to say, among historians is that the dismissive view of the British Army High Command in particular held by many historians writing about forty to fifty years ago, such as AJP Taylor and Alan Clark, is wrong.
In fact, in the course of only four years Britain developed its first mass army which was not only the only Allied army still on its feet (ignoring the Americans – who hadn’t been in the war long enough to suffer war weariness) but which in the “Hundred Days” of 1918 took on and defeated the German army in the field. The Germans had been a major land power for generations – for Britain to do that was a phenomenal achievement. Of course, the existence of the fresh American army, and the continued presence of the (mainly broken) French army helped, but the war was essentially won by (a) the British naval blockade, which reduced the German economy to rubble, and (b) the British army which outfought the Germans to the end.
Obviously very many people still hold to the alternative view, as you seem to yourself – and I think this has been enormously damaging to our national sense of self-worth. Ignorant echoes of “Oh, What a Lovely War!” (which I think Joan Littlewood has said she wrote with a political agenda in mind) abound in everyday life – the most pernicious of which, I think, is cynicism over authority and the feeling that those in charge simply look after Number One. This, of course, is reaching its apogee with MPs’ expenses. I’m sure that at least subliminally the (totally false) image of the uncaring General safe behind the lines must have affected the behaviour of some of your more despicable fellow members. “If that’s how people have always behaved, why should I be any different?” is powerful self-justification.
The best evidence of contemporary opinion is the enormous number of people who attended Haig’s funeral and his lying-in-state in 1928. Very many were ex-soldiers. They would hardly have done that for someone they didn’t respect, would they?
We need to celebrate the achievements of Haig and the other generals as role models – not snipe at them.
Reply: I agree that by 1918 the British army was formidable and better equipped with great guns and tanks, permitting a more mobile war. The British navy which had performed weakly at Jutland – though sufficiently well to prevent the weaker German navy operating lethally – helped with the blockade. However, it remains true that in the 1914-16 period the army was not well equipped and the tactics poor. I remain to be convinced that this was a good war for Britain to fight.
When I went to ring the half-muffled bells of our Parish Church this morning, it stuck me that we had one of the biggest gatherings around our war memorial for quite a few years, which I like to think shows the public support for our soldiers, if not for our leaders.
You say “If a war has to be fought, good political leaders and Generals make protecting their troops as much as they can an absolute priority.”
I would say, !If a war has to be fought, having exhausted every other possibility, it should be fought whole heartedly and with every suitable weapon & resource at you disposal”
In my view the war in Afghanistan meets none of these criteria: If is to protect this country there were possible alternatives such as massively increased border controls, better security services and quicker expulsion of illegal immigrants. The war, certainly at the start, seems to have been fought half-heartedly by the government, and they certainly haven’t used the best available resources.
“As a seapower operating globally, why did this European conflict matter to us?” Surely the answer is in the question. Prior to 1914 , Germany was building a Navy to challenge our (then) maritime dominance.
Sadly the net result was that we bankrupted ourselves and ended up conceding naval dominance to the United States, an “ally” whose one consistent foriegn policy objective (before they actually achieved it) was the destruction of British power, but at least we did not end up with hostile German naval bases on the Channel.
One can only bow one’s head in absolute awe at what we ask of our armed forces and how they respond.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
As apt today as it was 2,000 years ago.
Never tar everone with the same brush. I would recomend further research.
I’m sorry to disagree with one or two of the contributors to this post regarding WW1, but the British Army was in full flight in 1918, and the Germans were only stopped by the Americans, whose contribution was decisive. Up until then, we had been completely outclassed by the Germans in terms of tactics and equipment.
My Grandfather was awarded the Military Cross at Messines Ridge in 1917. On returning from the war, the only thing he ever said about it all was that he’d like to have shot General Haig…
Better historians than me have commented on this blog post.
But I was taught that we went to war to honour our treaty guarantee of Belgian neutrality, 1830.
Tricky things, treaties. Especially when you’re old fashioned enough to believe that you have to observe them. As your party leader is finding out.
Perhaps you could explain to the Prime Minister that he is meant to bow his head when he lays a wreath at the Cenotaph.
I can’t explain the first World War either. The old Edwardian order of trade, industry, inovation, religion and aristoctracy was too powerful, too self contratictory to last. Add to that the fact that everybody thought that the war would be over in 3 weeks and understanding begins.
Remembrance Sunday disturbes me. I would like to have attended a service as John Redwood did, but I am an atheist. Do I have to believe in God to respect my nation and remember the dead? Is not the first verse of ‘O valiant hearts’ sufficient?
Why should I get on my knees and accept as truth the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles? The Gospels were not written until 30 years after the death of Chtrist and were revisionist history, designed to be consistent with the Acts of the Apostles. It would be useful to have a New Testament update, prior to the fall of Madada.
First World War is still a mystery to me but it can doubtlessly be traced to Bismarck.
During the 19th century nations were artificially unified by increasingly totalitarian systems of government, things like language and education were imposed.
Bismarck’s socialism unified Germany.
This is the cause of the wars of the 20th century. Centralised totalitarian systems of government capable of mass conscription.
The second world war was a war between national socialism and international socialism (communism), the communists won.
The Labour party and other members of Socialist International see the second world war as a victory for Communism as much as anything else.
In the twentieth century European political dialectic, nationalist socialism was on the right and internationalist socialism on the left.
The same systems of state building, now more total than ever, are now employed to unify those artificial nations into an artificial union of Europe.
Except we now have a Maoist on the right and some sort of greenie meanie alliance on the left
This is not good news for people living in (whats left of) Britain who would like to be left alone. One thing that can be guaranteed is that the EU (UN) will not leave people alone.
To begin with, citizenship, with its ‘rights and responsibilities’, beckons.
“Why did the UK get involved at all? As a seapower operating globally, why did this European conflict matter to us?”
Because Germany was challenging our Navy at sea, John: they were threatening our dominance of global trade routes.
Which is why MI6—that part of the Security Service that deals with overseas threats and which was formed shortly before the First World War—was run by Naval Command: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi6#Foundation
DK
It is sweet and right to die for your country?
It is certainly Right, but is it sweet? The reality of war is often horrific, bloody and final. All the more reason that we keep our sacred promise to remember them.
I agree that the good classical education of the Brother officers did not save them, they lead by example, despite the seemingly insane nature of the conflict. I have been lucky I grew up at a time when we did not have conscript armies and I suffered from asthma so badly that even the TA could not use my services. I was thinking about my sons today, would I have the strength to part with them for my nation, would I encourage them and would I support them if they in all good faith could not go, because of their beliefs? These are questions I hope never to have to face in the cold light of reality.
We are fortunate indeed to have a fine professional army, drawn from those who have a desire to serve and who have not been enlisted without their prior-consent. Lets hope that we are able to contain and eliminate our enemies, without having to resort to deployments of large armies. This is why it is so important that our troops are given the very best equipment money can buy and the full and loyal support of this nation for which they are still willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Remembrance is a sacred and continuous commitment. We will remember them.