Thought for the day for Beverley FM for Remembrance Sunday 2024

 My Dad is 97, and although he doesn’t always remember things that have happened in the last few days, his recall of his childhood remains pretty clear – as is often the case when people get older.

Dad lived through the second world war. He left school in 1941 at the age of 14 and worked in the huge Ordnance Depot in Chilwell, just outside Nottingham, as an errand boy.

His mother – my grandma – was widowed during the First World War. Her first husband (not my grandfather), Horace, went off to war, but was sadly killed on March 24^th 1918 during the German counter-offensive. When I eventually got out to France to see his memorial at Pozières and brought back photos, I was able to show pictures to my uncle and aunt who were Horace’s children. No-one from the family had visited the location before.

Pozières cemetery and memorial

Grandma died in 1973, aged 87, and I was too young to have had a proper conversation with her about what happened. However, my dad describes an occasion when they were sheltering together from an air raid. There was a radio in the shelter, and the announcer gave out the number of German aircraft shot down that night by the RAF. The people in the shelter understandably cheered, but my dad remembers vividly that his mum did not. She quietly said “they’re some mother’s son”.

Let’s be clear, my grandma wanted to see the tyranny of Hitler defeated. She was no sympathiser with the enemy. But she retained the capacity to understand the common humanity we all share. She had received that awful news of the loss of her husband and she knew that families would be getting the same news far away. They may be on opposite sides of the conflict, but their grief would be the same.

That family story is always in my mind on Remembrance Sunday. It isn’t a celebration,  nor is it a moment to be triumphalistic. It was always intended to be a pause for sober recollection of the terrible human cost of conflict, of thanksgiving for those who put their own lives on the line for our freedom, and to commit to doing all we can to avoid it happening again.

When Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for your persecutors”, I don’t believe he was saying we should condone evil, or collude with injustice. However, I do think he was reminding us that even in the height of human division and conflict, there are some commonalities in our human condition. We are all created in the image of God, even though that image is often terribly obscured and dimmed, and we reduce our own humanity when we cease to remember the humanity of others – even those with whom we are in bitter conflict. They are, to quote my grandma, some mother’s son or daughter.

Musing on orthodoxy

A long time ago in another universe (actually Dec 2006), I blogged about a letter signed by some church leaders of an evangelical persuasion relating to homosexuality and the standpoint Christians should adopt. I'd rephrase it now, but it made the point.

If you didn't click the link, I questioned the use of the term "orthodox" to describe a conservative ethical standpoint with regard to homosexual relationships. My point was that orthodoxy has historically been used to describe agreement with the historic Christian creeds - especially their definition of the Trinity and of how Jesus was human and divine - the Incarnation. In contrast, ethical issues have been matters of debate throughout the history of the church, and a key current debate centres around how we should understand same-sex relationships. Ironically, at the New Wine conference in the summer of 2006, I had noted that the speaker had talked about Jesus in terms that (at best) were perilously close to adoptionism without any comparable furore about a lack of orthodoxy.

Now there's an important note to make here. Ethics is related to theology, and theology has ethical consequences. The distinction is not as sharp as my opening gambit might suggest. However, it is indisputable that Christians have differed on a variety of pretty important ethical issues without necessarily resorting to labelling each other heretics / unorthodox.

Take, for example, the question of the use of force. Pacifists would argue from Biblical texts such as the prohibitions to kill in the ten commandments (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17) and Jesus' injunctions to turn the other cheek and love our enemies (Matthew 5:39,44). Others would draw on other texts to assert that military service is accepted (e.g. no criticism is offered in Mt 8:9, and soldier is used as an image in 2 Tim 2:3-4) It is deduced from other principles that defending the innocent and order of the state is a common good. There is a long track record of Christians concluding that where necessary, the use of force and taking of life can be justified. This was developed into what is often called just war theory. 

My question is this: would we refer to someone on one side of the argument or the other as a heretic? Each is considering Scripture very carefully and thoughtfully, but they have drawn different conclusions.

Some would say to me that this issue is different from questions of sexuality. They would assert that the clear view of Scripture is that same-sex relationships are a no-go area, and those who say they could be are just swayed by the times. It's worth noting that early Christians were essentially pacifists until Constantine took power, but as emperors, kings (and later presidents!) claimed Christian faith, the use of force became not only accepted, but even actively encouraged. There is a case for saying that politics and power had a role in changing that ethical standpoint too.

Whether you're a pacifist or not, or whether you are socially conservative or liberal, I have a simple plea. There are people on both sides of these debates who are sincere, thoughtful, conscientious people trying to discern the will of God. All kinds of factors bear down on all of us to read our Bibles with some degree of selectivity. We set aside some texts, because we see principles from other texts as overriding them. Why else do some Christians allow divorcees to remarry, why don't we sell all our possessions, and why do we allow women to lead - let alone preach in church? The answer is that we bring other factors to bear to set those commands and prohibitions aside - the context of the passage in the wider text, the people it was written for, the issue it was addressing and so on. It's all about the delicate and complex art of interpretation or hermeneutics.

So by all means disagree over same-sex relationships, just as Christians have disagreed over other matters - including life and death for centuries. My plea is simply that we should avoid describing those with whom we disagree as unorthodox or heretical. To do so is to make a claim of authority that I, for one, am not prepared to own.

FIFA and poppies

Theresa May has said that it is "utterly outrageous" that FIFA have ruled that poppy logos may not be used on the shirts of the players in the forthcoming England v Scotland qualifier. I know this is a delicate and controversial subject, so I just want to share the questions that it prompted as I reflected upon it.

1. Is is a "poppy ban"?
No - it's a blanket ban. The ban is against all symbols which have a political or religious connotation. When the question about poppies was put to FIFA, it ruled them out on this basis (as it did in Nov 2011) - hence the row. FIFA has to deal with all kinds of sensitivities over symbols and logos all over the world, and in many situations (just think of the Middle East, or even the Balkans, for example) a symbol or logo can be highly inflammatory. Nearer to home, the poppy has become identified with one side in the divisions of Northern Ireland, and has a political connotation there, even if it hasn't in the rest of the UK. And we have to bear in mind that just because something hasn't a political or religious connotation for me, it doesn't mean it doesn't for anyone.

For an England v Scotland game, all players have roots in the respective nations, both of which observe the remembrance ceremonies. In such a context, blanket rules can appear harsh. But might it not be safer to abide by them, rather than risk setting a precedent which could lead to something much more controversial elsewhere? That is the kind of question FIFA has to wrestle with.

This was all expressed very well by Rory Smith on Radio 5 Live

2. Surely wearing a poppy is voluntary?
Wearing poppy logos on football kits is a fairly recent initiative as far as I am aware. It now routinely happens for league games on the weekend of Remembrance Sunday. I have sometimes wondered what players from other nations make of it, and I also noted that it effectively makes wearing a poppy compulsory. There was considerable controversy when James McClean refused to wear a logo shirt in 2014. Regardless of what we make of his particular reasons, we should at least note that this has effectively made poppy wearing compulsory for footballers.

Likewise, there is considerable pressure on those appearing on TV over this period to wear a poppy, and not doing so generates controversy. Looking at some of the ostentatious poppies that have been worn on X-Factor, etc, I have wondered whether we are beginning to miss the underlying meaning. The simplicity of the original poppy was surely part of the point, and the value was that is was a voluntary act, expressing support for the families of the fallen, and those who were injured in conflict.

As the Royal British Legion themselves say:

"Wearing a poppy is a personal choice and reflects individual and personal memories. It is not compulsory but is greatly appreciated by those it helps – our beneficiaries: those currently serving in our Armed Forces, veterans, and their families and dependants."

Obliging people to wear a poppy under pressure is no way to generate the respect and observance which the most vocal proponents desire. Indeed it can be very counter-productive, as Dominic Sandbrook noted last year in (of all things) the Daily Mail!

3. Why Now, and Why This?
Back in the 1940s and perhaps even in the early 50s, some active players would have served in the forces. Some died, others were injured, and all would have had clear memories of the war - whether from home, or from active service. What is curious is that the same pressure to have logo shirts doesn't seem to have been around. I can only speculate that for them, the civic and church ceremonies of remembrance were a sufficient expression of loss, sadness and respect. I expect most wore poppies on the clothes they wore on the way to the match, but not on the pitch. It made me wonder why it wasn't enough to mark remembrance in other ways - e.g. laying a wreath and/or a silence before the match starts. Why does the poppy have to be on the football shirt itself for respect to be properly expressed?

Perhaps it tells us something about where people find and express meaning, now that only a small proportion of the population do so in church. Perhaps these civic signs and symbols express and convey what religious symbols used to do, and that is why they become loaded with such emotion. I also wonder whether in this context of brexit, it reveals that (at least some) Brits want to assert themselves against another international organisation perceived as telling them what to do. Given FIFA's recent track record, it's not surprising they're getting criticised.

I'll finish with what I wrote 6 years ago on the subject of poppies, in the context of the Scottish Premier League insisting on poppies for all SPL football kits that weekend:

"If the controversy focuses on the external symbols of remembrance, then we're missing the point. Wearing a poppy doesn't create respect for those who have died - respect is something that has to come from somewhere deeper than that. For others, remembrance is something they wish to keep discreet and internal, and not be forced into expressing it in a fixed form dictated by society at large. 

So I won't judge anyone on whether they happen to be wearing a poppy or not. I will be wearing one today and on Sunday as I remember the tragedy and loss of war, with so much potential and possibility cut short and as I pray that wars on such scale are never seen again. 

My grandfather survived the trenches. I think he only ever spoke 5 or 6 sentences about it in all the time I knew him. He remembered, and I got the impression that he would have been all too happy to forget most of what he had witnessed. We remember his companions who didn't return, and their suffering and sacrifice in the hope that it will inspire future generations to seek justice and peace in a troubled world." Nov 11 2010

Why I oppose the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent

As there is a vote coming up about the renewal of the Trident system, I felt it was important to write to my MP, although I anticipate he, along with the majority of MPs, will back renewal. However, regardless of the side one takes, this is a bad time to make a big decision, and I still question how much impartial research has been done into whether this is a cost-effective choice, even for those who are pro-deterrent. With a sinking pound and public finances squeezed, this is an issue which could have very real knock-on effects on our doorsteps. My letter also omitted the very real question of how a deterrent so reliant on US support can be truly independent

Here is my letter with added hyperlinks to sources:

Dear Mr Morris,

I understand that there will be a vote in Parliament as to whether the United Kingdom should renew its Trident nuclear submarine fleet. Regardless of the side one takes, I feel this debate is badly timed, taking place in the turmoil of the formation of a new government and the aftermath of the referendum result. I strongly believe there would be wisdom taking more time, following our nation’s recent trauma.

However, I expect the debate and vote will happen, so I feel I must write to you. I must state up front that I have huge moral objections to nuclear weapons, so I'd be glad to see the end of a UK nuclear deterrent. However, even if one doesn’t have that over-riding moral objection, it's hard to see the justification for a new Trident system strategically, financially or militarily. Here are my reasons:

Cost

The official cost estimates in 2010 were £15-20 billion, although many believe it will be much higher. As there is US input, and the pound has devalued against the dollar by around 10% since the referendum, this is bound to rise. Ongoing operational costs and maintenance will take this total much higher.

Over my adult lifetime, there have been many examples where it was believed that our conventional forces on active duty were imperilled by shortages – of ammunition, helicopters, body armour, and using vulnerable Land Rovers due to a lack of armoured personnel carriers. The savings from abandoning Trident could ensure that does not happen again. I’m not a pacifist, so I feel that when our personnel are deployed it’s vital they actually have all the resources they need, decent houses to come home to, and proper support for those injured or traumatised, along with their families.

Military Strategy

The point is often made that Trident is for our security – to make us safe. Is this well-founded?

The British nuclear deterrent was conceived to ensure the UK had the independent means to deter the USSR during the Cold War. We couldn't hope to win a conventional war against the USSR, so it was to ensure the UK could not be intimidated, and an aggressor would pay for using nuclear weapons on the UK, if it ever came to that. As I’m sure you know, the British deterrent (whether Vulcans, Polaris or Trident) was always a 'second strike' weapon. They would be deployed once Britain was about to be devastated by an incoming attack, or after such an attack had done its worst. In the Cold War scenario, it was assumed the USSR would be the aggressor, and it was very hard to imagine circumstances where Trident would be fired in isolation from a US response, or that as a NATO ally, they would simply watch European allies attacked. This is presumably why, apart from France, no other European country has nuclear weapons. The difference 'our' deterrent makes to that overall scenario is more symbolic than significant.

So at most, Polaris and Trident would have been a kind of posthumous revenge. In his old age, Denis Healey once admitted that back in the 60s if he had been in bunker after a Soviet attack, he wouldn't have launched Polaris. What would the point have been in slaughtering millions of Russians after the damage was done?

The same surely applies now with regard to the big nuclear powers. Russia (and China) might have too much at stake to risk such a war with the West, but don't we need a deterrent to protect us from Iran, North Korea et al? The answer is the same: a nuclear strike by any 'rogue state' would certainly get a US response (possibly with support from Russia/China), so if that doesn't deter them, will a couple of Trident submarines? Furthermore, if the UK is seeking to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it reduces the credibility of that stance by renewing Trident.

Terrorism

Probably the most pressing threat to national security is terrorism. Nuclear deterrence is no use against such a threat. We don't know where they are, and the best hope of stopping them will be through good police and intelligence work. Many terrorists are happy to die in their cause; indeed some actively seek it. The Cold War peace was said to be maintained by the dangerous balance of mutually assured destruction (MAD) between the USA and USSR. However, if one side is happy to die, that balance is destroyed.

Conclusion

I don’t expect you will agree with me, as I know your party seeks Trident renewal. However, it isn’t as simple as a left/right issue. Military chiefs and even Michael Portillo (hardly a lily-livered lefty!) have questioned spending these huge sums of money to maintain a nuclear deterrent, when there are so many other pressing needs on our nation (including other military requirements).

Last night I was at a local public meeting seeking to keep Morecambe Library and 3 Childrens’ Centres open, which are threatened because of the cuts Lancashire County Council must make. Austerity is biting very hard locally, so it’s very hard to understand why such an expensive prestige project remains a priority.

Trident represents a lot of money that could be used to:

a) invest in the towns like Barrow affected by the cancellation. Employment is important, but Trident is a very expensive way to keep people employed.

b) ensure the conventional forces being deployed actually have all they need and decent houses to come home to.

c) contribute to deficit reduction, instead of closing vital local facilities.

Even the lowest estimate of £15bn is a lot of money to spend on something you hope you never use.

I hope you have time to read and weigh these arguments. At the very least, I would ask you to support deferring the decision until things settle down, I think a proper impartial strategic review of the value of a UK deterrent would be very helpful, balancing the different threats we face. Of course I must also ask you to vote against renewal for the reasons I have outlined.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Peatman

Boundaries of Remembrance

It was inevitable that this year would see an increased emphasis on remembrance as we marked the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War earlier this year. The monuments, memorials and most of all the commemorations on Remembrance Sunday are all part of the way our nation came to terms with its terrible death toll of between 7 & 800,000 (depending on which records are used). It's a staggering loss of life, and yet only a fraction of the number of people killed overall in the 14-18 conflict.

Armistice Day itself (11 Nov) was adopted as a public holiday by several nations, but in the UK, the outbreak of World War 2 led to the moving of the commemoration to the nearest Sunday - it was less disruptive to war production (which has its own irony). That is where the main ceremony has stayed since, although 11/11 has acquired a greater significance in recent years. That has led to some confusion. For example, here in Morecambe we had the main town ceremony on Sunday with over 1,000 people present and many organisations taking part. However, people were still asking about what was happening on 11/11 at the cenotaph with a sense of disappointment that it was not a major event. But for those of us there on Sunday, it would feel strange to be back doing the same thing again so soon.

It begs the question as to whether we need a new national consensus on which day we should use, and where remembrance begins and ends. Some people have argued that the UK should have a Bank Holiday between August and Christmas, perhaps relocating one of the holidays in May. One option might be to use 11/11. If we did that, then all UK ceremonies could take place on Armistice Day and there would be no parallel ceremonies or repetition. Our remembrance would be focussed on the one significant date when the guns fell silent.

It's also interesting which conflicts get included and which don't. Prior to 1914, relatively few war memorials were made. There is a very rare Crimean War memorial in my home town of Beeston. And I suspect that many people miss the fact that our church building contains a Boer War Memorial:

It's interesting that a war that ended at the start of the 20th century with over 20,000 British and allied dead (there were similar scale losses in Crimea) ends up being almost completely overlooked. Possibly it's due to there being some lasting unease about the conduct and legacy of parts of that campaign.

Of course the important thing is not the physical memorial, but the knowledge and appreciation of the cost and destructiveness of war. When memorials say 'lest we forget', it's a sobering reminder that the tragedy of bereavement represented by each name was repeated thousands and thousands of times up an down the country, and that should be all the motivation we need to inspire us to work ceaselessly for peace and reconciliation.

Poppies and T-shirts

We have just entered that time of year when debates and articles begin about wearing poppies around Remembrance Sunday / Armistice Day. One of the shifts in recent years has been the fact that everyone on TV is expected to wear a poppy for at least a 3 week period, and anyone failing to do so is pressured off camera and criticised if they go on camera without the requisite item. ITV newsreader Charlene White got racist and sexist abuse for not wearing one last year. In fact she doesn't object to wearing them altogether, and explains the choices she made here.

The culture around poppies has changed, so that they have become the criterion by which respect is judged. Failure to wear a poppy has become almost synonymous with disrespect. Although I do, in fact, wear a red poppy for a few days, I have a problem with the quick judgments people jump to.

I found an interesting parallel with another very different story about T-shirts, wittily described on the Beaker Folk blog. David Cameron apparently declined to wear a pro-feminism T-shirt, whereas Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband did so (look out for the misprint in the report!). This was seen as a great sign that Cameron lacked commitment to promoting equality for women. It may well be that he does lack that commitment, but to judge him by his choice of shirt seems a rather superficial assessment. Likewise wearing a "this is what a feminist looks like" T-shirt hardly makes you a champion of equality - anyone can do that.

So maybe we need to be a bit cautious jumping to conclusions about people who decline to wear a red poppy. Some will prefer to wear a white one, to show their commitment to peace and reconciliation - which, after all, is a commitment at the heart of the prayers we use on Remembrance Sunday. Some will feel that the poppy has become rather closely associated with a kind of patriotism that they can't go along with. Still others will wish to exercise the choice as to how they show respect, and not be dictated to by convention. What we can't assume is that we know what's going on in the hearts of those who don't (and those who do) wear poppies. The important question is whether we appreciate the cost and tragedy of conflict and are committed to do all in our power to work for peace and reconciliation in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. 

Family and War - Walter's Story

The recent commemorations prompted me to jot down what I knew of my own family's experience of the first World War. The first was what I know of my grandma's first husband; this is the story of her second - my grandfather.

Walter Henry Peatman was 10 years old when he heard the news that his father Henry had died as a result of a farming accident. Falling from the top of a wagon, Henry had hit his head, and although he initially revived enough to travel home, he died that evening. Life was hard and money was short for the large family and Walter was the eldest son. He stopped going to school and got some work on a farm near his home in Ropsley in Lincolnshire. His first job was poorly paid, even by the standards of the day but another farmer had more sympathy and took him on for twice what he had been earning.

It was a world where class structure was firm, and deference was expected. A labourer could lose his job for not showing respect by doffing his cap to his landowner. Losing your job usually meant losing your home, as many labourers lived in tied cottages. Walter had even heard of men losing their jobs and homes because their children had failed to pay the respect deemed necessary to their so-called superiors.

In 1906 he took the huge decision to emigrate to Canada. He sailed steerage class, which took bout a week, and the subsequent train journey across Canada took 3 days. I understand he initially settled in Regina, Saskatchewan eventually living in a small town called Francis, about 40 miles south east of Regina. We know that because that is the address he gave on his attestation paper to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force on 17th January 1916. He always spoke warmly of Canada, as it had offered him opportunities the class-structure of England would have prevented.  A tattoo of a maple leaf on his arm was the enduring evidence of his attachment.

Walter was my grandad, although I (and everyone else, including his mates at the pub) always called him Pop. He, like many veterans of the horror of the Great War, very rarely said anything about his experiences of the trenches. My dad remembers asking him if he killed any Germans. He simply said "I don't know. I shot at a few". We once asked him about 'going over the top'. He wasn't a man who exaggerated or boasted, but he told us he went over 11 times. The odds of surviving that must be slim, although I once read some Canadian attacks had lower casualty rates. Perhaps he benefitted from that. He also once told me of a card game going on in a dug-out. He went down the trench line to the latrine. When he came back, the dug-out wasn't there; it had been hit by a shell.

War has its lasting effects, and Pop was once caught in a trench collapse. The terror of being completely covered and trapped in the dark meant he subsequently struggled to sleep in the dark when he came home. He told of how when he first came home, he left a light on in his room at night, and gradually used less and less light until he had cured himself of fear of the dark. What other terrors filled his dreams we'll never know.

When Pop emigrated, he probably didn't have much expectation returning to England to visit his family - it was a long and expensive journey. However, the war meant he was in Europe, so he went back to Lincolnshire after the war, intending to return to Canada. That was where he met a young widow with two children, who came from Nottingham, but was staying with people from his village who she had got to know when they came to town to sell produce. She (my grandma) wouldn't agree to sailing back to Canada. My dad says she referred to the sinking of the Titanic as having placed that fear in her mind. So they married and eventually settled in Chilwell, near Nottingham, which is why my dad hasn't got a Canadian accent and I exist.

In the late 80s, when I visited the Somme, I found a section of preserved trenches which were part of the Canadian line. I've no idea if this was part of a section where Pop served, but it somehow made it all feel a little more real, and not just a family story. It also made me want to trace his steps, insofar as that's possible. One day I'd love to go to Canada and see if I can find where he lived over there, and at least visit the towns he lived in and see what they are like today.

For a person of that era, Pop fitted in a lot of excitement, travel, action and danger in those first 30-odd years of his life. He spent the rest of them (he lived to 91) in and around Nottingham, mostly in Chilwell. Maybe he was ready for a quiet life.

The Story of Horace Heath

Horace Heath was my grandma's first husband. He's not my grandfather, as he died on 24th March 1918, serving on the Western Front. I understand Horace was a baker in Nottingham, and he initially served in the Army Service Corps. By the time he died, however, he was in the Royal Irish Rifles. caught up in the German counter-offensive of 1918, which commenced on 21 March, often known as the Second Battle of the Somme.

He is remembered at the Pozières memorial and cemetery, which commemorates the casualties from that battle. You can view the Commonwealth War Graves Commission entry for Horace online here, which gives his parents' names and address and also my grandma's name and her address at the time. The houses aren't there anymore. Ireton Cottages are gone with all the older housing there, although Ireton Street still exists, and Sherwin Walk is close to where Sherwin Street used to be (just off Huntingdon Street).

No-one from my family had ever been out to the cemetery until I visited in the summer of 1989. I camped near the Thiepval memorial to the 1916 Somme casualties, and then set about trying to find Horace (with no internet, of course). I had a regiment and a date of death to go on, but needed more information.

One location recommended to me was Deville Wood (known as Devils Wood to the soldiers) where South African troops were engaged in a bloody battle for control. Here the forest had regrown, but the undulation of the ground clearly showed the trench lines decades later. There was also an English-speaking visitors centre where I was directed to the memorial I was looking for. I felt a twinge of discomfort at seeing the (then) new museum had been opened by P.W. Botha - one of the last leaders of South Africa under apartheid. However, the memorial there commemorates some 10,000 South African casualties from the Great War.

Pozières is a large cemetery, surrounded by walls with plaques commemorating many more casualties than the graveyard contains. It's on the road from Albert to Bapaume. Horace isn't remembered on a gravestone, but on one of the wall plaques. It was a very strange and memorable experience to visit, read the entry with my grandma's name in it, and know I was the first from the family to have made the journey. I also remember a vivid weird feeling when it occurred to me that if he hadn't died, I wouldn't exist. Grandma married again (another blog post worth there!) and my dad was the youngest child from that second marriage.

Horace's two children ( my dad's half brother and sister) were still alive in the summer of '89, although Auntie Doll died only 3 months later. They had last seen their father as small children, waving him off at the railway station. It was very special to take them photographs of the plaque and the entry in the book of remembrance. They were, of course, overwhelmed and showed me some of the embroidered postcards he sent back, along with his medals and the little bits of information they had about him.

Out there are millions of stories like this, remembered in fading photos and little boxes of memorabilia. Perhaps it's through those that we get closest to the people who lived and died in the reality of the trenches.

World War 1 anniversaries

There have been some interesting things around about the Great War, or WW1. The first two programmes by Jeremy Paxman have been interesting in documenting in greater detail the social impact of the war, and the changes it brought, as well as documenting the horror of the front line. There are also some debates around about just how badly the war was conducted. 

Lions led by donkeys is the phrase often used to describe the leaders of the war. Dan Snow has attempted a defence of those who led the British army during the conflict, and so has Michael Gove (not a great ally there, Dan). Others have documented the terrible losses and their impact, including the excellent set of programmes Not Forgotten by Ian Hislop on Channel 4. We can't reduce the war to simple stereotypes for anyone involved, but the overwhelming sense I always have looking at any of the material is one of tragedy.

This year we are going to be faced with some difficult choices about the tone of how the war is remembered and marked. It seems clear to me that anything hinting at a celebration would be deeply distasteful, including when we get to 11/11/2018. Millions of lives were lost in a war that exhausted the resources of all the great nations of Europe, and can only be looked back on with sorrow and sadness. 

Commemoration is very appropriate, or we never learn the lessons of history. Just don't ask me to celebrate anything.

Poppies and Martin

In my previous job, today was an even more complicated mixture of issues and emotions than it is now. November 11th is not only Armistice Day, but it's also St Martin's Day, so we tried to mark that each year in the Chapel of the College that bore his name. Legend has it that one of the previous chaplains used to do a firework display to celebrate St Martin and regularly received complaints from people who saw it as disrespectful to the fallen.

Martin himself was a soldier who became a bishop and a scholar. Given that he is the patron saint of both France and soldiers, it is perhaps no coincidence that the Armistice was eventually signed on his feast day, although I have never read of any direct connection being explicitly made.

In the UK, many will pause today at 11am for 2 minutes of silence to remember those who have died in conflict. Likewise there will also be similar observances on Remembrance Sunday with red poppies at the centre and worn by all present.

As in previous years, there has been a debate about poppies. Some people find their association with the casualties of WW1 difficult. The poppies had Haig Fund in the middle - the name of the general widely regarded as responsible for the campaigns where so many British (and other) soldiers lost their lives. White poppies have been available to provide a positive alternative to abstaining.

I don't have a problem wearing a poppy on the day; what I find difficult is that poppies appear earlier each year, and seem to be increasingly compulsory, and sometimes even seem to have become a fashion item. The anti-poppy protest at a recent Scottish football match has clearly upset people, but it does seem odd to me that every Scottish Premier League player will have to wear a poppy at the weekend. What about those players whose native countries weren't involved or were on the other side? More to the point is whether remembrance is something you can impose?

If the controversy focuses on the external symbols of remembrance, then we're missing the point. Wearing a poppy doesn't create respect for those who have died - respect is something that has to come from somewhere deeper than that. For others, remembrance is something they wish to keep discreet and internal, and not be forced into expressing it in a fixed form dictated by society at large.

So I won't judge anyone on whether they happen to be wearing a poppy or not. I will be wearing one today and on Sunday as I remember the tragedy and loss of war, so much potential and possibility cut short and as I pray that wars on such scale are never seen again.

My grandfather survived the trenches. I think he only ever spoke 5 or 6 sentences about it in all the time I knew him. He remembered, and I got the impression that he would have been all too happy to forget most of what he had witnessed. We remember his companions who didn't return, and their suffering and sacrifice in the hope that it will inspire future generations to seek justice and peace in a troubled world.

Related articles

• SPL: Anti-poppy banner regrettable (independent.co.uk)

Nuclear Weapons: a vote winner?

Image via Wikipedia

One of the surprises of the recent leadership debate was the firm line taken by Labour and the Conservatives over the replacement of Britain's ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Trident submarines. The question lurking in my mind is whether the general public in the UK really regard the maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent capability a vote-winner.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, the USA and USSR found themselves in the midst of an arms race. Both wanted to ensure they had enough capability to knock out the other's and to avoid incurring large amounts of retaliation - so-called first-strike capability. These weapons could be used in response to an attack, or 'up front' as a final card in an escalating game of 'dare' between the two Cold War adversaries. During the Cuban crisis it all came perilously close.

This policy, appropriately, became known a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Once it was established that any nuclear war between the superpowers would destroy them both (and most of the world with them) then it was in neither party's interest to start such a war. In the subsequent decades, negotiations have reduced the arsenals and that continues to be the case.

Britain was never in a position where it had enough 'kit' to launch a 'first-strike' attack on the USSR; our deterrent was 'second-strike'. In other words, our deterrent would be launched after Britain had been hit with Soviet warheads, and devastating some Soviet cities was a minimum requirement. Vulcan bombers, Polaris and now Trident have all served as our minimum deterrent.

Of course, this all presupposes a few things. First it assumes that a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear Britain was likely, and that the US (or any other major power) wouldn't provide any defence. Second, it assumes that the posthumous revenge of our missiles or planes would have been enough to deter a Soviet regime hell-bent on annihilating Britain. Behind all of that is the huge moral question as to whether one should ever countenance unleashing these weapons in any circumstance. Dennis Healey admitted in an interview that had it come to the crunch, even if Britain was devastated, he could not have ordered the slaughter of millions of Russians - what would have been the point?

The world we live in now is very different. Anyone thinking of using a nuke against Britain now is likely to be either terrorists or a regime with an ideology that would not find being hit back in return such a deterrent as the USSR did. In a world a suicide bombers, MAD doesn't work. So even if you think use of nuclear weapons is morally defensible under some circumstances, against whom might a British government

Image via Wikipedia

conceivably use them?

The figure banded around is £100 billion over 25 years, with quite a considerable initial investment. Given the choice, I can't see why we would want to spend that much money on weapons, that we hope we never use, on an enemy we can't even identify. My own hunch is that neither does the majority of the British people.

I think it's correct that the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru are all committed to complete nuclear disarmament, whereas the Lib Dems want a review with a view to lower-cost options with lesser capability. Personally, I'd favour abandoning a deterrent altogether, and then use a significant slice of the money saved to invest in the communities heavily dependent economically on the Trident fleet. Another slice would be used to on ensure our conventional forces are fully supplied with the best equipment available, and that properly maintained and decent accommodation is there for their families.

Mr Brown would say I need to "get real".

Related articles by Zemanta

• General Election 2010: generals back Nick Clegg on Trident nuclear deterrent (telegraph.co.uk)
• Lib Dem call for UK Trident review (guardian.co.uk)
• General election 2010: Labour ditches Trident pledge (telegraph.co.uk)

Remembrance Sunday

The Morecambe cenotaph ceremony seemed to go off very well. Leading it for the first time, I didn't feel nervous, just slightly bewildered by the remarkable array of cadets and military societies and associations. Plus wreaths were laid from political parties, the Freemasons, a social club and more.

The son shone on Morecambe Bay, sparing us the soaking of the previous day, and the fallen were respected.

An Ethical Dilemma

Yesterday I caught up with a documentary on the bombing of Coventry in 1940, shown because the anniversary is coming up on 14 Nov. The BBC iplayer link may only work for a bit, and may not work outside UK.

Having lived in the city, I was interested to see the coverage. Having done some burials in London Road cemetery, I remember the large memorial to the 1200 or so people killed in the big raid and subsequent ones. I also recall someone pointing out some semis in the pre-war part of the parish which had different mortar, but were otherwise identical to their neighbours. "Bombed" an old man said, "found the bodies in the woods". The only trace that they had been rebuilt were the whiter lines between the bricks.

The big raid focussed on the city centre, where many key manufacturing plants were then located, making armaments, vehicles, aircraft and much more. Over 500 aircraft maintained a sustained bombardment for several hours, and the city burned. What had been a city with many old building and streets that looked more like York or Lincoln, was reduced to rubble.

The most famous image is, of course, of the ruined Cathedral. The Cathedral has become a centre for international reconciliation; the city is twinned with Dresden, and a very moving piece of sculpture is located in the ruins as a memorial to Hiroshima. This connection, a sense of commonality in being places where civilians died was very moving to encounter.

But here's the ethical dilemma. It may or may not be true that British intelligence was aware that Coventry was to be bombed. It was known that a very large raid was being prepared and the obvious target was London. However, a myth persists that shortly before the raid it became known and was passed to Churchill that Coventry was the target. It is alleged that the decision was made to take no action that would indicate this knowledge (such as evacuate the city) as that would betray the extent that spies and codebreakers were aware of all German plans. Put crudely, the destruction of Coventry's city centre was a price worth paying for concealing the fact the British had a machine that could decode German ciphers. There is little or no 'hard' evidence to support this, although it does get repeated from time to time (including on the one episode of Babylon 5 I can recall watching!)

Whether it's factual or not, here's the question for the eve of Remembrance Sunday:

If the raid and its target were known on the morning of 14 November 1940, what would you have done in Churchill's shoes? What is a price worth paying?

Do you wear a poppy and when?

I have been in on some interesting exchanges about the why and if of wearing a poppy. It seems that everyone on TV is now placed under huge pressure to wear a poppy, especially extra large ones for X-factor contestants, which turns them into a fashion accessory. And they seem to be coming in earlier and earlier, just like Easter eggs and Christmas decorations. I can't help thinking that this is a huge exercise in missing the point.

Don't get me wrong, I shall wear a (basic) poppy on Remembrance Sunday, not because other people want me to, but because I will be remembering a member of my family lost on the Somme in March 1918 and my own grandfather who lived through over two years' horror in the trenches. He survived and lived to an old age, but he lost many friends.

I'll also be aware of all the losses we have seen in recent years in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although much smaller in number than the 'great' wars of the 20th century, we are made all the more aware by the intense media coverage of everyone whose life is lost.

And I'll also be thinking of 14 Nov, the anniversary of the bombing of Coventry in 1940. Having lived there, I realise that the experience still casts a shadow over the city, as it must in many other cities devastated by war. The symbolism of the ruined cathedral is, of course, particularly evocative. For Coventry, it has inspired people to reach out to other communities - hence it is twinned with Dresden.

Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day are there 'lest we forget' - lest we forget the death, losses, destruction, pain and grief of war, and lest we forget the need to work for peace and reconciliation in the future to try and avoid such things ever happening again.

Whether you choose to wear a poppy or not is a matter of choice; the important question is what kind of a world are you working for. The badge you wear is much less important than the commitments you keep to.