BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


I heart war

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
m. anthony bro
23:22 / 24.04.02
So, it's ANZAC day, which is the day, back in world war one, where Australian and New Zealand troops landed at Gallipoli (wrong place! cheers, guys) and you know, shit happened, bang bang you're dead, and to make sure that we never forget, they gave us April 25th off.
And, they say (whoever they are) that this is to remember and acknowledge those who died for our freedom in world war 1, world war 2, vietnam, and all the non-secret wars we've fought in. It's to give the people who were brainwashed into killing for their country a little moment of glory.
I know that other countries have war-is-great days, and I know that they mean nothing. I know that every single person who ever fought for 'our freedom' did so, missing some points:
(1) Our freedom in WWI was whatever Britain told us was our freedom. We went to protect the Motherland and act as cheap cannon fodder.
(2) Our freedom in WWII was to stop Hitler, and the spread of Nazism, which is fair enough, except that it took Britain six years to act, all time while Hitler was saying the same stuff. Our real threat was the Japanese, but somehow we were fighting in Europe.
(3) We'd do it again, and we will. World War 2 is the only war I can think of that was fought upon an actual and understandable principle. World War 3 is going to be about America trying to get away with murder.

If we fight for our freedom, then cool. But, if someone did that, then I want them to know that they fought for my free right to not spend anzac day gazing in wonderment at the ceiling thinking of how the diggers and (whatever they called us) worked together to save the world from evil. It's not fucking Dragonball Z, you know, it's not that simple.

It's my freedom to dissent. It's my freedom to get a big sign that says WAR SOLVES NOTHING, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO KEEP HAVING THEM. It makes me so fucking angry that fucking people fucking think that we fucking have to fucking kill to fucking prove a fucking point which, when you boil it down to its fucking element, is all about fucking capitalism half the fucking time.

Grrr! And then these people try and make you buy little poppies, and what the hell? If you don't buy one, you're the most unpatriotic sack of snot in the world. You can let down your kids, your wife, your friends, but GOD HELP YOU if you tell the fucking RSA that they're a bunch of old fools who didn't know what they were doing in 1939, and don't have a lightbulb to turn on above their heads yet.

I want to go get some chalk now, and write things on the footpath. I might take a digital camera pic of it and post it. First, I'm going to kick something.
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
02:58 / 25.04.02
So don't celebrate the mistakes of your leaders past and present.

Take the day to remember the dead soldiers, the young men just like you (I'm assuming you are a young man) who set aside their personal concerns and gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Right or wrong, those men fought with all their hearts and died because, at some basic level, they decided it was better to do their duty. No sane person at the proper age to be a soldier would want to die in the prime of their lives, but they did it because if they didn't someone else would have to do it.

Of course it is never that simple, but death is about as simple as it gets. You don't have to buy flowers or sing a song or stand in a parade but please, please recongnize that people who probably thought the same as you and still strapped on a rifle and marched like men.

The fact that their deaths may have been in vain is another matter for another day. Recongnize that those men are dead, and they deserve some respect.
 
 
The Natural Way
07:40 / 25.04.02
!
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:08 / 25.04.02
I always find myself torn on this one when it comes to Remembrance Sunday. On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with commemorating the dead, many of whom REALLY didn't wanna be there. However, I hate all the jingoism that goes along with it- dunno if it's the same with ANZAC day, mikebro, but here in Blighty they tend to do their damnedest to make the two impossible to separate, and it seems like the majority of people are celebrating war rather than honouring the fallen, or whatever the idea's supposed to be. And that does, I agree, leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
 
 
Ganesh
10:49 / 25.04.02
I'm always a little wary of being overjudgmental of individuals who've lived through events waaay out of my own sphere of experience. For that reason, I don't really have a problem with war veterans marking the occasion in whatever way they see fit.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:02 / 25.04.02
Yeah, but it's all this stuff about "marching like men" and "duty" and the *noble dead* that gets me. I mean, Mole, have you ever read any war literature? Stuff written by those people who were actually there? Check out some Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse 5', Heller's 'Catch 22' or even Ballard's 'Empire of the Sun' (tho' it's POW, as opposed to soldier, stuff). Sure, the poor bastards deserve our respect, but war isn't some noble enterprise, choca w/ brave men sacrificing themselves on the altar of the greater good.
 
 
gozer the destructor
11:49 / 25.04.02
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
 
 
Rev. Orr
12:56 / 25.04.02
oh, that old lie...
 
 
The Natural Way
13:08 / 25.04.02
Aaah, hello Orr. One of my heroes.......
 
 
Rev. Orr
13:28 / 25.04.02
Too kind (oh, you meant the poet)

I do find it a little strange that the formal mourning or 'rememberance' from a society of its war dead is usually performed by the military. If I were to be conscripted to fight in a war and killed, I sure as hell wouldn't want a nice shiny parade annually to to say sorry.

Surely if we want to acknowledge or honour some form of generational debt or sacrifice the better way to do it is act to ensure it isn't needed again. Pick your own way - send a flower to Sharon, send a letter, help your local anti-nazi campaign - whatever, hug a tree for all I care, but I can't see how glorifying the institutions of war furthers the cause of peace.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:42 / 25.04.02
No, I meant the guy in 'Catch 22'. Obviously yr not him.

But yr wearing his skin!

Sick!

I wouldn't listen to a thing he says.....
 
 
Rev. Orr
13:52 / 25.04.02
Hey I just found this suit floating in the North Sea. Took me a little while to figure how to talk through the crabapples...
 
 
The Natural Way
14:16 / 25.04.02
Orr survived, Orr (remember?).

He's not floating in the sea, he's living it up w/ sexy natives and enjoying delicious tropical fruit juices.
 
 
Rev. Orr
14:38 / 25.04.02
In Sweden??

Trust me, he dies. We all die. Orrs only purpose is to offer the palliative of hope.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
14:46 / 25.04.02
in england, war widows and pensioners in general - the ones who fought/lost people in possibly two world wars - are treated rather shabbily by the govt. i would much rather see - as an acknowledgment for their suffering and a mark of respect for those and the loved ones of those that died - pensioners given a dignified life. better than an annual gesture.
 
 
Rev. Orr
14:52 / 25.04.02
Yeah, that's why I have ambivalent feelings towards the British Legion and therefore towards the whole poppy deal. On the one hand, at least they're offering a level of support not maintained by the state, but on the other, I don't know how well it's distributed. I really don't know that there isn't a better way of supporting the direct victims of war than a voluntary charity so heavily entwined with the military.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:59 / 25.04.02
I'm not sure the book's as gloomy as that, Orr.

It doesn't matter if Orr literally survives or not. He's hope, the thing that, at/in the end, keeps Yossarian moving - that gives his roadrunner-style dash into the horizon purpose and meaning - death hot on his heels.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
15:36 / 25.04.02
I've always seen Remembrance Day in Canada as a serious and solemn event, but I'd be lying if I said it's not one of my favourite days of the year. I usually make it out to a service at 11:11 on November 11th, and talk to some of the people there. The mood is always "never let this happen again," and I have always considered it my duty as a young citizen, who has never experienced war, to pay respects to those who have, and to spend a day really thinking about the possibility of war. And In Flanders Fields is the first poem I ever memorized (they made us do in school), and still one of my favourites.
 
 
grant
18:22 / 25.04.02
And now every April I sit on my porch
and I see the parade pass before me
I see my old comrades, how proudly they march,
Reliving their dreams of past glory.

I see the old men, all twisted and torn
the forgotten heroes of a forgotten war
And the young people ask what were you fighting for
And I ask myself the same question.
 
 
Baz Auckland
21:13 / 25.04.02
I'm actually suprised that the Rememberance Day celebrations haven't been turned into 'this is the futility of war' by the Federal Government. Maybe not in this decade, but I'm sure in 30 years we won't be "honouring our glorious dead".

Every November it's the same "we died for Hong Kong in 1940, and in Dieppe in 1942." Be Proud! No! No more specials on Vimy Ridge or the apparent fact that "WWI made Canada a nation."! It was bad enough that the colony troops were used as fodder (well, apparently more so than the non-colonials) How long did the Newfoundland regiment last? 15 minutes was it? Come on! Let's honour those dumb enough to actually volunteer to go to the Somme! Thank god we never had conscription. I had relatives in both wars, but no disrespect to them, but I won't give them extra in my mind because they fought...

As long as Rememberance/ANZAC/Veterans's Day continues in this HONOUR/GLORY theme, we'll keep having the damn conflicts.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
21:31 / 25.04.02
While I don't think war is a good thing (ever), you have to take into account what kind of world it was back then and what people were actually fighting for. Some Canadians may have gone to support Britain and for political solidarity, but there were also Nazis taking over large chunks of other nations and being right assholes. If you can think of something better they should have done, by all means let me know. To say I'm proud of my relatives who fought in the war doesn't sound quite right - I'm not proud that they killed someone. But I have a deep respect for all the people in that generation who fought. Many of them went through things no human being should ever be subjected to, and I think they should be honoured for their courage. The whole death and glory is a fine line, I think. On one hand, I am not interested in the least in glorifying war, but I think it's just as bad to cheapen the effort given by those soldiers. Is it not possible to avoid both?
 
 
luminocity
21:56 / 25.04.02
grant:
my thought also.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
01:02 / 26.04.02
"If you can think of something better [the allies] should have done, by all means let me know."

as mikebro said in his original post, weren't the allies aware of what the nazis were up to, long before war broke out? didn't churchill seek to appease hitler, rather than stop him early on? how necessary *was* world war II?

the other point is: you'd think we'd have learned by now - that would also be a mark of respect, not to chuck anyone else into the line of fire without damn good reason. but britain went into the falklands war after decades (at least) of active pissed offness from the argentinians, when maybe it could've been resolved. and i remember seeing photos of bosnian concentration camps, and wondering why the fuck we let *that* happen again.

it is not those questioning wars that have disrespect for those who have died in them.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
04:32 / 26.04.02
it is not those questioning wars that have disrespect for those who have died in them.

Touché. I think Dylan says it best. Try as I might, though, I can't help but respect my grandfathers - even though they fought on opposite sides at one point.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:03 / 26.04.02
Some Canadians may have gone to support Britain and for political solidarity, but there were also Nazis taking over large chunks of other nations and being right assholes.

Well, yeah, but not in WW1, which seems to be Barry's point...
 
 
w1rebaby
18:39 / 26.04.02
I wonder if it's still possible to talk about WW1 in a non-pacifist context these days. The general consensus seems to have been that it was a horrible, nasty, avoidable conflict. Even the establishment historical consensus, as far as I know, seems to be that it was the result of power blocs clashing rather than having had any "peace and justice" motive. Someone who tried to talk about its "glory" in public would be instantly derided.

What worries me is an idealisation of war in the abstract, the idea that wars are important unifying and rite-of-passage events for young men. Fight Club with consequences.
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
21:17 / 26.04.02
i think world war one was inevitable, sure it coulda been delayed (unless mabye kaiser wilhelm the 2nd was assasinated) WW1 and WW2 were more like one big war with a half time break.

anyways...iggmy baths ready so no in depth stuff, but god i'd hate to think i would kill someone for my country, when my nationality is just an accident of birth...were all people

mmmm warm bath, that i can enjoy with relative freedom due to the saccrafices of millions of people... who am i to tell em they did the wrong thing when they lost so much
 
 
alas
14:49 / 27.04.02
wait: that's the problem, for me. War did not create the bath you can enjoy. Peace created that. War destroys that, the US war machine keeps many people from being able to live in a place where they can take a nice warm bath.

Anybody know the writings of AJ Muste? His work goes a long way towards debunking "the Good War" myth of WWII.
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
08:06 / 28.04.02
no war is good.

trying not to sound offensive here, but what would you have done if you were prime minister loyd george. would you not have bothered with appeasment and attacked at the first sign of nazi aggresion in europe

or would you have let them have poland, cos it was none of our buisness.

"Some Canadians may have gone to support Britain and for political solidarity, but there were also Nazis taking over large chunks of other nations and being right assholes.

Well, yeah, but not in WW1, which seems to be Barry's point..."

the reason the brits got involved was because to avoid french defences the germans invaded france via belguim, who we had sworn to protect decades before (so had prussia) in some treaty or another.

even with hindsight its hard to think of any alternatives.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
11:14 / 28.04.02
"It's to give the people who were brainwashed into killing for their country a little moment of glory."

You're making the mistake of overly romanticising the war. You're also missing the fact that social attitudes were vastly different in the earlier part of last century. National identity - in a sense, blind patriotism - was not the result of eeeevil governments 'brainwashing' their young men, but of a very real sense of 'place' in the world powers (the German populous, for example, largely considered itself to have been robbed of the empire it felt it deserved; whilst the British were content in the knowledge that they were part of the most extensive empire on the globe.) I can't bring to mind any European power whose population didn't cheer upon their country's official declaration of war. Sorry, Mikebro, but whilst we today are in no position to make sweeping statements on the motives of the world governments at the time, we can at least try reading some relevant literature before making comment.
As Ganesh quite succinctly put it: "I'm always a little wary of being overjudgmental of individuals who've lived through events waaay out of my own sphere of experience."


With regard to the act of remembering, I can't speak for ANZAC Day, but Remembrance Day in the U.K. certainly isn't intended to glorify - or for that matter, vilify - the war, but to keep the memory of national sacrifice alive in the public mind (a lot of veterans feel that not remembering the sacrifices made dishonours everything for which they fought).

As to Mikebro's ridiculous comment of other countries holding 'War-Is-Great' days, I'd tentatively point out that the majority of such days - Remembrance day included - mark the end of the war. Not it's beginning.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:40 / 28.04.02
What does worry me somewhat is that so far we have had responsibility for appeasement laid at the door of Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George, both of whom were, believe me, not Prime Minister in the 1930s. This, I'm afraid, generates the suspicion that maybe the lessons of history are not being learned in the simplest and most obvious sense.
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
13:52 / 28.04.02
?

i'm fairly sure that Lloyd George was fairly responsible for appeasement...In fact i lay it down at his door, although its easy to say appeasement was a mistake with our hindsight...baing a bit of a n idealist, i probablly would have gone with appeasement, and no-one wanted a war so soon after WW1, and you have to remember that lots of people im britain admired Hitler and his rebuilding of germany after the ruin it was left in after WW1. At the time Churchill opposed the idea of appeasement and wanted Britain to get stuck in strait away.

Churchill is the dood, if you can be bothered you should read up about how he sometimes saw ghosts and predicted the future. He was a firm beleiver in much of the paranormal.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:21 / 28.04.02
I can't believe that I have to say this, but...

Lloyd George resigned as Prime Minister in 1922. If he was responsible for appeasing Hitler, he must have been doing it by mind control.
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
18:18 / 28.04.02
bugger me sideways and call me suzie.

got Lloyd George and Chamberlin mixed up :P I bow to your superior historyness
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
18:58 / 28.04.02
"i'm fairly sure that Lloyd George was fairly responsible for appeasement...In fact i lay it down at his door,"

I'm firmly with Haus here, which is to say that I've actually bothered to take note of the periods of office served by our Prime Ministers.


"lots of people im britain admired Hitler and his rebuilding of germany after the ruin it was left in after WW1."

What leads you to suspect that Hitler was responsible for the rebuilding of Germany after the First World War, Sttab? He joined the National Socialists after the war - erm...1919 if memory serves - and, following an unsuccessful coup in 1923, was imprisoned for nine months. He was unsuccessful in the presidential election of '32, and only managed to come into office in 1933, the five remaining years until the commencement of World War Two being spent on the building of the Third Reich power base. Hardly the post-war history of an economic rebuilder, is it? What he *was* responsible for rebuilding, was the idea of German expansion, the same desire for the empire which the country felt it was owed. Even then, the general consensus in Britain - according to Shirer - was largely concern that the German people were being led down the same route of aggression that had led to the Great War. If there were British admirers of Hitler - which I'm willing to concede that there were probably a few - they kept very sensibly quiet about it...


"At the time Churchill opposed the idea of appeasement and wanted Britain to get stuck in strait away."

I think you may have made a teensie error, sttab. Although Churchill was the Minister of War and Air until about 1921 or 1922 (I can't recall which offhand), I seem to remember that he mentions in his own memoirs that he was for the idea of appeasement on the grounds that he didn't want to be even partly responsible for a second war on the scale he'd just witnessed.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply