Today is Remembrance Sunday and I am watching the Cenotaph ceremony in London. The military band just finished playing Rule Britannia and I remembered, time and again, what an amazing and powerful piece of music it is. Arrogance, defiance and a vow of no submission. It is not a piece of imperialist propaganda, as our transatlantic brethren are prone to conclude about anything British that smacks of national pride, but a cry that represents the desire to defend hundreds years of history and common heritage. It vows that Britons shall never be slaves. Not the country, not her rulers but Britons. And it rings true on this day, when we remember those whose lives were sacrificed to preserve the values that united Britain and her society against her enemies during the First World War and against the totalitarian evil sweeping the world during the Second World War.
Yesterday I was arguing hotly (off-line) against the very meaning of the Remebrance Day. It made me angry to think of so many individuals and their aspirations so cruelly and so pointlessly extinguished. Pointlessly, because the war was the result of the European states doing their ‘worst’ on the international scene. The state’s only legitimate role is to protect its citizens, but the First World War was sparked off by political horse-trading and petty international diplomacy that had nothing to do with the lives of those who were called upon to die on the European states’ playground. The British state let its people and soldiers down, by a strategy that counted lives by a heap. Today’s ceremonies are a far cry from the undignified deaths of the millions on the battlefields, in the trenches, they do not remember the mud, the corpses, the fear, pain and despair.
And it makes me angry to see the politicians taking on their most pious and sanctimonious expression for such occassions, men who have never known and would never understand that kind of sacrifice but are in a position to send others to it. Their expression contrasts with that of the veterans, whose eyes look beyond the memorials to their memories. And I suppose that is why I join the two minute silence and remember that those who died did not die for nothing. Their memory may have been hijacked and the truth tainted but that makes it all the more important to keep that memory alive.
Hmmm …. not sure which transatlantic brethren you’re referring to. I’ve always heard Rule Britannia in the context of the Magna Carta and other moves towards limiting the power and claim of the state — any state, ours or those from another place — on our lives.
May Britons continue to value and protect their centuries of trandition and their heritage.
‘Trans-channel’, surely?
Rule Brittania is just the sort of street-parade and brass-band patriotic hoo-ha Americans love and wish other countries indulged in more often, so we wouldn’t sore-thumb so badly.
Strong piece of writing, Gabriel.
I read (sfgate.com) that the San Francisco budget for Veterans Day is somewhat less than their budget for Cinco de Mayo. It is also less than the budget for Juneteenth. And less than the budget for Samoan Flag Day.
Gabriel,
How does your distaste for the warring appetite of (British) statehood accomodate WW2?
Good question Guessedworker, because the Invasion, and Division, of Poland by the Soviets and Nazis was clearly as insufficient a reason for a war as an Austrian blueblood and bride getting shot by a Serbian nutcase. Little things like the fact that Britain had a deal with Poland to defend the latters borders are insignificant. Nor is the fact that the Nazis had broken 3 treaties with Britain by September 1939 relevant. And I suppose, you cannot tell the difference between a war of national pride, and a war of national survival, can you, Guessedworker?
Tell me Guessedworker, do you keep your head head in your rectum for the warmth, or the odor?
“…as our transatlantic brethren are prone to conclude about anything British that smacks of national pride…”
Evidence? I don’t even recall the last time “The Nation” blasted British imperialism. Niall Ferguson’s “Empire” was very favorably received among conservatives across the Pond.
Eric,
Hold on there, pal, you didn’t think before you posted. The point of my question was to see how Gabriel sustained his negative comments about the politicians at the Cenotaph today in the light of the decision to fight what, of all wars, must have been a just war in 1939-45.
Your lecture is not required.
Here’s an interesting insight into the differences between the countries of the EU : while we in the UK are observing two minutes of silence on Tuesday, not all of Europe will join us.
This from an email from a software vendor :
“Exactly on November 11 at 11:11am German time, Carnival Time starts in SoftMaker’s hometown of Nurmberg – world-famous in Germany.
Rio de Janeiro, move over! Mardi Gras? Bah! We have carnival speeches, polonaise, weird dances and way too much beer…”
Eric Sivula: Thanks. Couldn’t put it better myself.
HTY and others: If not for the US anti-imperialist foreign policy after the WWII Britain might still have an empire. Then again, maybe not, but there was certainly explicit and irresistable pressure on Churchill by the US establishment to dismantle the British empire in exchange for the US involvement in Europe. In fact, Roosevelt went as far as being openly rude to Churchill at Yalta conference and treating Stalin preferentially.
In Roosevelt’s mind, the enemy of peace and order in the postwar era wouldn’t be Soviet Communism, but the imperialism and colonialism of the European empires, particularly Great Britain’s. This was the threat to a future of Soviet-American “democracy.”
Quote from a review of Roosevelt and Stalin: The failed courtship
The anti-British sentiment at that time was fuelled, in no small measure, by Joseph Kennedy’s (JFK’s unsavoury father) open hostility to all things English. He was appointed United States Ambassador to Britain in 1937…
Gabriel,
I would be interested in your answer to my question. I have published on the bomber offensive of WW2 and so know something of my subject. Eric’s vituperate reply, which you endorse, misses the point entirely. So I’ll put my question again another way:-
If you feel angry because modern-day politicians were, as our elected representatives, paying their respects today to the fallen of WW1 do you at the same time feel glad that they did so to the fallen of WW2?
I do not understand the question. Someone rid me of that turbulent commenter…!
To the contrary, Gabriel! The Cenotaph ceremony (as already noted) seems a bit tame by US standards. Over here we reenact our wars, muskets and cannon included.
In fact, I live near Gettysburg and a sizeable group of Britons comes every year to help reenact the Civil War — the local paper always does a feature on their participation. Although I do suspect British participation in the Revolutionary War reenactments is more limited. 🙂
Speak for yourself Mr. or Ms. Weasel.
In this world we live in, this Yank is so grateful that her country “sore thumbs” that she could weep. I’m also very grateful for the sacrifices of British veterans against the enemies of freedom both now and in times past. Long may she rule!
Laurie K.
Gabriel,
We are now rapidly approaching the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII. To suggest that some of the prevailing attitudes back then still persists today is to miss out on nearly 60 years of US history. What’s next? Are you about to ask me about Jim Crow laws in the South?
HTY: And yet we are still celebrating events from 85 years ago and more. Those attitudes you want dismissed played a huge role in the events and ought to be remembered too. No hard feelings, just understanding the history behind them. This was a throw-away line in the post, although it did have its place in the historical context. I did not expect people to get hung up on that fact forgetting that the anti-British policy by the US establishment played a major role in dismantling of the British empire after WWII.
Yes, we moved a long way and the ‘special relationship’ flourishes and we certainly hope it will continue to do so. However, the post was about Remembrance after all…
Sorry, Gabriel, but I think you’ve taken a pretty cheap libertarian’s shot at politicians and the role of the state here.
Beyond the fact that you note correctly that the people were united (in patriotism not by “values”, whatever that may mean), your analysis of 1914-18 is strictly sub-Attenborough, left-wing fare. In truth, along with Bomber Command aircrew in WW2 the soldiers of the BEF performed the greatest feat of endurance in British military history. It was and had to be a product of profound national unity. If you had suggested at the time that the politicians and High Command were morally reprehensible and cared nothing for their soldiers’ lives you would have been tried forthwith for sedition. An honest respondent might, however, have informed you first that it was the new industrialisation of warfare that was so shocking and to which military theory had no ready solution. BTW this unpreparedness also applied, albeit in a different way, in 1940 when the BEF encountered Blitzkrieg.
It is all too easy to apply modern liberal mores to the past. Rescuing WW1 from the Attenborough tendency is probably already impossible. But to me Remembrance includes a certain duty of faithfulness. The left does not need our help to sow its deceits.
Anyhow, getting back to my original question you can’t have it both ways. Feeling anger at party leaders at yesterday’s ceremony is a nonsense if you support the British State’s actions in 1939-45.
I don’t often say this, but Guessedworker is absolutely bang on.
As for the nature of WW1, it was an eminently worthy war to fight. We fought the Germans in 1914 because if we did not fight them in 1914 on our terms there was a distinct probability that we would have to fight them in 1924, both on their terms and with their forces (especially naval) much strengthened (and our allies ruined and out of the fight). If we should not have fought World War 1 we should not have fought Napoleon, nor any of his continental predecessors. And arguably we should have just cut a deal with Hitler and walked away to tinker with what was left of the empire. The sort of thinking offered up by a number of people in this comment box (and in the original post) is, sadly, strategically derelict.
Gueesedworker is absolutely right, both regarding the nature of British participation in WW1 and with regard to the nature of the warfare that took place on the Western Front.
Anthony C: Er, and what does that have to do with my article? I never said anything about the worth and value of fighting WWI and/or WWII. If you do not understand the post, just move on…
Gabriel,
“I did not expect people to get hung up on that fact forgetting that the anti-British policy by the US establishment played a major role in dismantling of the British empire after WWII.”
And I did not expect people complaining about prevailing attitudes 60 years ago that no longer exist today.
I never denied that those were the prevailing attitudes back then. But your post did not make that clear. You sounded as if those are still the prevailing attitudes today, which is patently false.
If we want to remember old quarrels that have little bearing today, why don’t we start talking about the burning of the White House, the impressment of US citizens into British service, the construction of the CSS Alabama,…etc.? If we can go back and talk as if 60 years ago is today, why not go further back?
You speak of the prevailing attitudes of 60 years ago as if they existed out of a vacuum. But since you’re interested in ancient history, why don’t you remind yourself of the causes that led to such attitudes? Or is it because they deny you an opportunity to play the victim?
Gabriel,
This is one of your transatlantic brethren who wishes you had more national pride and who also bitterly regrets American actions at Suez in 1956. When John Stuart Mill said that no people can ever rule another people properly, he should have added a time limit.
Europeans, foreigners though they were, ruled most of Africa considerably better than it is ruled now by the indigenes. America’s postwar efforts at driving European colonialism from Africa condemned many an African to a shortened and Hobbesian existence. The indigenes weren’t ready for you to go yet; they needed at least another generation of political tutelage. When you Europeans left, you took disinterested service and the rule of law with you. For our complicity in your untimely exit, we should be ashamed.
Gerald Templer was right on when he said “The British have done an immense amount of good in the world–and obviously some harm. The former greatly outweighs the latter. We were respected by the poor in all the countries we once governed, and we were the enemies of those who wanted to dip their fingers in the till.”
I suspect there are an awful lot of Zimbabweans who would be damned glad to have Ian Smith’s government back, much less the bliss of a return to British colonial rule. All those people who berate and abuse Britain’s colonial past should look closely at the successor regimes and ask if they are any improvement. In most cases, the honest answer would be that things have gotten worse, not better, since independence.
The British record is a good one and, in the last century at least, your soldiers died for causes well worth dying for. You have a right to be proud of them and you should honor them.
Kipling’s “Epitaphs of The Great War” always reward reading, most especially today.
And then there’s “Epitaph for A Dead Politician”.
“I could not work,
I dared not rob.
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
Tell me, what lies shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?”
I don’t buy all this “hey, colonialism was all right really” stuff…. ‘do unto others’ & all that crap; would any of the posters here present honestly be happy having their country run by the government of another?
“We were respected by the poor in all the countries we once governed, and we were the enemies of those who wanted to dip their fingers in the till.”
yeah.. ‘natives’, those from rival colonial powers, or those unsanctioned by the British government, that is. The British government & it’s attendent industrialists dipped quite happily into various nations’ prosperity & natural resources, with the assistance of the army.
Saying “oh, but we were *good* colonials” doesn’t really cut it… it’s like being a “good” slave owner; better than a bad slave owner granted, but still not exactly worthy of praise. It’s still basically running someone else’s country primarily for the benefit of your own. Personally, I think that’s inexcusable, & I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I felt this was happening to my country (for those of you with paranoid anti-EU tendencies… you think you’ve got it bad now, & at least the UK retains *some* say in the EU).
I would also take Britain etc. to task for the way they pulled out. By assuming colonial power, you take on a certain level of responsability; stewardship, however illegitimately acquired. Leaving fake ‘countries’ with arbitrary borders, drawn up by people who’ve probably never even seen the place, without ensuring that a stable, sustainable system is in place is irresponsible; as if the “generous” slave-owner’s final act was to ‘free’ his slaves to wander a parched desert. Then if they die, you say “hey! couldn’t be helped”, & if they live you can claim it’s ‘cos of the great nous your superior white ass supplied them with; stuff they couldn’t possibly have picked up from the world-wide meme pool on their own.
& before anyone accuses me of hating britain… no i don’t… & yes, i can see some positive consequences of colonialism, but that still doesn’t make the initial act right.
As one of the transatlantic brethren I’d like to state that I’ve never thought of “Rule Britannia” as a piece of imperialistic anything.
Can’t get away from the history of the Empire. But, I’ve always felt “Rule Britannia” was more about pride in and love for one’s country than anything else. I’m glad to see it sung.
The war dead you remembered in Britain include relatives of mine who strech back centuries. I think it is essential for countries to remember that freedom HAS A PRICE.
Freedom’s price is the blood of the soldiers. It would be lovely if we could all sit down and ‘play nice’, but humans don’t work that way. You may want to ‘play nice’, but the other guy is amassing an army to invade you. You either fight back or allow yourselves to be invaded.
I try and remember the veterans of our many wars and give thanks they were willing to put themselves in harm’s way for me.
” If you had suggested at the time that the politicians and High Command were morally reprehensible and cared nothing for their soldiers’ lives you would have been tried forthwith for sedition. An honest respondent might, however, have informed you first that it was the new industrialisation of warfare that was so shocking and to which military theory had no ready solution. ”
General Haig’s incomprehensible ignorance which lead to the slaughter of over 200,000 of his own men against the advice of his own generals at Paesschendaele is not so easily explained away by your “honest respondent”. Neither is the execution of 306 Commonwealth soldiers.
Hello A_T,
You are making the same mistake Gabriel did in his original post. You’re applying a modern analysis and modern mores to a world long gone. In that world, had you been one of its citizens, you would have had an entirely different analysis and different mores, of course. In 1914-18 Gabriel would have been imprisoned for his present views. In the great era of imperialism you might have been shunned from polite society. Shocking thought.
I’m not saying you cannot critique the past at all. But it’s a tough job that calls for much historical perspective and subtlety of mind.
Cheers.