REMEMBRANCE

It's fast approaching that time of year again. No, I don't mean Christmas; I'm talking about Remembrance Day. Years ago you would buy a poppy, observe the silence and think about those poor souls that were butchered on the fields of France and Belgium. Nowadays, however, it's a different matter entirely. It's turned into some kind of maudlin circus, where it's no longer to do with remembering the dead, but as a test of loyalty and support for the British armed forces. The display at Ibrox last year is a case in point; it had nothing to do with remembering the dead and everything to do with jingoism and nationalism.

The story we are being fed time and again is that all those men died to guarantee our freedoms. Did they? What threat to our freedom did Germany pose in 1914? The answer is none whatsoever. The truth is that the First World War was a war of imperialism, nothing else. No doubt the ordinary people in Austria, France, Italy, Russia, Turkey etc were told that they were fighting for their freedom as well. We know full well that this was certainly the case in Germany. You only have to read Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or watch the film, to find out that the Germans were told the same lies.

So what was the war really all about? The jury is still out on that one. Only one person has seen fit to look behind the scenes and find out what was going on. Fritz Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War' caused outrage in his native land when it first appeared in the early 1960s. He shows that the German elite went to war with the sole purpose of gaining more land, especially in the East. His book is now required reading for any serious student of the First World War. It also encouraged German historians to look more closely at what went on in their own country under the Nazis.

So what about the other countries? Austria was determined to hold onto her splintering empire in the Balkans, Turkey was in the same position, Russia had been after ports in the Mediterranean/Adriatic for at least a century, while France was looking for revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and the return of Alsace-Lorraine. Italy, although allied to Germany and Austria, joined the other side, partially through opportunism, partly through long-standing hatred of Austria. It should be remembered, of course, that when I am talking about a country I am really talking about that country's ruling elite.

But what of Britain; why did she enter the war? I remember a tutor at university telling us that there was a book written about Britain's reasons for going to war. The woman that wrote it, however, was related to many in the upper echelons of British society and her book was a whitewash. It was a salutory lesson in checking the credentials of your sources, said our tutor. The problem is that, even a hundred years later, nobody has performed a critical analysis of why Britain went to war. A search on the internet shows that the story of Britain going to war for noble and altruistic reasons is still the general opinion.

This makes the idea of four-years' worth of 'commemoration' of the First World War, starting next year, a bit suspect. Part of the four-years' programe includes 'education.' Considering what I've already pointed out, this 'education' is going to be nothing more than propaganda; reinforcing the myth that all those men died to protect our freedom.

Everyone has somebody that died in the First World War in their family and I'm no exception. Equally not exceptional, sadly, was the circumstances of my relative's death. My grandfathers were too young to have fought in WWI, while my great-grandfathers were too old. My maternal grandfather's older brother, Michael, however, joined up. Michael was only fifteen when he took the King's Shilling, no questions asked. After nearly a year in the trenches he was quite probably a nervous wreck. One morning they were ordered 'over the top'; Michael just could not do it. He was terrified, a frightened young boy, and cowered, crying, curled up in a ball on the floor of the trench. His captain shot him in the head.

That's not the end of the story. The ordinary soldiers were quite protective of young Michael and the Captain caught a 'stray' bullet in the back during the attack. Friendly Fire, I think they call it nowadays. So, on Remembrance Day, am I to remember the poor great-uncle I never knew, or just the 'heroes' that fell in the heat of battle? And what about that captain; am I to remember his 'sacrifice'?

Hundreds of broken men, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or shell shock, were lined up and shot by firing squad or by their immediate commanding officer if it was during a battle. Are we to remember these 'cowards,' as they were termed, even being accused of cowardice after the war was over?

After the war my grandfather's family's grief was compounded by the death of his grandmother. She was an aged widow, who still lived in a small cottage in Ireland. She was dragged from her cottage for no reason by the Black and Tans. They poured petrol over her and set her alight, making bets as to how long it would take her to die. Am I to remember her and how she died with 'heroes' of the British Army laughing and joking and stopping anyone that tried to help her? If those men were later killed by the IRA am I to rememer, and be grateful for, their 'sacrifice'?

Till the day he died my grandfather always went on about hating the British, after what they did to his family. My granny used to tell him to 'shut up' and said that his family were all 'Communists' anyway! If I was to tell certain people about my grandfather their answer would be that he should have 'fucked off home,' even though he, and his mother before him, was born in this country. It seems that to criticise any past, or current, behaviour of our government, or its representatives, is seen to be disloyal and anti-British and as proof that you don't belong here.

This is what the poppy has come to represent; not remembrance, but support for any and all wars that our armed forces have ever engaged in. I have seen letters in the newspapers suggesting, nay demanding, that everyone should boycott shops where the person behind the counter is not wearing a poppy, that we should refuse our custom to any place that does not have poppies on display and that no business should be done with anyone that does not wear a poppy. 'Poppy Fascism,' people are starting to call it. It reminds me of something in the Book of Revelation: everyone has to wear the 'Mark of The Beast' and nobody can do business or any transaction if they do not carry this mark.

That's why I'm not wearing a poppy this year. The whole thing has changed beyond recognition and is no longer about remembrance. Rather than remembering our war dead, we are now to remember their 'sacrifice' and pretend that all those young men died at the Somme, Ypres and Paschendale to protect our freedom, instead of the reality of dying for the ambitions of our ruling elite, as they continue to do.