European Tribune

Two kinds of war monuments

by mofembot
Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 03:24:04 AM EST

Note: Originally posted as a DailyKos diary; slightly modified.

There are two basic kinds of war monuments here in France. The most ubiquitous and easy to find are those commemorating the fallen of World War I: there is at least one in every town and every hamlet, no matter how small, and all bear impossibly long lists of names of those who died "for the glory of France."

There are other monuments, often just plaques, affixed to what seem to be random walls and fences and buildings, scattered here and there in cities and suburbs: these are from World War II, and they commemorate a specific act at a specific moment in time that occurred on that very spot: members of the Resistance executed by the Nazis, for example.

What kind of monument will be built in Iraq?


In France, it does not matter how remote the place: even the tiniest hamlet on the most hard-to-get-to mountaintop has in its central square a monument to those who fell during World War I, "the war to end all wars." As I have traveled from place to place and looked around at the small number of houses still standing, still inhabited, the lists of names seem implausibly long: this village could not possibly have supplied so many soldiers!

Most heartbreaking to see are the same family names over and over again: Entire generations were wiped out, entire families obliterated. France lost one-quarter of its men between the ages of 18 and 45 in the First World War. It would be a much harder statistic to wrap one's brain around, but for the monuments: each name represented crops unharvested and animals untended, a schoolhouse without a teacher, a factory without skilled workers, a town without a leader. There are derelict buildings dotting the landscape that date from that conflict some 90+ years ago.

The outbreak of monument-building following the Great War was a way to honor the dead, to provide some small measure of consolation to those many widows and children left behind and bereft, and to remind generations to come of ultimate sacrifice. Some of the monument-builders and sculptors presciently left space to commemorate the fallen of subsequent wars, and many of these same monuments list the dead from World War II (with far fewer names). Every so often the same monument includes a handful of names belonging to the wars in "Indochine" (Vietnam) and Algeria, listed without commentary about the relative morality of these two latter conflicts.

But there is a second kind of monument, dating from World War II, that is also found all over France, but most particularly in the strongholds of the French Resistance. These are not so easy to find: they are rarely large, and they are almost always tied to a spot where something happened. Unlike the more formal monuments, these plaques, usually affixed to buildings and walls and fences, tell a brief story as well as list the names of the fallen. One senses that these plaques are there to keep the outrage alive as much as to honor the dead: whereas the monuments of World War I rarely make reference to the enemy, those who notice these plaques as they walk or drive by are directly reminded of the perpetrators' identity and guilt.

The impetus for writing this diary was my finally taking the time not long ago to pull over and read what was written on a monument on the side of a road that I take fairly often. Built pretty much in the middle of nowhere, this was a free-standing World War II monument, a tiny obelisk, and its plaque read something like this:

On this site, on [date in 1944], these brave resistance fighters were shot to death, victims of Nazi barbarianism [la barbarie Nazie]," followed by roughly 20 names, and then an admonition: "You who pass by, remember their sacrifice."

It did not matter to the French families of the victims that most German soldiers did not round up and summarily execute suspected Resistance fighters. Likewise, it will not matter to generations of Iraqis to come that most American and British soldiers were not guilty of "shooting first, and asking questions later," nor that many were kind and tried to be helpful to the Iraqis among whom they lived.

What kinds of monuments will be built in Iraq? There is only one possible answer: Iraqis will erect the kinds of monuments that will fuel outrage at the deeds leading to the deaths of those listed. And if marked at all, our soldiers' deaths in that torn land will be remembered only as a "victory" for the insurgents.

What kinds of monuments will we build in America and in Britain to honor our soldiers, who are almost without exception brave and decent human beings? Our soldiers are loving husbands and wives and sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers. They have left their homes and loved ones far behind at the behest of unscrupulous leaders and corporate profiteers who know little and care even less about the horrors of war. Our soldiers have died viewed as enemy occupiers, unmourned in Iraq. The British have wisely pulled out. In America, Bush and his minions keep them as invisible and as generally unlamented as possible: in a failed war, even heroes are an embarrassment and a liability. But they are mourned by their loved ones and by those in the towns and cities whence they came.

Still, the sad truth is that neither America nor Britain will build monuments to their courage and sacrifice for many years to come, if ever.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
These french war monuments are, maybe, a great optimist token for many countries...
1870-1914-1939, three wars between France and Germany... Almost every french family (and german one I gather) having someone killed in those... A century of hate (les "boches"), of revenge (Alsace et Lorraine), of fathers raising their sons in that spirit... For almost a century!

And in a few years, in a very short time, while most of those WWII families were still mourning, the mind boggling concept that the german is a friend (well we did occupy their territories for years), that Europe must be built, that there is no other valid goal, blows over a century of bad feelings...

Those war memorials must be kept in shape, if only to stigmatize that in a double decade, two countries, two people, could erase such a debt !

Africa, Middle East, Asia, could have a look at such feat, such will, and such results... It is not impossible, it can happen in a lifetime !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 05:59:51 AM EST
A thought-provoking diary. Thank you.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 06:14:41 AM EST
European Tribune - Two kinds of war monuments

It did not matter to the French families of the victims that most German soldiers did not round up and summarily execute suspected Resistance fighters. Likewise, it will not matter to generations of Iraqis to come that most American and British soldiers were not guilty of "shooting first, and asking questions later," nor that many were kind and tried to be helpful to the Iraqis among whom they lived.

What kinds of monuments will be built in Iraq? There is only one possible answer: Iraqis will erect the kinds of monuments that will fuel outrage at the deeds leading to the deaths of those listed. And if marked at all, our soldiers' deaths in that torn land will be remembered only as a "victory" for the insurgents.

And yet, within a decade of the end of WWII France and Germany were working together on the European Coal and Steel Community and laying the groundwork for what would become the European Union. In fact, the French plaques talk of Nazi barbarism, not "evil Germans".

The problem with Iraq is that the American and British soldiers there are not sent by regimes temporarily in the grip of barbarism.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 06:36:35 AM EST
Yes, I have always taken the emergence of the EU as one of the most heartening developments of our day. It should be said (so I will say it!) that the reconstruction of Europe under the auspices of the Marshall Plan went a long way toward building post-War cooperation.
by mofembot on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 07:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
The problem with Iraq is that the American and British soldiers there are not sent by regimes temporarily in the grip of barbarism.

Everything is relative and Bush does not compare directly to Hitler.  However Hitler rose at a time of truly desperate economic straits for the German people.  That is not an excuse but goes some way to explain it.  What is the excuse for the barbarism of the Bush era?  The US was enjoying an era of unprecedented prosperity, the rich were getting richer, the Cold war had been won.

Yes 9/11 was a shock, but on a historical scale it killed no more than your average bombing raid in WW2, Vietnam, Iran or Iraq.  It doesn't come close in relative scale to the genocides of modern times in Rwanda, Kampuchea, Vietnam, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Iraq.

So in some respects the barbarism of the Bush era is worse because it arose not in conditions of extreme need but of extreme greed.   It came when American power was almost unchallenged except by relatively small terrorist groups.  It was made possible because the US no longer had to worry about a Soviet threat.

It is very difficult to draw moral comparisons across different eras and parts of the world, but the Legacy of Bush must be amongst the worst.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 08:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I am saying is that the French memorials talk about "Nazi barbarism", not "German barbarism".

Because of Godwin's Law, there is no ideological tag to apply to what's going on and you're left with "American Barbarism". At least there isn't an ideological culprit yet. Maybe there will be with hindsight.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the neo-con "New American Century" (NAC) project is a pretty good approximation for an ideological culprit.  It replaced American exceptionalism with a doctrine of American Supremiscism through both military and economic means. Anyone for Nacism?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 09:48:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
NACism does have a certain appeal. But I fear that it will result in not only many people mistakenly invoking Godwin against us due to mispronunciation, it will likely entail a general loss of respect as well - since we obviously can't even spell our insults correctly :-P

That aside, there's always Murdoch if you're looking for a convenient Bad Guy. I don't think there's an atrocity on the planet that he doesn't have a hand in in some fashion. If for no other reason then because he supports the American right-wing, which does have a hand in a lot of disasters.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Off topic, but let's drop this Godwin nonsense. It only applies to emotive appeals in which people selfishly declare their suffering to be on par with the Jews during the holocaust.

At the same time, the analogies linking the current state of the US to 1930's Germany are useful ONLY if there is extensive explanation presented. Hand waved analogies are intellectually retarded.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it serves a useful function in that it forces people to at least apply some kind of mental processes to their ideas about how Bad Guys should look like. The common perception of Hitler is arguably the iconic, Bond-villainesque end-of-level-bad-guy who sits in his lair twirling his moustache while plotting the downfall of the world.

Real-world villains (Hitler included) are not quite that two-dimensional, and using such a simple-minded mental picture as Hitler has become tends, I believe, not only to denude the horror of the Holocaust but also to create a misleading mental picture of what other Bad Guys are like.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 09:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The operative term being in your last sentence being "temporarily".

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 08:53:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a little puzzled by your statement about "regimes temporarily in the grip of barbarism."  My understanding of the temporary nature of the regimes of Germany and Italy, is that they were only temporary after the fact, so to speak, that during their pendancey, especially during their ascendancy before they actually started losing the wars, they were very popular governments with broad and enthusiastic popular support-not universal, of course, but very broad.  They were temporary governments, not due to being overthrown, or replaced by their populations, but because the USSR absorbed horrific casualties and continued to fight on, and because the USA was untouched and manufactured vast arrays of war products and eventually attacked the Western front of the crippled German war machine.

In the interim, between the acquisition of power and the destruction of the German army and government, the German people as a whole supported and enabled a government that set the standard for scientific murder still unsurpassed.

Whatever the problem with Iraq, and it is a great problem and a war crime and I am ashamed of this country for engaging in it, it does not compare with the general holocaust that was temporary only due to the sacrifice of the Soviet Union and the eventual armed might of the USA, along with the residual force of Britain.

I'm pretty sure that there is no higher percentage of evil Americans, than there is, or was, of evil Germans.  What we are working on now is putting temporary as a valid description of this regime-and not just the Bush aspect of it.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

by NearlyNormal on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 02:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the elucidation.

I think I'm just hinting that Bush is not an aberration.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 06:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, unfortunately he is not an abberation, he is in large part just the current figurehead of a system that operates on many other levels than just the political.  His leaving the scene will be of little significance in and of itself.  The next occupant of the White House is likely to be better, but unlikely to do anything structurally different unless dire circumstances force it-which they might.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 09:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the other hand, one might also argue that the political dynamics of the Weimar republic made it a natural habitat for megalomaniacal madmen - and that as such, Hitler was not so much an aberration than one of only a few possible outcomes, none of which were very desirable from a progressive or democratic point of view. And that the War changed the political landscape in Germany just as the six-day war changed the political landscape in Israel (although in the opposite direction).

Of course, one might then continue this vein of thought in another direction by claiming that the conditions that led to and perpetuated the Imperial Presidency under Bush the Lesser are more entrenched in the underlying civil society than the conditions that led to and perpetuated Nazism. But that is a rather more subtle argument than the naïve Bush=Hitler^2 nonsense.

As an aside, I seem to be trolling playing devil's advocate a lot this evening...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 09:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hitler didn't just happen, and he wasn't a populist. He was nurtured carefully and deliberately by industrialists who'd enjoyed the profits of the previous war and thought another one would be good for business, and by bankers - some from the US, including Bush's grandfather - who thought Nazism was a perfectly good thing.

Thyssen notoriously finished in a concentration camp some time after he realised that Hitler wasn't his pet creature and things had gotten a little out of hand.

There were some popular votes at various points, but without financial support Hitler would have remained a demented cranky failed painter.

In a way it's lucky they chose Hitler instead of someone more competent. He was so totally incompetent as a CIC that he made sure Germany not only lost, but was nearly destroyed. Ironically this was the second best possible outcome for Europe - at least after the war started - because it made a clean break possible. (The best outcome would have been for Weimar to survive and gradually wobble its way to a proper democracy. But it's not obvious how likely that was, for all kinds of reasons.)

If they'd picked someone with military talent, Germany could have had realistic prospects of winning WWII. I suppose megalomaniac racists with military genius are harder to find than ordinary megalomaniac racists, so this may not have been likely. But it was still a close thing.

You will find some of the same families and/or networks involved in Iraq I&II and most of the other military adventuring done by the US in the 20th century.

Saddam's end - like Noriega's, in a smaller way - was supposed to be a lesson to other client thugs.

All the fluff about Saddam, WMDs and 9/11 was just fluff for public consumption. It always was, and has been, about empire and the milind fascists who run it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Mar 15th, 2008 at 08:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, and Kennedy's dad too, and a whole raft of British people and many Irish and a vast number of Italians and many, many in Austria-no need to single out Bush, or to leave him out either, when there are so many who were right there and complicit.  And maybe even worse than those that helped him knowingly were those that helped him by creating the seeds of desperation by bankrupting Germany and demanding reparations on an unpayable scale.  Lots of guilt to throw around on the citizens and the elites of all the nations, certainly plenty of Brits were advocating joining with Hitler to fight the Bolshies, or were so intimidated that the were ready to purchase peace at any price.

This is not really the subject of the diary so I'll end now.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

by NearlyNormal on Sat Mar 15th, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After WWI, some anti-war monuments were built, too. Like these ones:

"Maudite soit la guerre!"

"Que maudite soit la guerre!"

"La guerre aura-t-elle enfin assez provoqué de souffrances et de misères ?
Assez tué d'hommes ?
Pour qu'à leur tour les hommes aient l'intelligence et la volonté de tuer la guerre ?



"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
Thanks for posting these. There are some stunning monuments at the larger military cemeteries (Vimy Ridge, near Arras, I think, comes to mind).
by mofembot on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 05:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]