France honours last WWI veteran

[Para Handy]

France has given full military honours to its last World War I veteran, Lazare Ponticelli, who died on Wednesday at the age of 110

 

We have still got some veterans still living, and one is 109 years old, when They die I bet there wont be many who even care, never mind a last mark of respect for all that gave there lives so we could be free, to say and do what we want. the UK could not even give them a decent pension while they are all still living

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7301492.stm

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084764.stm

[JAStewart]

I'm surprised how little trust you have in Britain to respect its war veterans.

 

Why not move to France?

[Tomblands]

I'm gonna bump this in the hope that Malachy sees it, as I've heard his view on this in the past and I think it would be better coming from him rather than pass it off as my own.

[Malachy]

Thanks Tomblands, well I did write a song on this subject a couple of years ago, but I feel it would be a little self-indulgent to post the lyrics here (I think they're floating around somewhere on t'internet anyway).

 

Basically, what concerns me about much of the "remembrance" coverage is two things: firstly, that people are encouraged to remember some things, particularly the courage and heroism of soldiers, but persuaded to forget others: that many thousands were forced to fight and die against their will, that many were shot at dawn for being frightened, and the utter horror of war, and the lessons that we (particularly governments) should have learned from it but clearly didn't. By turning remembrance into a celebration of bravery we have forgotten the most important lesson, which is that war is a terrible thing, and that people's lives should never be treated with such contempt by their leaders.

 

The second thing that bothers me is the use of individual soldiers to represent the lives of others. This talk of commemorating the 'last soldier' as if his life as an individual is less important than his symbolic value is pretty offensive, and it is born of exactly the same attitude that sent them to war in the first place. It is very easy for politicians to send thousands of people off to war, so long as those people are just numbers and statistics; it is far more difficult to ask people to face death on your behalf when you know their name, you know they have children and family that love them, you know that their lives are a complex, intricate web of connections, relationships and emotions. Each of those millions of soldiers that died was an individual, and their attitude to what happened to them and what they did is their own, and it should not be hijacked for the sake of instilling a sense of patriotism in others. Many veterans, I'm sure, will have been tortured by guilt over what they did for the rest of their lives; they may have been haunted by the things they saw; they may have harboured intense anger at the government (and even the country) that sent them off to war. Individual soldiers cannot be represented by a symbolic event that celebrates their "courage" for that is just a tiny portion of who they were.

[JAStewart]

What is the name of the song Malachy and what album is it on?

[Malachy]

It's called Last Man Standing. It'll be on the next album.

There's a free live recording of it on my website though - www.malachytallack.com , then go to downloads, live tracks...

[lastpubrunner]

We actually have one veteran (Henry Allingham) who will be 112 on June 6th.

 

A remarkable man; he ascribes his longevity to "cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women"

[sheepshagger]

If it is freedom of choice you want mallachy then why complain when a decision is made to defend that freedom, just accept the fact that freedom is not free it has to be worked for and sometimes fought for.

but then you only like free speech when the opinions exressed coincide with your own.

In my humble opinion you are the worst kind of pacifist quick to complain but equally quick to expect some one else to do your fighting for you.

[Njugle]

That's a bit harsh SS. I didn't get the impression he was saying that the war should not have been fought, i thought it was more about how it was remembered. Perhaps i'm wrong.

 

Something i've seen abroad is shockingly arty symbolic war memorials that look horrific, accompanying stats of death. That is befitting the horror of the wars fought, perhaps the UK lacks in facing the horror as a cultural thing. Stiff upper lip etc. My only surviving ex-wartime-services relative always uses the phrase "We just got on with it, what else could you do". Poignant words.

[Gibber]

At my work we observe the 1min silence in November. My colleague went on the tannoy last year announcing that 'there will be a minutes silence for those from all nations who have fought and died in wars.'

 

I never use the phrase political correctness gone mad, it is hacky, cliche and hardly ever accurate. Except here, that is political correctness gone mad.

 

Next time I'm getting on the tannoy and excluding the Nazis from our minute silence.

 

By turning remembrance into a celebration of bravery we have forgotten the most important lesson, which is that war is a terrible thing, and that people's lives should never be treated with such contempt by their leaders.

 

There are 3 'good' wars Malachy. The American War of Independence, World War II and the Star Wars trilogy.

[TeeAyBee]

That's a bit harsh SS. I didn't get the impression he was saying that the war should not have been fought, i thought it was more about how it was remembered. Perhaps i'm wrong.

 

Not sure. I agree that SS's post is a little harsh but I'm not 100% sure that it wasn't on the money.

 

Something i've seen abroad is shockingly arty symbolic war memorials that look horrific, accompanying stats of death. That is befitting the horror of the wars fought, perhaps the UK lacks in facing the horror as a cultural thing. Stiff upper lip etc. My only surviving ex-wartime-services relative always uses the phrase "We just got on with it, what else could you do". Poignant words.

 

Absolutely. My father and his brothers all served in WWII, as did my Grandfather and his brothers. They echo what you said, they just got on with it. More so in the last year of the war when they heard what had been happening in the occupied territories. Half of my family went to the camp at Baba Yar in the Ukraine and none came out. The other half had already emigrated to England. An Uncle's further comment was also the "What else could we do? We couldn't allow it to continue". Another Uncle (one who married into our family) showed me his number tatoo'ed on his arm and that was when I started to understand what horror really was. You're right, the UK culturally has failed and continues to fail to acknowledge the horror of what war and armed conflict really is. If there is another way that won't end up with the extermination/subjegation of a tribe/race/nation then by all means take it, but if there is no alternative, then fight we must and endure the horror we must.

 

My father worked as a courier after the war, travelling through Europe and once in Normandy when a guide from a war cemetry said "it was a pity we didn't have two more as it would have made a more symmetrical pattern", he hit him and kicked him off the coach. The guide asked why he did that and he said it was for the two families that would have had to have suffered for his pretty pattern and that the coach was full of veterens and their partners visiting their fallen comrades and if he wasn't off the bus in two seconds flat they'd tear him apart. I've visited the airborne cemeteries in Holland and seen the graves. There is nothing so horrible as to see a line of graves with the words "Known unto God" written on them, their regimental badge, and nothing else. I personally respect the men that were interred there and the remainder visiting their friends and relatives. They may not have wanted to be there, and they may have been ashamed of what they had to do but they did it.

 

I should say that I agree with one of Malachy's points about those who didn't want to go away to fight and those who were shot for 'cowardice' although I think it refers specifically to the First World War where attitudes and procedures had not realised that technology had changed warfare so much. I think that the conscientious (spelling?) objectors and alleged cowards should have been allowed to serve in another way, such as medical services, construction, civil service to allow those that wanted to fight (or at least didn't actively not want to fight) to go and serve in armed units. It happened in WWII but not so obviously - in the RAF Bomber Command where my father served, on occasion a flyer or crewman would return from a mission a babbling wreck, catatonic, or bomb happy. They'd be taken away in an ambulance, demoted to airman and posted elsewhere where they couldn't spread their fear to others and where they could still be used. I don't agree with the demotion, but removing them from the fray was correct.

 

I do believe though that honouring those who had to embrace the horror and served is right, but I agree that we should be careful in stereotyping an entire generation on the basis of one individual, otherwise all Germans of a certain age should be classified as war criminals and executed which is of course nonsense. As for the last French veteren of WWI, well history tells us that the French were not the most effective soldiers, badly led, under equipped and lacking in motivation, but that does not mean that this man didn't serve well and isn't worthy of respect.

 

I'll close with respect the men and abhor the horror.

[Malachy]

I agree that SS's post is a little harsh but I'm not 100% sure that it wasn't on the money.

 

I'm a bit confused about how you agree with SS in his criticism of me but then go on to agree with virtually everything I said in your post.

I'm not sure how anything in my post could lead to me being labelled "the worst kind of pacifist" (other than SS just setting out to criticise everything I write, of course). As Njugle correctly pointed out, I was writing about remembrance, and SS's attack on me had no connection whatsoever to what I actually wrote. Unless believing that war is a terrible thing makes me "the worst kind of pacifist", in which case I'm guilty as charged. But then so are you TeeAyBee, by the sounds of it.

[TeeAyBee]

^ I think you're being over sensitive. I never used the words worst kind of pacifist. I said he was a little harsh, and that I wasn't 100% sure he *wasn't* right. Read the words Malachy. The "Oh yeah? Well you are too!" is beneath you.

 

[Fjool]

The "Oh yeah? Well you are too!" is beneath you.

This is not what Malachy wrote at all, nor what he meant.

[trout]

There's a quite important thread underneath all the tittle tattle here! Get over it and get to the topic at hand..!