This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/commemorations-war-d-day-europe

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
It’s time to move on from these overblown commemorations of war It’s time to move on from these overblown commemorations of war
(32 minutes later)
The airwaves have been filled this week with tearful veterans and mournful politicians recalling D-day 1944. That is appropriate when the participants are still among us and when war’s emotions are a living memory – we should thank those who fought to make us safe. Something at least can unite the British, even if it is only the past. But when the remembering is over, then what?The airwaves have been filled this week with tearful veterans and mournful politicians recalling D-day 1944. That is appropriate when the participants are still among us and when war’s emotions are a living memory – we should thank those who fought to make us safe. Something at least can unite the British, even if it is only the past. But when the remembering is over, then what?
Recalling past wars is the most dangerous thing a nation can do. Too much remembering has lain at the root of almost every conflict in Europe’s history. We say we learn war’s lessons, but we seldom do. Memory distorts and emotionalises history. By its nature it dwells on grievance, enmity and retribution. Why is it we all recall war but never peace?Recalling past wars is the most dangerous thing a nation can do. Too much remembering has lain at the root of almost every conflict in Europe’s history. We say we learn war’s lessons, but we seldom do. Memory distorts and emotionalises history. By its nature it dwells on grievance, enmity and retribution. Why is it we all recall war but never peace?
There is not the remotest danger of Britons forgetting the first or second world wars. We are addicted to them, to a degree that baffles foreigners but delights the defence lobby. The media calendar is crammed with memorial dates. Bookshop windows are piled with war books. Television schedules carry nightly reruns of battles, blood and guts.There is not the remotest danger of Britons forgetting the first or second world wars. We are addicted to them, to a degree that baffles foreigners but delights the defence lobby. The media calendar is crammed with memorial dates. Bookshop windows are piled with war books. Television schedules carry nightly reruns of battles, blood and guts.
We have had D-day’s 50th recall, its 60th and now its 75th. We will surely have its 100th. The ritual will be repeated next year on VE day, as it was repeated last year in memory of 1918, with actors for soldiers. War memorials and poppy days have become part of the annual round. I refuse to decry such ceremony altogether, but it risks losing proportion and judgment. These wars pass into history under a cloak of partisanship. We have had D-day’s 50th recall, its 60th, 65th, 70th and now its 75th. We will surely have its 80th and its 100th. The ritual will be repeated next year on VE day, as it was repeated last year in memory of 1918, with actors for soldiers. War memorials and poppy days have become part of the annual round. I refuse to decry such ceremony altogether, but it risks losing proportion and judgment. These wars pass into history under a cloak of partisanship.
The BBC’s reporting of Tuesday’s Portsmouth ceremony implied that D-day was Britain winning the war against Hitler, and was the “turning point” of victory. There was little recognition of America’s role, let alone of the ensuing shambles of 1944-45. As for eventual victory, it was the Russians who fought the fiercest battles, suffered the worst losses and deserve most credit for defeating Hitler. Can we not grow up and admit it?The BBC’s reporting of Tuesday’s Portsmouth ceremony implied that D-day was Britain winning the war against Hitler, and was the “turning point” of victory. There was little recognition of America’s role, let alone of the ensuing shambles of 1944-45. As for eventual victory, it was the Russians who fought the fiercest battles, suffered the worst losses and deserve most credit for defeating Hitler. Can we not grow up and admit it?
Soon the veterans will depart and our thanks with them. At that point, these staged outpourings of nationalised grief and thanks become artificial. We do not “remember” Mafeking or Balaclava or Waterloo with televised tears. Soon the veterans will depart, and our thanks with them. At that point, these staged outpourings of nationalised grief and thanks become artificial. We do not “remember” Mafeking or Balaclava or Waterloo with televised tears.
Critics of the BBC’s hyping of the first world war were told the point was to remember its lessons. But can anyone recall what they were? We had only the vacuous cliche that it was “the war to end wars”, which it most certainly was not.Critics of the BBC’s hyping of the first world war were told the point was to remember its lessons. But can anyone recall what they were? We had only the vacuous cliche that it was “the war to end wars”, which it most certainly was not.
The lesson of that war – predicted by Lloyd George at the time – was do not punish your enemy so severely as to make another war inevitable. The crippling by the allies of Germany’s economy and its emergent democracy in the 1920s was the prime cause of the second great conflagration. Hitlerism was nurtured in the bosom of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.The lesson of that war – predicted by Lloyd George at the time – was do not punish your enemy so severely as to make another war inevitable. The crippling by the allies of Germany’s economy and its emergent democracy in the 1920s was the prime cause of the second great conflagration. Hitlerism was nurtured in the bosom of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.
That lesson was learned in 1945, when Germany was helped back on its feet. But the chief motive for doing so was as a bulwark against Stalinism, with the implication that another war might soon have to be fought. The resulting cold war had an awesome cost, but it did not become a hot one. The existence of Nato and of an east-west nuclear balance of power held the parties back from the brink. For all its belligerent talk, the cold war was a time of eerie peace.That lesson was learned in 1945, when Germany was helped back on its feet. But the chief motive for doing so was as a bulwark against Stalinism, with the implication that another war might soon have to be fought. The resulting cold war had an awesome cost, but it did not become a hot one. The existence of Nato and of an east-west nuclear balance of power held the parties back from the brink. For all its belligerent talk, the cold war was a time of eerie peace.
Now we risk drawing the wrong lesson from D-day, that strong alliances and massive armies are vital to defend our shores and freedoms. That was true while the cold war lasted, but since then Britain’s alliance with the US and membership of Nato has drawn it into a succession of failed interventions – as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – that have nothing to do with its national security. Proxy aggressions have killed British soldiers and cost it dear, pandering to the populist belligerence of US presidents and our own prime ministers. The only lesson from them is that Nato’s utility is dwindling. Now we risk drawing the wrong lesson from D-day: that strong alliances and massive armies are vital to defend our shores and freedoms. This was true while the cold war lasted, but since then Britain’s alliance with the US and membership of Nato has drawn it into a succession of failed interventions – as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – that have nothing to do with its national security. Proxy aggressions have killed British soldiers and cost it dear, pandering to the populist belligerence of US presidents and our own prime ministers. The only lesson from them is that Nato’s utility is dwindling.
Brexit Britain and Trump’s America are a betrayal of the values D-day was fought for | Martin KettleBrexit Britain and Trump’s America are a betrayal of the values D-day was fought for | Martin Kettle
It was left to Donald Trump to asks the inevitable question: why should America continue to offer Europe a nuclear shield against Russia at its own vast expense? Soviet communism is dead. Russia does not militarily threaten America any more than it threatens Britain. Yet western Europe is treating Russia much as it did Germany in the 1920s. It has pushed Nato and its nuclear shield up to Russia’s borders. It imposes on it ever harsher economic sanctions. It has driven its leader, Vladimir Putin, into an autocratic redoubt from which a restless belligerence is his natural response. Do we not remember 1918?It was left to Donald Trump to asks the inevitable question: why should America continue to offer Europe a nuclear shield against Russia at its own vast expense? Soviet communism is dead. Russia does not militarily threaten America any more than it threatens Britain. Yet western Europe is treating Russia much as it did Germany in the 1920s. It has pushed Nato and its nuclear shield up to Russia’s borders. It imposes on it ever harsher economic sanctions. It has driven its leader, Vladimir Putin, into an autocratic redoubt from which a restless belligerence is his natural response. Do we not remember 1918?
The dangers to British security now lie a thousand miles from the beaches of Normandy. They lie in digital hacking, the corrupting of democracy and the seduction of proxy wars. These dangers are not met by jet fighters or giant carriers like HMS Queen Elizabeth that muscled in on the Portsmouth celebrations. Britain is not under serious threat. Such risks as it faces demand intelligent policing rather than traditional soldiering. They need brains, not bravery.The dangers to British security now lie a thousand miles from the beaches of Normandy. They lie in digital hacking, the corrupting of democracy and the seduction of proxy wars. These dangers are not met by jet fighters or giant carriers like HMS Queen Elizabeth that muscled in on the Portsmouth celebrations. Britain is not under serious threat. Such risks as it faces demand intelligent policing rather than traditional soldiering. They need brains, not bravery.
The truth is that history can be found to teach any lesson you want. But when it is fuelled by the emotions of war it is likely to teach the wrong one. Maybe the memories of past wars ought to insulate us against their repetition. But they do not. We should now put the 20th century behind us, and get stuck into the 21st.The truth is that history can be found to teach any lesson you want. But when it is fuelled by the emotions of war it is likely to teach the wrong one. Maybe the memories of past wars ought to insulate us against their repetition. But they do not. We should now put the 20th century behind us, and get stuck into the 21st.
• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
D-dayD-day
OpinionOpinion
Second world warSecond world war
First world warFirst world war
Donald TrumpDonald Trump
NatoNato
RussiaRussia
EuropeEurope
commentcomment
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content