Remembering Normandy

Sixty-six years ago yesterday, Allied forces began their invasion of the European continent in an effort to push back German forces and defeat Hitler's Nazi army once and for all. The landings at Normandy, commonly referred to by many as D-Day, has been in the collective consciousness of most general war buffs for a long time and even those who aren't as avid a history buff as the rest of us tend to know about this event thanks in part to films like "Saving Private Ryan". But as I thought about it, while I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the men and women who fought and served in World War II, I feel that just as much respect and admiration is deserved by the men and women serving our country now.

Some make the argument that World War II was the last "good war" fought by our nation and if one simplifies things that's probably very true. Our country was fighting a common enemy that had declared war on the world, not just on one nation in particular. Had Germany not declared war on the United States alongside Japan following their attack on Pearl Harbor, it's quite possible that June 6th may never have had significance to the world at large. Yet things happened the way they did and the invasion of Normandy ended up changing the course of the European front in the war. That's not to imply that nothing of significance or importance was happening elsewhere on other fronts in the war. On the contrary, it's often forgotten by many that battles that were just as important were being fought in the Pacific as well.

And it was that thought that made me pause and think about the fact that not everyone seems to be aware about what happened in the Pacific or on the Eastern Front of Europe on that day. And then I got to thinking about all the other conflicts our country has been in from World War II onwards and whether you support the war effort or not, it's sad to think that people forget about the sacrifices being made by our servicemen and women on an almost daily basis, especially in the days since 2001. But even before then, perhaps the wars weren't on the scale of World War II but they were no less important, or dangerous. Operations that the public knows of such as those in Somalia and Bosnia, as well as the first Gulf War and all the wars since have required just as much bravery and sacrifice. Isn't it important to remember those dates as well?

June 6th is often credited as being the beginning of the end of the German war machine and we should remember these dates for their significance. Just the way we remember 9/11 and how it changed our world, we should also remember October 7th, 2001. That was the day that the invasion of Afghanistan began, less than a month after the 9/11 attacks. It's now coming close to becoming the longest conflict in which the country has been in combat situations since Vietnam. There also sacrifices are being made which will have an impact on the future of our nation and it is no less important. Remembering the significance of June 6th is a wonderful thing but I hope that it also helps us to remember the significance of today's servicemen and women as well.

Saving Our Past

One thing that I've often heard be said about the United States is that compared to many other countries in other parts of the world (cough cough.... Europe.... Asia), the history of our country seems quite recent. I mean if you think about it, the history of the United States as a country is not very far-reaching on the grander scale. Yet one thing I will often point out to many who make such comments is that while our history may not go back thousands of years, one thing I am proud of is the fact that our country embraces the history that it does have. Case in point? The fight of many Virginia residents to save a portion of Wilderness Battlefield from being turned into shopping space for retail giant Wal-Mart.

Now please understand, given the current state of our economy I think it's great that there are still opportunities for low-cost alternative stores like Wal-Mart, ready to construct new stores so that consumers like you and me can save a few bucks. However, I don't feel that savings such as these should come at the expense of remembering our past. Now some may think that it's a bit stupid to save what is basically empty and unused parcels of land from development just because some battles were fought on those hallowed grounds a few centuries ago. Well to those critics I would ask how they would feel if Wal-Mart or another retailer decided to put up a store where our soldiers have fought and died in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's not exactly an equitable comparison but it's pretty darn close. I think it's important to preserve these areas because they are places where events in our history managed to shape our country and subsequently, our impact on the world. Now it can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective, but I think it's important nonetheless. If we don't wish to preserve these portions of our history, no matter how small or insignificant they may seem, then why bother saving Independence Hall or Plymouth Rock or so many other places in our country. Sure, they aren't as old or as famous perhaps as the Colosseum in Rome but still, they are a part of our history.

If we do our part now then it's likely that generations from now, our descendants will be able to look out and see where the history of our country was made. I sometimes think that maybe I feel this way more so because I'm a student of history, but even those who don't enjoy history all that much, if you sit them down and help them understand why it was so important or so influential, they can understand it as well. Our country will always be one of the younger siblings when it comes to national history but still, that doesn't mean we should lose sight of the history we do have and more importantly, we shouldn't take it for granted. To the owners of Wal-Mart, I would humbly ask that you seek alternative sites and leave our history be.

Preserving History

I read in the news this morning that there is a movement afoot to try and save Abbey Road Studios in North London from being torn down and rebuilt as high-priced housing. Apparently when word went out that EMI, who owns the studio now, was looking to sell off the property since they couldn't really afford to keep it any longer, concerned fans and luminaries such as Sir Paul McCartney called on the National Trust of England to step in and declare the site to be culturally and historically significant thus helping to preserve and maintain the site. Now in case you are wondering why this site is so significant it's because it was the studio in which the Beatles recorded many of their best hits. That being said, many feel that it is necessary to save the site since it is a part of history.

Times have changed since the Beatles first started recording in the studios at Abbey Road. These days technology has improved to the point that with a minimum of effort, artists can set up a rudimentary studio within their own homes and start recording music that they can mix on a home computer. So then why preserve this studio that is obviously going to soon be outdone by products that could be purchased on Amazon? Well simply because of the significance of what took place there. Now not everyone appreciates the music of the Beatles and though I have been a fan for a number of years, my appreciation of their music was renewed over the last year with the release of all of their albums in higher quality sound (not to mention the Rock Band game that highlights lots of their music).

But so what? The music continues on now in our homes and on our computers, so then why preserve the site where the music was recorded? I suppose it comes from the more sentimental parts of our psychology. There is some part of us that will always continue to harbour a place in our hearts due to the significance of the events that took place there. I guess it's something like how people want to see historical sites like Constitution Hall in Philadelphia or the White House in DC. Doing so seems to bring us that much closer to being a part of history or at least seeing for ourselves what it must have been like to have been there when history was being made.

The decision to save Abbey Road is a good one I suppose. The Beatles are a significant part of music history and though they aren't the only ones in a veritable pantheon of artists and groups that have changed the way music has developed, they definitely rank among the more influential of them. The National Trust of England has already preserved the boyhood homes of both John Lennon and Paul McCartney which is a good thing. We can look to these sites and see that they aren't really all that much different than the average person but that that one spark of inspiration is all that it takes to change the face of music or the course of music history.

What is Veterans Day?

Today is Veterans Day here in the United States and many people have often wondered what the difference is between Memorial Day (celebrated in May) and Veterans Day (celebrated in November) really is. Now for many people, Memorial Day has gone from being a day of remembereance for the sacrifice made by many of those who have served in our armed forces to the 'unofficial' start to the summer travel season. And while it's convenient to link one to the other, I think it only serves to marginalize (among some... not all) the meaning of that day and Veterans Day. That shouldn't be the case as both days are very important and though they appear to be the same on the surface, there are differences that make each of them important for what they commemorate.

Memorial Day, celebrated in May, was first marked at the end of the Civil War. It was meant to be a unified day of rememberance of those who had given their lives in the Civil War which had only recently ended. It was meant to be an act that all Americans could mark in order to remember those who had fallen on both sides of the conflict. It was an important step in the healing process and helped bring the nation back together after nearly being torn apart by the ravages of the Civil War. There are those who credit General John Murray of Waterloo, New York with popularizing the day by marking the day each year and performing some act of rememberance for those who had fallen in the course of war. Soon the Federal Government passed a proclamation that officially designated the last Monday in May to be the day known as Memorial Day.

Now this caused some confusion as shortly after the end of World War I, President Wilson authorized the 11th of November to be commemorated as Armistice Day to honor those who had served in the military in World War I. Within a few years it was changed to honor not just the doughboys of World War I but all veterans who had served in the military and that was the major difference between the two holidays. Memorial Day was for those who had given their lives in service of their country while Veterans Day was meant to honor those who gave their lives but also continued to serve their country through continued service. it's a subtle difference but one that is equally important to note.

As I mentioned earlier, the sad thing is that many have begun to take a nonchalant attitude towards remembering our veterans on both Veterans Day and Memorial Day. While it's great that we can mark the start of summer with Memorial Day weekend, we shouldn't forget that the people who died serving their nation (our Nation) gave their lives so that we could enjoy this freedom. I'm sure the families that have loved ones serving in the war zones don't need to be reminded of that fact and those that have loved ones in the military know about what it takes to secure that freedom but it's up to the rest of us to pay homage to that fact. So today if you see a vet, don't shrug and say that "they have two holidays for soldiers... Memorial day and Veterans Day"; both are unique and equally important. Thank them for their service and for serving their country.

When the Wall Came Down

Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall came down ending nearly half a century of division and became a symbolic hallmark of the end of the Cold War. With the fall of the Berlin Wall it also signaled the 'victory' of democracy over communism. Though I was young I can remember President Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate imploring Premier Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall' and it was amazing to see that within a few years that's precisely what happened. The wall came down and an era of tension and potential 'assured mutal destruction' came to an end. And although there were droves of people dancing in the streets at the end of communist rule and a divided Germany, I was fascinated to read that not everyone was happy about the fact that communism came to an end.

As today's anniversary of the fall of the wall came closer there were some articles posted in various papers from around the world that had interviews with people who had lived and worked in what was once known as East Germany (or the communist side). And although the opinion of most of us who were on the side of democracy and were 'fighting' to free East Germany and the rest of Europe from the yoke of communism, it seems that not everyone was happy to see it finally come to an end. There were several interviews that I read in which people said that the popular conception that communist rule in Europe was completely restrictive was not at all true. Many claimed that rule in communist Europe was actually better than many people gave credit for.

There are now towns in Germany that have completely disappeared simply because their function or support was no longer needed. These towns that were once vital to the survival of East Germany became redundant under a unified nation and soon fell into decay and eventually extinction. So then what happens to the people who lived and worked there? They struggle to find work or a means of surviving. It's hard not to think about these things but we often do it regularly. In the quest to defeat one 'enemy' we often have collateral damage and in this case one of the main casualties were the people who had been employed by the East German government for vital supply and services.

Government workers who may not have necessarily agreed with communist dictum or the oppresive nature of the government that ruled them nonetheless could not deny the fact that they were provided for by their government (no matter what they followed... democracy or communism). I'm not saying or implying that communism was a better system but it's unfortunate (though not unexpected) that even so many years after the fall of the Berlin Wall there are still people who are suffering the effects of the failure of one governmental system and the implementation of another. As the world continues to struggle onwards to better places and becoming a more unified place, we should also remember the changes that have affected us in the past and how they can affect the future as well.

Looking Back and Looking Ahead

It's hard to believe that it's been eight years since that terrible day back in 2001 but indeed eight years have passed. In the time since there have been so many shifting emotions and opinions that it's getting harder for everyone to remember what it was like on that tragic day. I can still remember (with a great deal of clarity I might add) what I was doing on that day and what I did. It was the type of day that remains ingrained in your mind for a very long time and it's hard to imagine some of those memories ever growing stale. They say that time heals all wounds but some wounds just don't go away no matter how much time passes. At one time it was important to remember with a certain reverence the loss of so many people on that one tragic day. Now it has changed into something else for certain parts of our society. It's simply become a political pawn so to speak.

Never mind that intelligence had been gathered and pushed up the chain of command revealing that just such an attack could occur. But quite honestly, there is intelligence gathered to this effect more often than we may realize and just because it's gathered, what really happened is that the enemy was underestimated. To us, the concept of hijacking a plane and then using it as a weapon seems so foreign to us that we just can't fathom it. Such kamikaze attacks hadn't really been seen since the second World War and in the interim we had settled into what I would consider complacency about what an enemy could potentially do and how they could potentially attack us. We were basically lulled into believing that such an attack would have not possibility of succeeding and yet it did.

In the days and months and years after we have dealt with the consequences. We have become more vigilant, we have become a little more aware but we continue to focus on the smaller picture rather than the larger one. It's like the little Dutch Boy with his finger plugging the hold in the dam. Water being plugged at one point is great and it will save the dam from bursting, but there are other holes that could occur, shouldn't we worry about the overall 'picture' rather than just one small area? Protecting airline travel is one dilemma but what about other forms? Aren't they just as vunerable if we don't protect them? What if the next time another method of attack is used? What if they attempt some other means of attacking our country? What will we do then? React to fix that hole and focus only on that hole or will we seek to try and fix the whole dam?

Our collective memory is short. When we are experiencing that moment in time we will want an instantaneous fix. We become the little Dutch Boy and just want to stick a finger in to the hole to stop the leak. But once the immediate problem ceases to be so obvious then we look for reasons to complain. When security was beefed up at airports we were glad at the outset because it gave us a feeling of security but now people get ticked off at having to wait more than two minutes going through security. Would you rather have some level of security or trust that perhaps the enemy is seeking some other means of getting to us? I would prefer at least some modicum of security rather than leaving my fate to chance.

One thing I always feel is that for the convenience of the moment, whether it is related to our safety or winning our vote, is sacrificed without thought to the long term. Now it has become 'fashionable' in some circles to criticize those who suffered the most on September 11th, 2001, those being the victims and families of those who lost loved ones on that day. Now some concede to hating those families who have come out and complained against the failure of our government to respond in time to a credible threat. They are scorned and viewed as something to be ridiculed and for what purpose? If you have the freedom to complain about them and carry guns to rallys and publicly pray that our leaders should suffer fatal ailments then don't they also have the right to protest their losses?

As more and more time passes from 2001, the immediacy and urgency to protect ourselves will slowly diminish and over time it will lead to another degredation of our vigilance. I'm not suggesting that our posture always remain taut and ready to pounce or be so stern that it appears unyielding but I do believe that by remaining wary and alert, we will do better to protect ourselves. Though we all may not have lost anyone directly in the attacks in 2001, there are nearly 3,000 people whose families and friends have and if they speak up and remind us on occasion as to their loss, and if that helps spur on our continued safety and vigilance, then that will always be worth it. Because those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and this is one moment in history which I don't think anyone wants to repeat.

History Through the Eye of the Beholder

Though I haven't seen the movie yet I have read the script (it's been available online for months now) to Quentin Tarantino's World War II film, "Inglorious Basterds". I won't get into spoilers and reveal plot points which would 'ruin' the movie for some but suffice it to say that it creates a lot of disinformation. Now in Tarantino's defense, he has never stated that his film was intended to be a true depiction of action during World War II. His film was meant to be more of a homage to the World War II action films of the 1960's and 1970's. During those times authors like Alistair MacLean and Ken Follett created stories that weaved a bit of truth with a lot of fiction. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing but at that time, people of course understood that fiction meant just that.

These days with general knowledge appearing to be on a mild decline, it's not surprising that many people tend to view movies as a source of information and history. I've blogged on it before with regard to other World War II related movies like "U-571" which took historical events but changed them around for the sake of the story. In the case of "U-571", the capture of the German Enigma coding machine is credited to the American Navy as opposed to Britain's Royal Navy which left a bitter taste in the mouths of many veterans. Though there are notes crediting the British at the end of that particular film, the image has already been created in the minds of many who would simply see the movie and accept what they see as the truth.

Now perhaps if people are generally that interested in knowing what the truth behind World War II is they would take interest and educate themselves by reading. What power reading has over movies is that they are not constrained by movie runtimes. A book can be as long as it needs to be to describe a particular event and all that it involved. In the case of Tarantino's film, had these events as he's shown them, actually occurred then the war would have ended much sooner and the world in the interim would probably be a little different. This brings up the genre which I particularly enjoy reading, alternate history. These are stories that bring up the point of how some small action could eventually have large reprecussions. Authors like Harry Turtledove and Robert Conroy (among many others) have written about alternate histories where the outcome of world events has changed the shape of the world.

Here again, given that it's fiction then it's possible to paint a different picture but it's different from movies. For some reason (whatever it may be) there is an underlying assumption that what you see in the movies is more likely the truth than not. A large part of that is because you see interviews with veterans talking about how realistic the movie is and there is the introduction of historical characters in the story at places so people tend to think if a historical person is there then it must be real. That's certainly not the case but it can be deceptive in that manner. For example, "Saving Private Ryan" showed the invasion of Normandy at Omaha Beach but the action shown later in the film is a made-up conflict that was added to help carry the story along.

Sure there was some historical basis for the film but it still isn't a real event. Movies do require a little bit of spice added to them to help keep an audience that is increasingly losing its attention span interested but that isn't the reason to completely change the truth. I'm hopeful that most will realize that Tarantino's film isn't a real depiction of World War II and while some of the events may have a little historical basis, it's all based on what Tarantino interpreted the events to be for the basis of his movie. I don't think it's wrong, movies are supposed to be entertaining, I just hope that audiences don't take it to be the gospel as the saying goes.

Drawing a Line in the Sand

Sixty-two years ago today the infamous Radcliffe Line which was to show how the British Raj would be divied up into the newly Independent countries of India and Pakistan. In the years since, there has been much debate over the decision of how and where to divide up the entire Indian territories but it was the nature and attitude by which the decisions were made that left a bad taste in many mouths and impacted the relations in the region for decades to come. I hadn't really studied the history of how the countries were divided up and upon reading a bit more about it, I came to understand why there was a level of resentment over how the process was carried out.

When the two countries gained their independence from India, it was decided that areas with a heavy Muslim population would become part of Pakistan and the heavily Hindu regions would become part of India. How and where these dividing lines were to be laid out came to be the responsibility of the Boundary Commision headed by lawyer Sir Cyril Radcliffe. The commission was tasked with marking off the final dividing lines between the countries that would then be accepted by the governments of India and Pakistan. Sounds like a good plan in theory but the execution of the plan left much to be desired. One of the chief problems that neither Radcliffe nor the other lawyers on his Commission team were familiar with this type of work. No advisors with experience in these types of exercises were provided and no assistance was rendered.

The United Nations offered to step in and provide support however the Commission (and the English government) was steadfast in its belief that in accepting aid from the United Nations would show the world that the English weren't able to keep proper control of their Empire without outside support. What this meant was that then there were decisions being made by people who had no knowledge of how to properly survey and lay out boundaries nor take many of the other deciding factors into account. Although the general principle of the division lay in the decision to divide the nations based on where majority populations were living there was no consideration given to some of the non-Muslim or non-Hindu populations such as the Buddhists who lived in what eventually became part of Bangladesh. In addition, most glaringly was the fact that Radcliffe himself had never been to India prior to his assignment to this commission nor did he know anyone there.

When lines and decisions began being laid out, points were raised regarding the fact that in many cases, the border ran right through the center of villages. Rather than going around the village or making adjustments, Radcliffe and his commission to the attitude that no matter what decision was ultimately made, people would be 'hurt' so why pay excessive consideration to the issue. As a result, villages in parts of Punjab province lie in both countries. Many at the time reported with some concern about the haste and speed which was shown by the commission in laying out the borders and equally distressing was the fact that the decisions were held as a very closely guarded secret and were not shared with the governments of either country until the final decision had been made. The purpose seemingly to avoid the constant bickering that had characterized the meetings between the Indian and Pakistani governments up to that time.

If there was any method to the madness behind the decisions made by the Boundary Commission they too were lost to the passage of time almost immediately after the decisions were rendered as Radcliffe destroyed his paperwork and documentation immediately after leaving the country. His attitude was described as being one of haste and urgency at wanting to leave India as he felt his 'fitness' was lacking for the Indian climate. The plans for the division of the land into the two countries was revealed and then Partition began. Anyone who has studied the history of the region probably knows all about the death and destruction that occurred at that time. The exact number of deaths may never be known but it is easy to say that it ranks in the thousands. The seemingly random division has had effects affecting the region even today. Dispute over Kashmir continues and has been the basis for at least three wars and the Kargil War a decade ago. If anything this date in history shows just what can happen when decisions are made in a hasty and half-assed manner.