Very important story about how the vets from the second and first world war used their organizing and courage to enhance today's eroded middle-class - as the politically correct neuter more and more male behaviour we are in peril of simply slipping into tyranny and slavery.

Fight for your rights or be a slalve for ever.

CPAC had a discussion about veterans Sat evening. Goldhawk was the moderator.Cliff Chatterton represents the vets, a ex navy officer and some corporal were doing the talking.
Chatterton mentioned a opposition motion for a Ombudsman for Vets. The Navy fellow agreed. It was mentioned they have been asking for that for 35 years. A point was raised. Why is it that at age 65, a military pension is cut as the OAP comes into place. Not wishing to be political say the two will tons of medals. The little corporal who works some where in Ottawa in some intelligence department had never heard of the reduction of pensions and of course as he is still in uniform was asked if he supported the governments position on Vets. His answer was the same as any one in uniform is. My government speaks for me so I have no opinion. If he got his ass shot off and got booted out as medically unfit one wonders if his opinion might change. Additional issues could be the ramifications of 6 & 5 under Trudeau. Still in the courts.
A bit closer to home.
My oldest brother was very badly wounded in The Netherlands after slogging around other places in Europe and the UK since 1939. He was declared dead a couple of times. On arrival back to Canada,with a 100 percent pension, the job that was supposedly waiting for him wasn't. He asked the Legion for assistance. Got none. And each time he went to the military hospital his pension got smaller, ended up at around 10 percent. First time it got cut he took his medals, uniform and went into the local legion hall. Burned the whole bunch in the fireplace and never went back He quit going for medical reassessments . He died a couple of years ago. He was patriotic enough to join in 39 and lasted till sometime in 45 and other than losing a large part of his body was treated like crap. I spent 22 years in the RCAF post war and took a instant dislike to places like the Legion. They may do good work but will never get things done that a Ombudsman could do. The two senior vets last evening said then, when getting the push you move to the Veterans affairs Ministry and it's a crap shoot as to what you will end up with. Canada has always done a lousy job for the folks who join up. As I mentioned above lots of folks spent over 35 years on the Canadian military and are not considered veterans. I'm in that group and my pension I get was paid into by me for those years. DVA doesn't apply to us.Mind you I never got parts shot off me either. The folks last night said they don't like to sound political but! Maybe it's time for a lot of us to contact their MP's and tell tehm they support the need for a Veteran Ombudsman. and soon before they WW2 guys are all dead.

Well put DPL. You can be sure 25 years from now these same fellas who are so gung-ho to change the world for Afghanis are going to be singing the same tune.

My dad kissed off the legion in 1950 when he couldn't get any help on an appeal for a partial disability after his grand tour with the CA through North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium and Holland.

Vets get a lot of press from Thanksgiving until Remembrance Day each year. Other than that, they should be quiet and tug their forelock, shuffle and put their medals away until next year.

Good article. My parents lived in the old Hotel Vancouver for about 2 weeks after the take over. Dad went to the Vancouver Sun and placed an add in the paper offering to use his Navy separation pay and a victory bond to build a basement suite in return for a lease. Mr. Douglas on West 7th Avenue near Vine took them up on the offer. They lived there while Dad went to UBC and my two eldest siblings were living there too by the time they moved to their next place in 1950. Mum and Dad were fortunate finding housing, my godparents and some friends of my parents lived at the old hotel for quite a while.

My Mom stayed in the hotel at the end of the war, when it was still an official barracks (from what I gather; she never mentioned an occupation); she'd been a meterologist in the RCAF weather office at Pat Bay. One family friend, Bill Roozeboom, an industrial photographer who worked for BC Electric/BC Hydro, had a marble table in his house on West Keith Road in North Vancouver which was made from material salvaged from the hotel's bathrooms, which had all marble fittings and gold-plate faucets.....

The destruction of the 2nd Hotel Vancouver is one of the great fiascos of Vancouver's history. Its fate was sealed in 1939 when CP Hotels demanded that, in order to be willing to finish off the 3rd Hotel Vancouver (today's), construction of which had been suspended since the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the older hotel would be demolished, although it took until 1948 to do so (the delay partly because of the occupation described above, I'd imagine). I'm surprised not to see this particular issue mentioned in the history above...

Here's some old pics to show what we're missing:

http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/www2i/.visual/img_med/dir_104/b_02930.gif
(taken from the roof of the Bay)
http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/www2i/.visual/img_med/dir_102/b_00168.gif
(the billiards room)
http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/www2i/.visual/img_med/dir_102/b_00166.gif
(the formal dining room; I don't think this is a picture of the Spanish Grill, which was more casual)

Note the trellis on the roof in the first picture; that's the old Panorama Roof, which was a garden terrace with open views on all sides....

If I had a billion dollars, I know what I'd rebuild, no matter what modern architects had to say about it.....

It was a beaut. Can you imagine how the corner of Georgia and Granville would look today if it hadn't been razed?

Haven't seen those pics since I left college, thanks!

Great pics. I just keep looking at the junk built today, and I am amazed at what we just destroy in the name of progress (a cliche, I know).

I have down on Granville and Georgia last night, I am having a tough time visualizing the intersection with that building there.

Thanks for sharing the stories guys (and Claudia), they need to be recalled from time to time so we can remember how where (and are).

Thanks to Vets like McEwen to take a stand and obtain a place to live for himself and other Vets, until they persued an education, jobs, etc. so they could survive once again.
I TAKE MY HAT OFF TO ALL OF THE VETERANS!!

Mackenzie King's doing - The sudden implementation of wholesale demobilization was disasterous...not just in terms of the displacement of people, but also in terms of wasted infrastructure (like the British Commonwealth Air Training Program, which easily could have been adapted to service a peacetime industry, but which was totally dismantled instead)....M-K was also adamant about not giving the vets unemployment insurance. The False Creek flats were turned into a shanty town of homeless soldiers, greatly exaserbating race relations with the nearby chinese community. Bad planning, zero foresight, and indifferent leadership.

Not to mention the firesale of the Canadian Navy...but whadya expect of guy whose best living friend was his dog?

The whole raft of them, from Bennett (of Bennett buggy "fame")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_buggy
to Mckenzie King did not believe in "handouts". Of course, these "gentlemen" had secured their fortunes, and in fact increased them through the Depression, and while FDR in US
http://www.museum.siu.edu/university_museum/museum_classroom_grant/Museum_Explorers/school_pages/bourbonnais/page3.htm
spent cash on the ouot-of-work citizens (though much to the chagrin of business "leaders"
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/bush2.htm

Canada's governments have pretty much sucked in actually representing the people............

Yes Alci, I have 2 shelties and love them both as children. Great to have them around the house.

That's right. When the dust was still settling in 1945 we (Canada) were (arguably) the second or third most powerful nation in the world. We were intact and fully mobilized (and rich enough to hand over a third of our GNP virtually interest free to a struggling United Kingdom, and almost as much again to a devastated Continental Europe). And there was a world wide shortage of nearly everything that Canada had to sell.

So this begs the queston: so what happened--??

Nightbloom, we as Canada were under the British Flag. During WW2 the Americans were bombed at pearl harbor and that is why we won the war, because of PATTON, and the politicians did not know what to do with PATTON because he admitted he was not a political person.
* Remember this " The Americans won the war for us " .
** That is what happened!!

pure
You forget the Soviet Union. They had by far the biggest loses of any allied country in Europe - much greater losses than the Germans for example. Without the Soviets chewing up the German rear do you seriously think the western wall would have crumbled they way it did. I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I'd wager about 2 out of every 3 German casualties came on the eastern front.

Canada was NOT under the British flag in WWII, by the way...unlike the situation in WWI.

Hitler would have won the war if the americans were not present. In simple terms the war was really between Patton and Hitler. As a matter of fact a few Vets have stated that if Patton and Hitler were on opposite sides we would have lost the war.
* Canada fought under the British Flag and the Americans won the war, during WW2.

I disagree. Canada fought under the red ensign - not the union jack. DO you know what American losses were in the second world war, compared with the other combatants?

Here are the facts:
War related deaths:
War related deaths: (000s)
A Axis Military Civilian Total

Germany 4,500 2,000 6,500
Japan 2,000 350 2,350
Italy 400 100 500
Romania 300 200 500
Austria 230 144 374
Hungary 160 270 430
Finland 84 16 100
_________________________________________
Total 7,674 3,080 10,754
B. Allies

USSR 10,000 10,000 20,000
China 2,500 7,400 10,000
UK 300 50 350
Yugo 300 1,400 1,700
USA 274 - 274
Czech. 250 90 340
France 250 350 600
Poland 123 4,000 4,123
Canada 37 - 37
Bulgari 32 3 35
Albania 28 2 30
India 24 13 37
Australia 23 12 35
Greece 20 430 450
New Z 10 2 12
Belgium 10 78 88
S Africa 7 - 7
Holland 6 204 210
Lux 5 - 5
Norway 2 8 10

_________________________________________
Total 14,201 24,042 38,343

Well, Alci I guess you have the facts. You win.

Who won the war? Only the entities with Inc, LLC, and such at the end of their names.

Would have been "interesting" to pit Patton against Rommel, to do the oranges and oranges thing.

As to who won the war, why Canada's vet won the war!

As to who benefitted from the war, then Stump has it right...........

I appreciate the distinction and stand corrected.

This is a really good story - for all the reasons other folks have pointed out. But as for the destruction of the old Hotel Vancouver, isn't this in line with the North American stupidity of "if its older than 30 years knock it down and build another?"

I saw a Afghan vet on TV last night. S/Corporal who lost both legs above the knees. He was trying to be real gung ho as he was trying to learn to walk, and talking to school kids. A wounded captain is working in a recruiting office somewhere when not appearing on TV programs. They are front an center to show us just how good the government is to their soldiers. when a suitable amount of time goes by, if they can't pass the medical, and the fellow with no legs is not likely to do so, well it's down the road. The corporal has a wife and kids, and he has a long hard life ahead of him. As Chatterton has said, once you are gone and connected to Veterans Affairs its a crap shoot as to what you get. And all for the glory of signing up for good old Canada and ending up in a place like Afghanistan. I would hazard a guess that if the government spent more money on protective gear on their vehicles a few of the wounded would have fared better.

The RAF had a song about pilots. It went on about others may buy it, but not me. No sane person joins the military with the idea of getting the chop. When most of my course died in a flying accident we simply said "They were transfered" We did the military funeral thing 5 times in one day and were back to flying. We were indestructible.To this day I'm sad about their deaths, but thankful they didn't end up in some hospital , disfigured and under the care of the Canadian Government bean counters. A few years ago a friend of ours retired after 37 years on the King, then Queens Penny.Even earned a Order of Canada. He got vocal trying to save veterans housing in Kitsalano. His wife reminded him often to watch out or they may try to take your pension.Even after you are out of the service some concerns remain. Tony didn't win on the housing bit for Vets. The federal government owned the houses and the land.Some condos cover most of the land now.RIP Tony

Speaking of which, I happened to be by Cambie & B'way last night and was shocked to see the "old" Crossroads building, vintage 1990 or so, torn down to make way for a new "live/work/play" realtors' wet-dream.

Now if only we can get them to tear down the TD Tower and, while we're at it, that atrocious new BC Hydro building too.

The Maple Leaf flag replaced the Red Ensign Flag on 15 Feb,65.
* You see Alci takes a shot at me when she is wrong.

pure - so you agree that Canada fought under the Red Ensign during WW II. Not quite sure what you are getting at. Remember Diefenbaker used to call it Pearson's 'Rug'!

Alci - The British controlled our flag, called the red Ensign. We could use the Red Ensign for the water not the land. In all honesty we fought under the Union Jack all from the Queen.

pure.
We used the red ensign. It was our flag, it was also the British naval ensign. In WWI Canadian troops flew the Union Jack

Even in the First World War we had our own 'Canadian Corp' with our own military leadership (General Currie, et al). Our P.M. sat in London and was treated as an equal within the Imperial War Cabinet (Borden exerted far more influence on the higher strategic direction of the war effort than Mackenzie King ever did). I spent literally 8 months combing through the microfiched documents of the CID (Committee of Imperial Defence) as well as the Cabinet documents from this era. Don't ask me how much I remember, but I do recall that irrespective of the constitutional forms of the day, the actual tenor among the political leaders of the U.K. and "the Dominions" was actually more egalitarian than you'd think - more characteristic of today's alliance framework than an imperial system of uni-directional entitlements. Canada in particular was very outspoken relative to the Australians, South Africans, etc. This is ironic, since Borden and his grey eminence Loring Christie were considered "bureaucratic imperialists" (i.e. believing that a tenable trans-global system of government, security & trade preferences could be constructed linking the Westminster democracies...they all become disabused of this during the early 1920's and the onerous Versailles Treaty enforcement difficulties and accompanying security conundrums).

So we weren't nearly as useless as 'pure' seems to be suggesting.

Nightbloom:
Hope you're following Sullivan's deconstruction of Jonah Goldberg. It is masterful, and entertaining.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/10/veteran-funeral.html
"Petition calling for state funeral for WWI veteran gaining steam"Percy Dwight Wilsonhttp://www.dominion.ca/petition/

Darn it all!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/10/veteran-funeral.html

"Petition calling for state funeral for WWI veteran gaining steam"
Percy Dwight Wilson

http://www.dominion.ca/petition/

RickW
Don't think I'll sign. There has been such profound neglect of this country's veterans while they were alive that the spectacle of a state funeral mounted to commemorate the death of the last one is freighted with too much negative irony for me.

I'll drink a draught to his memory when he goes. No state funeral for me. The fuss is far too late and much too much about the living and the current lies the government is telling its soldiers, and its citizens, relative to Afghanistan.

I had my wife pull out her fathers metals for WW2. He died in Victoria Oct.98. Amazing what is stated on the metals about the King, etc. They are very difficult to read as they are very tarnised. However, I will spend some time trying to figure out exactly what is stated and what it means. My father-in-law conversed very little about WW2 as he had been injured and wanted to forget as much ss he could. All of his family were born in England to the exception of one and that was himself. When he was drafted he landed in Chilliwack for starters. I got the impression from the Vets that they did not like P. Tradeau changing the Flag in Canada. That is why I keep mentioning the Union Jack. There is no disrespect on my behalf related to flags, just what I mentioned about how the Vets felt re: P. Tradeau changing the flag and breaking away to some degree from the British
Empire. I was told that some military were killed by there own men. I find that very upsetting. All of these essays are very interesting and educational. The word ( essay ) may not be the correct word, however, the facts and research that is noted here is really worth reading. That is how people learn about debates and so. I guess we are close to WW3 after 9 eleven.

It was Pearson who gave us the Maple Leaf, not Trudeau, pure.

My Grandfather was born in England and my Dad went back to the old family home outside Coventry when he was overseas during the war - his Aunt still lived there until a few years before she died.

I'm not being disrespectful toward veterans at all, in fact quite the contrary. The idea that they were fighting for King and country, God and the western way of life is an affectation grafted onto memory by way of people who want to manipulate the way we think now. Much of the hype this Remembrance Day just past is the self-same thing.

At least that's my opinion.

Most soldiers do what they do and behave bravely (if that's what you want to call it) because of the closeness of the brotherhood they feel for their comrades, certainly not out of affection for their officers. That and the instinct for simple survival.

My opinion only. You might want to ask why, during the Great War, it was sometimes said that an officer killed by a single bullet often got it in the back of the head.

Yes, Pearson brought in the new flag (not Trudeau). But you're right, pure, that the Vets as a constituency were opposed to the change (not all of them, by any means, but certainly the core organized membership of the Legion halls). That's to be expected - emotional ties to symbols run very deep, especially in a wartime military. New symbols take time and lots of wear before they acquire true legitimacy in people's hearts.

It's actually a debate that is still relived occasionally. At the Remembrance Day ceremony I attended, someone was waving the version of the Maple Leaf that had blue vertical bars along with the red & white.

Good last point, Alcibiades, although accidental friendly fire incidents occur far, far more frequently than we like to admit. But "fragging" happened a lot. That is why (traditionally) the officers carry a pistol (for Canadian Officers, it's a 9mm Browning). Small arms like that are useless on a battlefield (extremely short ranged) - officers only carry them for personal protection and to uphold the chain of command when necessary. Tactical units and marines fighting in built-up areas (i.e. house-to-house) may carry pistols, but they're still not standard infantry weapons.

Re. Andrew Sullivan - Yes, I've been following. I must say, I find it ironic and somehow Ã* propos that the "Conservative Soul" is being consecrated, saved and resurrected by the very antithesis of the archetypal theocratic evangelical neo-con: an HIV+ Roman Catholic British homosexual academic with strong connections to the Northeastern Seaboard liberal intelligentsia. Pro gay marriage, pro-choice (first trimester only), unaffiliated (i.e. not a party member), and with intellectual gifts that will (eventually) place him on parr with Allan Bloom and William Buckley in the pantheon of modern conservative opinion makers (provided he curbs his weakness for Circuit Parties, club drugs, and the other self-diluting lifestyle distractions for which he has occasionally acted as an apologist).

It's good to see someone who was so virulently disavowed by both the neo-con theocrats and the automatons of stalinist queerdom finally rise above it all and get the recognition he deserves.

Is Berardino the author of his own misfortune, or is he on the other end of a two man saw working against other unnamed interests?

Perhaps England's future, then, will be as a Canada to the E.U.'s United States, with Scotland playing the role of Quebec.

I don't think Sullivan ever was a neo-con. He started out as a smart-ass and has learned an awful lot since I started reading him with interest - it was a long reflection on England's future in the New York Times magazine (1999 I think) that I remember most vividly.

In it, he ended with some musings about where his natal land was heading. Something, as I recall, about it becoming:
'a Canada to the E.U.'s United States, with Scotland playing the role of Quebec.'

He didn't quite have that right either and in the event Tony Blair has spent the last almost six years being George Bush's lapdog.

Unlike most of the American right wing, Sullivan appears not to be afraid to learn from his mistakes.

nb ---> pls ignore first question. Just sloppiness on my part. Nothing to do with Sullivan, obviously.

I always keep a copy of everything I post and the cut and paste was poorly done this time.

Have to speak to quality control.

Alcibiades:
I don't actually blame you at all, as all they want is the spectacle, with little substance behind it.

I just heard on the radio coming home tonight, that the families of Canada's military dead get a $250,000 lump sum payment, plus two years salary.

Whereas, if a federal civil servant slips on a bar of soap in the washroom and kills hmself(for example) his family receives an immediate $650,000 payment. And if an MP slips down a flight of stairs (for example), his family gets a payment of $1,125,000.

So the further you get from "harm's way" serving your country, the richer and greater are the rewards............

Rick W
We're on the same wave length!

This is the e-mail I sent to Gary Lunn, MP for Saanich and The Gulf Islands:

I've just heard that the families of Canada's military dead get a lumpsum payment of $250,000, plus 2 years salary, whereas the family of a federal civiil servant who dies on office gets an immediate payment of $650,000, and that the family of a cabinet minister gets $1,125,000.

The exact numbers notwithstanding, is it true that the people who voluntarily put themselves "in harm's way" in defense of Canada and democracy get the least recompense?

We'll see what (if any) answer I get.......

Good idea Rick W. Keep us posted. If Lunn answers, I wonder if he'll use those magic words: 'Canada's new government..." in his response.

RickW - where did you get those numbers?

And what civil servants are you referring to? Are you telling me the Government of Canada forks out over half a million dollars for every mail clerk, customs officer or coast guard tech that kicks the bucket? The only people I see this affecting is perhaps the Deputy Ministers' community - a select group of about 80 individuals (slightly more if you count the EX 'equivalents' in the agencies & crown corportations). Considering how much their CEO counterparts in the private sector get (and with much less experience, education, and overall qualification) the taxpayer should be happy with the bargain basement deal they're getting with the current remuneration/incentives system for public sector leaders.

But you do have a point to make about the value we attach to someone's life, when that life is liquidated to help underwrite national policy.

Here's the straight poop:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/15/veterans-benefits.html
Nightbloom:
The quantities don't matter. Deputy ministers do dick all, in comparison to what Canada's soldiers face. Canada's politicians pay themselves quite handsomely for merely attempting to do something, success only being some vague point on their personal horizons. It is unconscionable that some dweeb who will never be in danger of anything more than slipping on a bar of soap demand that someone else expose themselves to death and dismemberment, just so said dweeb can choose the fragrance of the soap he slips on........

That's untrue. They don't risk getting shot in a war zone, true, but neither do most hard working Canadians. I've actually never seen people work harder, to be honest. I think there's a problem in lumping civil service executives (let alone the rank-&-file) in with theelected pork-barrelling politicians. Believe it or not, they're actually worlds apart.

As for the policy that lead us to war, that's another debate entirely - that was a result of decisions made by the elected political leadership. The implementation mechanism of government (lead by Deputy Ministers & other civil servants and military officers) is there to implement the will of the people (for better or worse) while providing sober advice on risks and outcomes.

If you pay them peanuts, you get monkeys. As it stands, we're pretty lucky to have the group we've got in senior unelected leadership positions.

But of course, the Canadian soldier needs a better deal, from the nuts-&-bolts of their pay & benefits package right up to the decision making at the top that makes or breaks their futures and their lives.

All of which totally ignores the fact that the DND brass in Ottawa opposed Martin's decision to send a battle group into the war-fighting zone in southern Afghanistan, a number of them protesting by resigning their commissions.

Not because they were in opposition to the mission, but because they believed the forces weren't up to the task and needed to be re-supplied and re-staffed and re-trained before any such deployment.

Had the media converged on the issue in a more aggressive way at the time THAT decision was made things today might be quite different and at the very least some lives would have been saved.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the remaining military brass are at least party using this 'opportunity' as a way to increase their budgets and profile that has very little to do with the soldier in the field. Hillier’s nominal affection for the PRT mission now, in light of what he said publicly about killing scumbags in the opening stanza, is about as convincing as Stephen Harper’s commitment to human rights in China.

The poor bloody infantry, as always, gets it from both ends.

First sentence of second last para should read 'party to using,' etc.

Brass have been resigning over variations of that particular issue on a semi-regular basis for almost two decades, with scarcely a blip on the politico-civilian radar...in fact, you can chart the string of uniformed resignations to protest bad policy all the way back to the Hellyer era at National Defence.

Yes, the infantry pays dearly, as do their families.

nightbloom
And that's why there's change needed at the politico/civilian/military interface - and decidedly not the kind of knee-jerk mindless cheerleading that Hillier's on about.

He should resign now and go into PR. It's what he thinks he's good at anyway.

As a leader, his lies and obfuscations make him a joke and an embarrassment to the few sensible officers left at headquarters staff anyway.

I heard a retired General on CBC the other morning (on the Island) who said he'd need an hour to talk 'at' the audience to convince anyone of the value of this mission. Utterly pathetic. I'm sure the 13 or 14 officers in Kabul trying to liaise with Afghan bureaucrats are models of the planning profession. Leave them there forever if you want.

The problem is in the field, where virtually every single authority and independent observer confirms that the whole enterprise has gone completely pear-shaped.

Nothing but lies, damned lies and propaganda. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be proud of the individual troops. It does mean that we should stop sending them there on false pretenses to support a mission that needs an absolute minimum of 20,000 more men at the pointed end. Period.

If Lunn answers the letter sent by one of the folks above, you can guarantee the words Canada's New Government. I watched the environment minister talking today and she was right on message. It's supposed to be "The Government of Canada. Why anyone with a razon thin minority government decides to change such a small thing confuses the hell out of me. Maybe the next will be to design a new flag. The polls indicate it will all be water under the bridge before long.

DPL
I've been wondering. If, God forbid, Harper were to win another election - say another minority government - would that mean that Lunn and Harper and Ambrose would refer to it as Canada's new new Government?

How is it possible these people can manage to feed themselves?

Incidentally, did anyone notice that the Prime Minister took the Remembrance Day salute and march-past standing in the dais alongside the G-G?

I've never seen that before, and I've done lots of 'Eyes Right' in my uniformed days.

You'd never see a British Prime Minister standing in the box beside the Queen to take a ceremonial march-past or tipping of the colours. It's just not part of the code.

Harper's decision to do so is almost...presidential. I wonder what the G-G thought of it.

Thanks for noticing nightbloom, I make a point of not watching those ceremonial bun tosses since I left Ottawa. Just like this proposal of Rudyard Griffiths - now there's a guy who can get his knickers in a twist over nothing - to have a huge ceremonial send off for the last WWI soldier to cross the great divide. Phony, artificial and staged emotionalism.

No doubt Harper was making a fool of himself - as he almost always does. Maybe that’s what they’ll call it – Canada’s new Presidential government.

Really? I always attend the Remembrance Day service whenever I can, in whatever city I happen to be in at the time. Yes, the politicians are always fake, but the emotions of the citizens who make the effort are almost always real.

Do you remember the Remembrance Day service when Vera Lynn sang in person? That was emotional, but I distinctly remember some vets complaining that they were kept so far away from her on account of the massive entourage which (then) Prime Minister Trudeau brought with him for the celebrity appearance.

I've got mixed feelings about having a state send-off for the last WWI soldier. What are the other Commonwealth countries doing with that issue, anyone know? I'm inclined to support a state service, provided the family is in accord.

Who cares what any of them are doing? The Vets of WWI have been so ignored for so long that the hypocrisy of the event is palpable.

As to those Remembrance Day services, of course Very Lynn would tug at real soldiers heart strings, as would Gracie Fields - for them it's an honest emotion. For the rest of the dignitaries, the politicians - and especially guys like Trudeau (who ought to have know better given his own baggage) it was and remains a pile of insulting garbage.

True memory sneaks up on silent feet in the middle of the night - it is not the product of strings pulled and stage managed by others whose interests are much more conflicted than the actual participants of those from times long past. Pull a beer at the pub and sing a line of two of some old song from the First World War - all the rest is smoke an mirrors by the heirs of dishonest men who send others to die on their behalf.

Let history have them. It will, in the end, treat them better than we have.

Thank God for writers like Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon, Edmund Blunden and, more recently, Paul Fussell, who've dealt more or less comprehensively with the cant of the 'memorializing' crowd.

I've never quite understood the Canadian fascination for such utter and dishonest nonsense.

In the little town where I grew up, the biggest promoters of Remembrance Day were always the guys who didn't remember to sign up or for whom their political connections served them very well - all utter crap.

And further, what kind of a spectacle is our current government making of itself if it opted for a ceremonial send-off for the passing of the last soldier of the Great War?

This is the same presidential Prime Minister who decided (after lying about the fact that he had consulted with the families of the poor dead souls coming back from Afghanistan) that state funerals and flag ceremonies were 'not' appropriate to his current agenda.

You must be joking.

It's good that you feel strongly about your chosen viewpoint. As I said, I'm undecided (re. the state funeral). the occasion is still going to be observed in one form or another. As for Remembrance Day, I think it's important. I'm one of those gullible sorts who still think public genuflection still has meaning...not because the politicians play along or exploit it, but because of the citizens who create and invest meaning into that moment of pause and reflection. For everyone else, it naturally appears illusory.

It was totally improper for the Head of Government to take the salute alongside the Commander in Chief and Head of State. I can just imagine the sidelong comments in the ranks, not to mention in the nearby MGen George R. Pearkes Bldg (NDHQ).

Yes, Paul Fussell's a gem.

...Incidentally, you'd probably be impressed with the latast addition to the National Cenotaph precinct. It's really quite well done.

http://www.valiants.ca/english.html

You should read Graves, nightbloom. Here’s a little passage from Goodbye to all That
which you might find interesting:

The troops with the worst reputation for acts of violence against prisoners were the Canadians (and later the Australians). The Canadians’ motive was said to be revenge for a Canadian found crucified with bayonets found sticking through his hands and feet in a German trench. This atrocity had never been substantiated; nor did we believe the story, freely circulated, that the Canadians crucified a German officer in revenge shortly afterwards. How far this reputation for atrocities was deserved, and how far it could be ascribed to the overseas habit of bragging and leg-pulling, we could not decide. At all events, most overseas men, and some British troops, made atrocities against prisoners a boast, not a confession..

Later in the war, I heard two first-hand accounts.

A Canadian-Scot: ‘They sent me back with three boldly prisoners, you see, and one started limping and groaning, so I had to keep on kicking the sod down the trench. He was an officer. It was getting dark and I felt fed up, so I thought: “I’ll have a bit of a game.” I had them covered with the officer’s revolver and made ‘em open their pockets without turning round. Then I dropped a Mills bomb in each, with the pin out, and ducked behind a traverse. Bang, bang, bang! No more bloody prisoners. No good Fritzes but dead ‘uns.’

An Australian: ‘Well, the biggest lark I had was at Morlancourt, when we too it the first time. There were a lot of Jerries in a cellar, and I said to ‘em: “Come out, you Camarades!” So out they came, a dozen of ‘em, with their hands up. “Turn out your pockets,” I told ‘em. They turned ‘em out. Watches and gold and stuff, all dinkum. Then I said: “Now back to your cellar, you sons of bitches!” For I couldn’t be bothered with ‘em. When they were all safely down I threw half a dozen Mills bombs in after ‘em. I’d got the stuff all right, and we weren’t taking prisoners that day.’

Robert Graves: Goodbye to all That (1929)

errata - second word of second line in last para is 'took', not 'too'

Nightbloom:

But you have to ask yourself, work hard at what? I've read the testimonials said of bureaucrats working 80 hours a weekm, etc., but that does not mean that anything useful was done........

Alcibiades:

You've obviously not seen Royal Canadian Air Farce's "House of Commons Cafeteria" shtick...........

Not quite sure what your point is, Gwest, in proferring such a response to my discussion of Remembrance Day, or the last WWI vet, or the new Valiants Memorial. It's a little cynical and rancid of you. We've all read our history. Graves surely spent extra time in Purgatory for his immortalization of the fable of the crucified Canadian. It never happened...and the French think it was a frenchman that was crucified, and the Germans a German...Such is the power of myth and hysteria. It never happened, no more that Mel Gibson's portayal of British Regulars burning American patiots alive in a church. Pure balderdash.

And yes, I've heard those accounts and much, much more. All sides did that kind of thing when conscience failed. The only thing I'd add is that it's specious to attribute such acts exclusively to the barbarians "colonials" like the Canucks and the Aussies. Specious, but very charactistic of the British mentality at the time.

RickW - nor does it demonstrate the opposite. You seem to want the senior civil service to conform to your preconceptions even the face of mountains of evidence which demonstrate the contrary.

...My second paragraph refers to Graves' account of the execution of soldiers who had or who were in the process of trying to surrender, not to the "crucifixied soldier" myth.

I think you need to re-read the passage nightbloom. Graves, at least to me, implies that it was the colonials’ propensity to tell tales that he was remarking.

Given the superior attitudes of many of their British officers, I'm not surprised the boys from Auz and Canada would want to pull the legs of the senior service.

That's why I posted the passage. Of course both the 'Crucified Canadian' and the alleged revenge by Canuck troops are apocryphal.

What I’m trying to demonstrate is the futility of making so much of war efforts which were, in the end, all about personal survival. The nobility and the heroism are grafted on afterwards – just like the Remembrance day parades.

Your point was by no means clear.

Glad to hep you understand. I'll try to be more precise in future.

I'd say that this,
At all events, most overseas men, and some British troops, made atrocities against prisoners a boast, not a confession.
was the key. To me at least.
Graves was an officer. There is no way, in the context, that a person actually guilty of such a crime(s) described would have confessed same to him.

These were, like most barracks chat, tall tales. Just like the heroics - which didn't exist unless it had been witnessed by an officer - all such things must be taken with liberal doses of sodium.

Clear enough, I hope. Graves is, in my view, an extremely reliable reporter, whose version of the Greek Myths also has pride of place on my shelves.

Still waiting for the point, I'm afraid.

You're joking, right?

This whole article and most of its self-serving and sentimental posts are about sanctifying a manufactured memory; turning an experience which was demeaning, pointless, full of cant and utterly profligate of human norms and values not to mention human life, to the service of an essential lie. - - The Remembrance myth and the poppy iconography. Surely you knew what my point was without my spelling it out for you in clear.

Graves left England in 1929 and spent the rest of his life in Majorca. As he wrote about the title to the book I quoted from:

'So I went abroad, resolved never to make England my home again; which explains the "Goodbye to all that" of the title.'

Here's a little poem Graves wrote. It's every bit as caustic as anything of either Sassoon's or Owen's.

Dead Boche

To you who read my songs of war
And only hear of blood and fame
I'll say (you've heard it said before)
'War's Hell!' and if you doubt the same
Today I found in Mametz Wood
A certain cure for lust for blood

Where, propped against a shattered trunk
In a great mess of things unclean,
Sat a dead Boche; he scowled and stunk
With clothes and face a sodden green,
Big-bellied, spectacled, crop-haired,
Dribbling black blood from nose and beard.

I'd be happier if they read that from the cenotaph every Nov 11.

We've passed the friggin' torch enough my friend. Many times too often.

As for the Valliant’s memorial...let me explain by an illustration.

I'd much rather celebrate the courage, stamina and clear mindedness of Georges Vanier for how he lived his life after the war than for anything he did during it - amputation notwithstanding.

Similarly the old fella from my hometown, a 35 year old sergeant of the Canadian Scottish who took and held a shell hole for more than 24 hours during Passchendaele (or third Ypres f you prefer) is more distinguished and honourable for the way he lived the rest of his life - bits of shrapnel migrating out of both thighs on a regular basis - than any heroism or mention in dispatches while he served the King.

I should add that none of us knew anything of Harry's war while he was alive. I planned to write his story and did the research myself.

Once I learned, I decided that to NOT write about it was a better memento mori for his life.

We seem to have a totally different experience of Remembrance Day. For me, it was never about sentimentalizing or manufactured memories or...

Nor, do I think, does it hold such a meaning for most Canadians who participate in Remembrance Day Services across the country. I think I see what you're trying to say, but I think you're mixing thing up a bit, in my opinion.

Each to his own I guess.

Well, I see empty sentimentality and ceremonial foolishness have won the day - as usual in this pathetic excuse for a real country. A country that actually believes in itself wouldn’t spend so much of its time running around in circles yelling about how wonderful everything here is.

I hope the souls of all the forgotten and neglected veterans who died in Sunnybrook Hospital haunt the ‘celebration’.

That's just sour and rancid.

I disagree.

That's the truth as I see it. Those poor buggers - you can find some pictures of them in Desmond Morton's WHEN YOUR NUMBER'S UP have been totally forgotten while we shined our medals and wrote doggerel poetry and marched around the maypoles (pardon me, WWI memorial cenotaphs).

You can read all about that in Jon Vance's DEATH SO NOBLE, a poor Canadian version of THE GREAT WAR and Modern Memory.

I think you need the purgative power of a re-reading of Fussell.

nightbloom:

These "mountains" of evidence amply demonstrate that the main function of bureaucrats is the propagation of same. All else is secondary.

But I suppose it's my mountain against your mountain..........

I couldn't begin to guess which mountain (of evidence) you're referring to, RickW.

Gwest - I still believe semi-ritualized public commemorations have meaning, and in no way exist in competition with long-accepted anti-war principles and messaging. Remembrance Day is not a propaganda piece, and only appears as such to the hopelessly cynical.

I know you're a believer nightbloom, I know.
And wasn't it you who accused Irshad Manji of being a shameless self-promoter? Bluenose was talking about it on the latest Glavin thread - I'm not sure if he was being complimentary or critical. Anyway, I defended her once - not this time.

I'm not surprised you'd feel that way - re ritual and the 'forms' of commemoration.

You need to read the Vance book before you declaim much more about the history of the poppy and Remembrance Day in Canada.

I'd wager you might find the ritual significance is much less profound in Quebec. Yes?

I'm not cynical at all - just a very acute observer of human nature and collective behavior.

I'll bet you were a great altar boy.

Many times one and the same thing...........

But not always RickW - I live in hope of better and more honest times - else why bother at all.