Beyond the War Memorials - My Experience

The Waterloo and Seaforth War Memorial

Recently, I took part in an online project run by Sefton Library Service called "Beyond the War Memorials". This involved a number of volunteers, including me, compiling a database of all the men of the Sefton area who fell in the Great War, and whose names are listed on local war memorials. For those who do not know, Sefton MBC is located in the north-west of England, and incorporates Southport at the north end of the borough, stretching south in a coastal strip through Formby, Waterloo and Seaforth, down to Bootle in northern Liverpool. Thousands of men and women from this area died on active service in WW1, and there were a number of memorials erected to them, as happened everywhere in Britain in the post-WW1 years.

With one other volunteer, I was allocated the "5 Lamps" memorial seen above. My estimable fellow volunteer, Laura, had the arduous task of listing the names and brief biographies of the fallen while I was on holiday in the Philippines in an area badly served for internet provision (Laura, I salute you). Consequently, I could not start until mid-March. Now, I was told by several people not to make the biographies of the men too detailed and, before I started, I looked at the number of names on one panel, and thought "I'll never manage this, anyway!".

Well, I was wrong about that, happily. I volunteered for the task as I have an interest in WW1. I have read a fair number of books about it, and even written and recorded several poems about it for my charity albums. In a very short time, I became absorbed in the project, and the details of how these names on a wall came to be there. I accepted the need to avoid too much detail, but it would be a hard hearted person who could read the brief biographical details available on the Merseyside Roll of Honour and not be moved. 

The more I worked on these names, the more I engaged with the feelings of the families and, after the passage of a century, came to share something of their grief and bereavement. For, behind the panel, there is a wellspring of pain of family members whose relatives never came home. There were widows left with large families, parents who lost their only son, some parents who lost more than one, and children who lost their fathers. Again and again, I shook my head in sadness when I saw the ages of most of the 438 fallen men. For the most part, they were young, some as young as 17, losing their lives in battles that now belong to history: Loos, Aubers Ridge, the Somme, Arras, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Mesopotamia. In an age when most people never travelled far from home, the knowledge that your relative was lost far away must have been unbelievably painful. A deeply moving example of this is found in ''The Bootle Times'' of July 11th, 1919. Mrs Catherine Cunningham of Seaforth placed a memorial tribute to three of her sons, killed in the war: Andrew, Robert, and William Charles Cunningham. Included in the tribute is this short couplet, perhaps written by Mrs Cunningham herself:
"To graves far away, a mother's sad heart wanders to-day"
A few simple words, inspired by what must have been immeasurable grief.

All too many of the men have the bleak epitaph "No known grave" or "No grave but the sea". It does not require much to imagine what might have become of them. For me, having read a good deal about the first day of the Battle of the Somme, I had a fairly good idea of why so many men who fell on July 1st, 1916, had no known grave. When I read of the men who were lost at sea, however, I learned something new to me: nearly 90% of the crew of the Lusitania, sunk on the 7th May, 1915, came from Merseyside, and a number are listed on the Seaforth and Waterloo memorial. Tragically, several were no more than boys. The youngest, a "steward's boy" named Harold Joseph Wright, was only 14 when the Lusitania was sunk.

So many of the brief biographies were painful to read, such as that of Matthew Robinson, 17 years old, who was aboard the SS Ausonia, torpedoed in 1918. Both of his legs were broken in the attack, and he died in hospital in Ireland after eight days in an open boat, before being rescued. Two women are listed: Florence Jones, a nurse who died of pneumonia in 1918, and Agnes B. Hird, a 42-year old stewardess, lost on the SS Ava in January, 1917. Sadly, Agnes's husband, Anthony, was killed on the Western Front later that year.

There are also inspiring stories of courage. One is that of the gallant Lieutenant Walter Duncan of the Kings Liverpool Regiment who was captured during the Somme battle in 1916. He escaped from his POW camp in February, 1918, and returned to duty in England, only to die of pneumonia in the December of that year.

Particularly poignant for me was the fate of  Second Lieutenant Francis Zacharias, of the South Wales Borderers, who died heroically while fighting on the Somme in 1916 ("No known grave"). The Merseyside Roll of Honour quotes "Liverpool's Scroll of Fame" as saying: "He gave his life for his men". Zacharias lived in Victoria Road, Waterloo. His mother was British, his father was German by birth, but a naturalised British citizen. Like many Germans resident in Britain during WW1, Francis's father was loyal to Britain, and many sons of German families, including Francis, fought in the British armed forces. 102 years after the death of Francis, I find myself hoping that his father was spared the irrational, populist hatred of all things German that swept Britain at that time.

When I first started this project, I was daunted by the size of the task. Instead, I found it a rewarding and humbling experience.

Men of the King's Liverpool Regiment, 1915. Many men from Seaforth and Waterloo served in this regiment during the First World War; 13, 795 Kingsmen died in the conflict.

President Assad and Reasons to be Cheerful

You might expect President Assad of Syria to be smarting with pain after receiving a good licking from the recent air strikes on April 14 against his (alleged) chemical warfare establishments. I am sure that many people in the West believe that. Unfortunately, TV footage of Assad shows him remarkably calm and unflustered following the US/French/British punitive action. In fact, he has a lot to smile about, as we shall see.

In the first place, he has seen relations between the West and Russia worsen, which means that he can expect even more support for his civil war from Russia and Iran, who will undoubtedly help Assad rebuild the chemical weapons capacity that he denied having. The airstrikes may even increase support for him within Syria. In any case, as "Private Eye" magazine has pointed out:
"... there have been 34 chemical attacks in Syria since 2013, to most of which the US has not retaliated" 
All of which makes the recent airstrikes against targets in Syria look like a very expensive token gesture.

Secondly, the airstrikes have created dissension and argument in the three countries that launched the attacks. In Britain, as we know, there has been fierce debate in the House of Commons. Last night saw the Prime Minister under fire for joining in the attack without consulting Parliament.Jeremy Corbyn has secured an emergency Commons debate tomorrow on the convention that parliament should have to approve military interventions.

So far, so good. This is enough to make most politicians smile, but the knock on effects of this affair spread wider and deeper. Consider this question asked by Donald Trump:

" To Iran, and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children?"

Oh, blimey, that was a blunder! So far they have not replied, but Russia might respond by pointing out that the US military is no stranger to mass killing. They could mention the slaughter of Native Americans at Wounded Knee, 1890. They could bring up the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, which happened on 16th March, 1968, and has just passed its 50th anniversary.

Then, of course, they could point to the US-led invasion of Iraq, in which at least 150,000 Iraqis died (some say many more).

In contrast, no more than 70 people are said to have died in the recent chemical attack in Syria. President Assad's smile is beginning to broaden.

The Russians may then turn the critical spotlight on us here in Britain. We have a number of bloody incidents in our military and political history that could be dragged up. There is the Irish Famine (1845-52), to begin with, which caused a million deaths in Ireland and an exodus of two million people by unwilling, but desperate, emigration. Then there are the concentration camps of the Boer War (1899-1902) to be accounted for, and the notorious Amritsar Massacre of 1919, which saw at least 379 Indian civilians shot dead - some say many more.

Then of course, we should remember the post-colonial campaigns following the end of WW2, culminating in the Bloody Sunday killings in 1972. 

President Assad will be positively beaming by now.

As for France, they could be discomfited by being reminded of the Setif Massacre(s) of 8th to 22nd May, 1945, in which at least 6000 Algerians were killed by French troops. Then there is the Paris Massacre of 1961, in which up to 200 peaceful Algerian civilians were shot dead or drowned by French police.

The Russians could draw attention to these incidents, but it would be unwise. They would be better leaving such condemnation to Iran or their apologists in the West, such as George Galloway and Peter Hitchens, two disparate commentators who are highly critical of the way the West treats Russia and Syria, despite their divergent political views.

For Russia, as would be very quickly pointed out, does not exactly have an unblemished record when it comes to indiscriminate slaughter. There are the million people who died during the Red Terror (1917-22), the millions who disappeared and perished during the Stalinist Purges and the horrific Katyn Massacre of April and May, 1940. President Putin's crackdown on Chechen rebels in the 1990s also produced mass killings - the most bloody being the Samashki Massacre of April 7th and 8th, 1995, in which up to 300 civilians died.

 All of this would give President Assad much satisfaction; it shows that no major power involved in this dispute has the moral high ground. Both his allies and foes have much to regret in their pasts. 

However, it is the actions of the present that will most please Assad. President Trump has categorically stated that he will not interfere in the Syrian Civil War. That will be good news for Assad for one simple reason: he is winning. Russian and Iranian help is bringing about a slow victory. He will have no need for any further deniable chemical attacks as he knows he can wage war without any undue interference from the West. When it is over, the Russian, Iranian and Syrian military will rejoice over their defeat of what they (and others) say are barbaric Islamists. At some time after that, the West will have no choice but to recognise Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria, and the recent chemical attack will be a distant memory - like all the massacres mentioned above.

No wonder President Assad is smiling...

Raphael Callaghan at The Islington - Reviewed

On Tuesday evening (10th April), I travelled into central London for an old friend's gig. Raphael "Raph" Callaghan, pictured above, was playing his first London gig for a while at the Islington - a café bar close to the Angel tube station. I have known Raph for a number of years and worked with him on a number of projects. I know him to be an outstanding performer, guitarist and harmonica player, an knowledgable exponent of the blues and an all-round good guy.

Well, now - do I need to write more? Well, fortunately, yes, otherwise this would be a very short blog entry. Most of Raph's songs were taken from his latest cd "Said and Done" which is selling well, has impressed reviewers and been played a number of times on the radio, including Paul Jones' blues programme on Radio Two. 

Raph's songs fall into three broad categories: Personal/reflective, Gospel and songs by artists he admires, and he performed a selection of all three. "Sugar no More" is typical of the first category, which he describes on his cd inlay as: "...a bitter sweet song of regret over a break-up". Great song, but lacking in bitterness, which is probably explained by the fact that Raph has been in a happy relationship with his partner, Christine, for 47 years, as he said on Tuesday evening. His memory of his last break-up must be nearly 50 years old. He showed his tender side with his performance of "Silk for Skin" and his social consciousness side with "Too Much Rain, Too Much Water", which expresses his anxiety (and ours) about global warming.

Now, it's an established fact that many of the older blues singers (not so much the modern blues rockers like Robert Cray and Joe Bonamassa) included gospel songs as part of their sets. Raph followed in their footsteps by performing two of his own compositions: "Do You Know What Time it is?" and "Don't Let the Devil Drive" (has he passed his test? - sorry, couldn't resist it). On a reflective note, I have always smiled at how blues singers can sing gospel songs in the same set as songs about the pleasures of the flesh (Keith Richard once said that when he first encountered blues music, he was delighted to find "Hey! This is about gettin' laid"), but they do, and do it well. Raph is no exception.

Raph included a number of songs by other artists for whom he clearly has enormous respect. He speaks with special warmth of the preacher blues man, Skip James, and sang James' "Special Rider Blues" with conviction. You can hear the original HERE. I especially enjoyed Raph's version of the old Marvin Gaye classic"Abraham, Martin and John", which Raph sang to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King. On a personal note, I was disappointed that Raph did not sing "The Storm is Passing Over", one of my favourites of the songs in his repertoire.

To sum up, this was a great gig which was hugely entertaining for what Raph himself has described as a "small, but perfectly formed audience". As for The Islington, I hope it stays in business, as there were only four people in the bar, and two of them were staff. Keep rollin' on like the blues, Raph, and may you enjoy many more gigs, radio plays and cd sales - you deserve any success that comes your way, and thanks for all you have done for me and my projects.

Spot the young Raphael! Both photos pinched from Raph's website.

How to Mishandle a Crisis: The UK Government and the Salisbury Chemical Attack

As my colleague, Rednev, observed on March 23rd, the UK government has been less than adept in the way they have dealt with the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. As Nev points out, our government has accused Russia of being responsible for the crime without a shred of evidence. There is also the absurd posturing of Boris Johnson's comparison of Putin to Hitler and the implied insult to the Russian people, who lost millions of people during WW2. Then there was the Cold War rant of the Defence Minister, Gavin Williamson, who said that Russia should "go away" and "shut up" (Russian commentators thought that hilarious). Now, Porton Down has said that  it can not verify the precise source of the nerve agent used against Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. President Putin must be very pleased by the whole sorry mess.

But - is there another way of looking at this affair? I believe there is, but it takes a leap of the imagination, and I have no proof of my theory (I had to get that out of the way).
Let's start with one indisputable statement: the Russian secret services are very good at assassinations, and quite good at disguising their handiwork. Wikipedia lists a number of such killings, both in Russia/USSR and abroad. Victims include: Leon Trotsky: Stepan Bandera (Ukranian nationalist, murdered in West Germany, 1959); Georgi Markov (The KGB used the Bulgarians - allegedly); Alexander Litvinienko, killed in 2006. Most such murders were KGB operations, but more recently, the FSB, successor to the KGB, has taken up the mantle with mixed results (the FSB hit on Alexander Litvinienko was not exactly a model of efficiency).
It hardly needs to be said, that if the FSB is prepared to carry out killings abroad, it is unlikely to have reservations about assassinating dissidents in Russia itself. It is undeniable that a number of critics and opponents of President Putin have met violent deaths. It is also undeniable that, as far as President Putin's involvement is concerned, nothing has been proved (cue Dusty Springfield). Mack the Knife, as we know, always wore white gloves.
As an example of Putin deniability, we can see it in the murder of the journalist and bitter critic of Putin, Anna Politkovskaya. After years of publishing books attacking Putin and receiving harassment from the FSB, she was found shot dead in the elevator of her apartment block in central Moscow on the 7th of October, 2006, which, coincidentally, was President Putin's birthday. She had been shot four times in the head. Arrests were made, and several Chechens have been convicted of the murder - but the instigator, the man who ordered the operation, has never been identified. What puzzles me about this case is the fact that the FSB monitors foreign diplomats, journalists and domestic opponents rigorously. That being the case, Politkovskaya must have been under surveillance at the time of her murder. It follows, then, her assassins must have been observed by FSB watchers - and yet, incredibly, the murderers escaped. Even after being caught following a long and laborious investigation by the Russian police, they have not named the instigator, certainly not President Putin.
Hopefully, whoever carried out the attack in Salisbury will be caught. If that happens, it is extremely unlikely that the culprits will have any direct link to the Kremlin. If, hypothetically speaking, Putin ordered this hit (and others), he would have used "cut-outs". That is to say, he would have relayed the order through a succession of people "A orders B orders C orders D, etc", which would make it very difficult to trace back. It may be that the putative assassins have already fled the UK, as did the confirmed killers of Alexander Litvinienko. That being the case, they will never stand trial here, or in Russia. No wonder opponents of Putin living in the UK are nervous.
So - do I believe the UK government have made a good case against Russia over the Salisbury poisoning? Er, no. But - do I think the Russian secret service smart enough to plan and execute a hit without leaving evidence of involvement? Yes. Do I have evidence of this that relates to the Salisbury chemical attack? Er, well, no.
Like Dusty sang: nothing has been proved.

Anna Politkovskaya

Easter, Labour Anti-Semitism and the PPL

Easter Sunday, when Christians celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus, seems a good time to discuss the issue of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and the coming actions of the PPL (pro-Palestinian Lobby - my invented term), following the latest killing of unarmed Palestinians by Israeli Defence Forces.
It could be argued that anti-Semitism is 2018 years old, if we take the Bible literally. According to the Gospel of Matthew, 27:25, Pontius Pilate released a convicted thief, Barabbas, to placate an angry Jewish crowd. Pilate had declared Jesus an innocent man, but, the Bible says:
"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."
This Biblical quote, along with others, was used to justify anti-Semitism in all its ugly forms for hundreds of years. In the 19th Century, Houston Chamberlain (not Nietzsche, as popularly supposed), developed anti-Semitism as a pseudo-scientific theory which inspired Hitler's "racial theories". Modern neo-Nazi "theorists" still include Chamberlain in their booklists.
This potted history of mine is not strictly relevant here, but needs to be borne in mind when considering the "anti-Zionist" position and the fact that anti-Semitism as such does still exist. 
The PPL will soon be organising mass protests against the recent killings of Palestinians. The PPL celebrity line-up, which includes George Galloway and other dubious characters, will be making impassioned speeches via any and every media outlet. They will piously deny being anti-Semitic, chanting the ancient mantra: "anti-Zionism is not the same as Anti-Semitism" (I wish I had ten quid for the number of times I've heard that), and accuse their critics of everything from being accomplices to murder to being agents of Mossad.
I'd like to pick up on the last point here: the PPL members I've talked to cannot endure the slightest criticism and usually overreact. Simply saying something innocuous like "my Mum went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land last year" draws vitriol from the mouth of a hardline PPL member. All of which, I think, points to a sense of insecurity on the part of the so-called "average" PPL member.
For there is no average PPL member. The PPL, as I have said before, contains a wide spectrum of opinion, ranging from people who are genuinely concerned for the Palestinian people to fanatics who oppose the very existence of the state of Israel, across to the neo-Nazis (the rest of the PPL don't like talking about them) who want to continue where Hitler left off. This can lead to confused reactions when you question PPL supporters. Here are three gems I have gathered, after conversations with PPL believers.
1. "I like Jews, but not Israelis".
The idiocy of this is obvious; most Israelis ARE Jews.
2. "Zionists control the US media".
This questionable belief could have been said by a neo-Nazi - even without changing "Zionists" to "Jews".
3. "Holocaust denial is wrong, but it's all right if the Palestinians do it, because they're being oppressed by Israel".
This fatuous statement is so ridiculous as to need no further comment.
But - do I believe that the PPL section of the Labour Party are anti-Semites, along with Jeremy Corbyn? Well, no, although I have no doubt that some are. Fascist infiltration of Labour has happened before, the most famous case being that of  British Movement member Peter Marriner, back in the 70s. And there is electoral opportunism to consider. As Baroness Deech has said: 
"Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community".
To his credit, Jeremy Corbyn has said that more needs to be done on this issue. I wonder how Hamas and Hezbollah supporters of the PPL in the UK, who have marched with Corbyn on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, will react to that.

The committed PPL members in Labour's ranks will continue acting as a pressure group for their cause, whatever initiatives Corbyn may devise, and I think that this calls for a deeper analysis of the Left's antipathy to Israel. This antipathy is peculiar to Israel, as there were no protests from Labour PPL supporters  against Russia's campaign in Chechnya, Assad's crimes against his people in Syria and no sympathetic vigils for the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians, when persecuted by ISIS.
So what's the real beef of the far Left and the PPL when it comes to Israel? Well, I do not think that it is exclusively anti-Semitism (although anti-Semitism is certainly present among this section of the Left).Rather, I believe it to be anti-Western in motivation. Occasionally, the mask slips on this issue. I have seen Israel labelled in a PPL leaflet as "the West's attack dog". Now, that explains a lot, if it is a widely held belief among the PPL. In future, I believe that we should ask: who seeks to benefit if the West's attack dog is neutered or destroyed? I have answers already...
Happy Easter, everyone!