Armistice Day on November 11 1918 marked the ending of a war which lasted four years and in which eleven million soldiers died. Those who fought were led in many cases by a sense of national honour and religious duty. Moral ideals also help to sustain the war in the Middle East which has had a devastating human effect with four million refugees from Syria alone.
There is a dissonance between the reality of modern war and the high ideals by which war is justified. These ideals form a deadly combination with the advanced technology of high explosive bombs and automatic weapons resulting in massive destruction of cities and towns and mass killing on both sides.
The governments in World War 1 found the church a welcome and willing support. It made sacred both duty to one's country and sacrifice of lives. A life given in war was even compared with Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Grieving families were given the assurance that their sons and husbands had died for a greater cause. They had fought and died for the freedom of mankind. Their blood was later to be claimed as the foundation of their nations.
Looking to the future, the ennobling of war prevents us from learning from our mistakes. It obstructs the normal process of independent enquiry which takes place after any other significant loss of life. But is sanctification of duty and sacrifice for one's country, understandable though it may be, adequate as a remembrance of the war dead?
There is an appropriate mourning which is based both on the reality of the situation, the sharing of grief and the all-encompassing love of God. But there is another debt that is owed to those who died in war. It is a determination on the part of the mourners and indeed of society itself to seek the truth about what happened in order that the same tragedy may not occur again.
It is believed that society has a duty to look not only at the causes of these deaths but how the situation and attitudes which lie behind these events may be changed. The recognition of heroism is good but vitiated if it is associated with glorying in war. If we recognise what others have suffered, both friend and foe, we grasp the greater vision of our common humanity which gives renewed hope for the future.
In the 150th commemoration of the New Zealand Wars, especially the battles of Rangiriri, Orakau and Gate Pa, both Maori and Pakeha came together to mourn those who died. The Government of Turkey whose war dead outnumbered the Allied dead has set aside the site of Gallipoli as an International Peace Park. The dead of both sides lie together in the same soil. It is hoped that through shared commemoration and a mutual recognition that there have been mistakes in the past this place of war may become a place of healing of the enmity between the nations which led to these tragic and unnecessary deaths.
How long, may we ask, will the otherwise commendable ideals of national honour and religious duty continue to justify the killing of our fellow human beings?
A study day on War Remembrance and Reconciliation will be held at the War Memorial Museum Auditorium on Saturday November 6 from 9 am.
Chris Barfoot is a former company director, member of Aotearoa New Zealand Peace and Conflict Studies Centre Trust and of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship.
