wasted lives: the last deaths in World War 1

The so-called Great War has an awful fascination for me. Yes, so many men responded heroically under inhuman conditions. But many of these conditions were created by (in Sting's phrase) "corpulent generals, safe behind lines", who gave orders that brutally disregarded the lives of the men who served under them, and were often made regardless of the actual conditions, but based more on tradition and limited understanding of modern warfare.

And so Gallipoli, Passchendaele, the Somme and many other names have become part of our history and folklore, and testimony to military and political folly as well as human resilience and bravery, as millions died for no real gain.

That much I already knew. But I only learned of the even greater folly of the last days of the war in a recent BBC documentary, The Last Day of World War One.

The Allies and the Germans had been negotiating a cease-fire, virtually a German surrender, for several days. On the morning of the 11th November, 1918, between 5:00 and 6:00 am, the cease-fire was signed by both parties, to come into effect at 11:00 am - presumably to allow time for all field units to be notified. The generals knew about the imminent cease-fire hours beforehand.

Most field commanders stood their troops down, resting until the cease-fire, when they could safely leave their trenches. But, inexplicably, in a war characterised by enormous loss of life for very little gain in ground, some generals ordered their men to continue fighting, with continued loss of life. Incredibly, a total of 11,000 casualties (killed, wounded or missing) were sustained on Armistice Day, more than the casualties on D-Day in WW2.

Some of the stories are poignant, most show disregard for human life, all induce anger and grief.

• The last British soldier to die was Private George Ellison, aged 40, who had survived more than 4 years of trench warfare, artillery bombardments, gas attacks, tanks, machine guns and snipers that had killed more than a million of his fellow Britishers, only to miss out on returning to his waiting wife and child by less than ninety minutes.
• The last French soldier to die was Augustin Trebuchon, a runner bringing the message of the cease-fire to troops on the front line, just 15 minutes before it took effect.
• Canadian Private George Lawrence Price was still fighting, needlessly chasing German soldiers from houses that they would be vacating after the cease-fire, and was shot with just 2 minutes of the remaining. (It may be that Price's death was the result, not of orders, but of reckless action by his patrol.)
• And US soldier Henry Gunther participated in a charge on entrenched German positions. The Germans, knowing the cease-fire was imminent, waved the charging soldiers back, but they kept coming, and Gunther was shot just 1 minute before the end.
• It appears that the last German soldier to die was shot after the armistice came into effect. Leutnant Tomas approached US soldiers after 11:00 to arrange the evacuation of his troops, but was shot because the US soldiers had not been informed of the cease-fire.

After the war, the reckless disregard of some US generals for the lives of their men was questioned:

• General Wright's troops were exhausted and dirty, and hearing there were bathing facilities available in the nearby town of Stenay, he decided to take the town so his men could refresh themselves (a few hours earlier than could have occurred after the cease-fire). That "lunatic decision" cost something like 300 casualties.
• Maj Gen Sumerall sent his troops out on one last attack across the Meuse River with these words: "I don’t expect to see any of you again, but that doesn’t matter. You have the honor of a definitive success–give yourself to that."
• General Pershing, the US commander, thought the Allies should have pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, to utterly defeat them, believing the Armistice would only pave the way for further conflict in the future as the Germans would not believe they were defeated. History suggests that it was the ignominy of the defeat that led in part to World war 2, suggesting Pershing's bellicose judgment was in error. But, ironically, one of the German soldiers who survived the war but may have been killed if Pershing had his way, was Corporal Adolf Hitler. Pershing was later questioned by a US Government committee about his decision to keep fighting right up to the Armistice, and he defended it on the grounds that he did not trust the Germans to surrender. (One would have thought that he could have waited to see, and dealt with that situation if it occurred.)

And so the terrible "war to end all wars" claimed its last unnecessary lives, truly a monument to human folly.

Private George Ellison, RIP. Photo: robk blog

infidelity lures

".... everyone loves a tale of extramarital activities." So says Julia Llewellyn Smith in an article in last weekend's Sydney Morning Herald, taken from an article in the London Telegraph. She continues: "Titillated by its trappings of sex, deception and risk, we can be so entertained that we ignore the suffering of those involved."

The immediate catalyst for these comments was an affair involving chef Gordon Ramsay that has apparently become public recently. But the article went on to examine how affairs were easier these days, with discrete online access to chat rooms and escort service, and emails to make clandestine liaisons. And, experts are quoted as claiming, it is wealth that provides the trigger. Some men under pressure at work, and providing everything financially for their families, apparently feel that a "little fling" on the side is quite justified. There are even introduction agencies for people looking to have an affair with another married but romance-starved person.

Yet, the experts say, and not surprisingly, affairs are hurtful: "I cannot tell you just how much pain they cause" says a marital therapist. The pain is not just from finding out one's partner has been unfaithful, but the increasing anxiety some husbands and wives feel about any behaviour of their partner that could be seen as suspicious.

A person's ethics are shown not so much in their public behaviour, but in what they do and value in their privacy. With increasing opportunities for discreet infidelity, are we showing our true colours?

growing up too young

Paul Sheehan had an interesting article, titled We live in a sexual twilight zone, in last weekend's Sydney Morning Herald. He starts from considering two current films, Towelhead and Candy Girl, which have themes of sexuality in young teenage girls and young women, and Bill Henson's photos of naked pre-teen girls which caused a furore in Australia recently (Sheehan defends Henson).

He quotes sources indicating a high level of sexual interest and fantasies in young women and even young teens. For example, one Australian study shows that almost all children had seen internet porn by the age of 15, and for most of them it was their primary source of information on sex. A third of 13 year old girls have had sexual experience. (However the study was small and almost certainly not representative.)

He doesn't blame the internet, but considers "it may have created a more accurate mirror of who we collectively are as a society, in conflict with the laws and conventions we have constructed." That's a scary thought. And he concludes with this sobering idea:

"Frankly, it is our culture saturated with debt, consumerism, two-income families, one-parent households and a coarsening public domain that has done more to truncate the innocence of youth than random perverts, a reality we have barely begun to acknowledge."

teach your children well

In Australia, children generally live longer than their parents, because medical science is improving all the time and prolonging our lives. But now many people are saying (it has almost become a cliche) that the current generation of children will likely be the first not to outlive their parents.

A recent report from the government-run Australian Temperament Project outlines some good and bad news about the generation now in their twenties. The study has tracked 2,400 children from birth to their mid twenties and has recently found that 80% of them appear to be doing well - generally studying or working, and often in committed relationships.

However 40% were showing signs of problems such as depression (16%), anxiety (16%), antisocial behaviour (10%) and/or illicit substance abuse (about 15%), with some having multiple problems. Since the late teens, depression and anxiety have declined but substance abuse has increased.

About 20% drink alcohol in unhealthy amounts, and 7% are considered to be "risky" drivers. Of interest is the fact that risky drivers can be detected from mid-childhood, and risky driving is commonly associated with anti-social behaviour, substance abuse and difficulties at school.

Earlier data from the study shows that most parents and teenagers relate well, although only about half communicate well. However it seems that the teens who didn't relate well with their parents are much more likely to be at risk in late teens and mid twenties.

Obesity is a growing problem among Australia's children. Australia has been found to be the fattest country on earth, with our obesity levels now surpassing those of the US. A quarter of children are classified as "overweight" with children from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds most likely to be obese. And the rates are rising fast.

According to Prof Fiona Stanley, we're eating more and moving less, leading to weight gain and associated health problems such as type 2 diabetes, which in turn can lead to depression and (ironically) eating disorders. She advocates research to gain a better understanding of vulnerable populations, and innovative solutions that go beyond telling people to eat less - perhaps teaching parents quick and cheap alternatives to fast food, and provision of more playgrounds and open space.

It seems that the quality of parenting and the level of social disadvantage of the family are major causes of the problems being experienced by both children and young adults, but changing this may require the rest of us to accept that more taxes need to be spent in these areas to address potential problems before they appear.

another "ism" bites the dust?

I grew up in the time of the cold war. Communism was the big enemy, and ranged against it were the forces of freedom, principally the US. Then down came the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, and most of the Communist countries embraced democracy and Capitalism. The world was suddenly a better, freer and safer place.

Many western governments shifted a little to the right - George W Bush in the US, John Howard in Australia. Leftist governments and parties, such as Labor in the UK, seemed to shift to the safe middle ground - instead of reform there was fiscal responsibility.

Market forces were even considered the most effective means to solve many environmental issues. Capitalism was undisputed king, and the market was considered to be effectively self-regulating.

But the unfolding financial mess in the US, and gradually enveloping the world, has begun to change that perception. Suddenly people are saying that the market may self-regulate in the long term, but in the short term many people will get burned, and some corporate leaders will make a killing even as they retire in disgrace.

Suddenly even some world leaders are saying that the unbridled capitalism of the US has been the culprit, and more regulation and transparency is required in the future. They say the world will not be the same again, and the US will lose its pre-eminent position in the world economy.

Perhaps, merely two decades after the demise of Communism, we are witnessing the effective demise of unbridled free market Capitalism, in favour of some more moderate and more moderated "ism"?

people starve because of our greed

Photo: Morguefile

I don't really know any way to soften this. People are starving because of the greed of western countries. Consider these facts:

• Over the last few decades, the developed world, through agencies like the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, loaned money to poorer countries for development, but with strict conditions. This "aid" tended to lead to farmers changing from subsistence crops to cash crops. It was said to more efficient, but some say it led to the farmers being dependent, and at the mercy of, big multinational corporations, and less protected by their Governments.
• Sometimes the cash crops led to increased prosperity, but sometimes the vagaries of world markets led to profits being much less than envisaged. For instance, two decades ago, many farmers moved into high value coffee production only to see an oversupply and consequent drop in value.
• Cash farming is based on the capitalist aim of maximising profit, so now that the world's supply of petrol is struggling to meet demand, production of biofuel is reducing the production of food. This is pushing up the price of food, sometimes beyond the ability of the poor to pay. 73 million people depend on food handouts from the UN to survive.
• Ironically, capitalist farming and food distribution depend heavily on fuel for farm machinery and transport (cash farming tends to result in food being brought in from other areas). It has been estimated that it takes about 8 litres of petrol to produce a kilo of grain-fed meat - thus feeding a family of four in the US on meat requires about half the amount of petrol as that used by the family car.
• Further, it takes a large amount of grain to produce a small amount of grain-fed meat (I have seen figures from 8 to 16 times). And it requires about 200 litres of water to produce a megajoule of most fruit and vegetables, but 2,500 litres of water to produce a megajoule of beef (CSIRO). Modern western meat production is highly inefficient at a time of impending food and water shortage.
• A billion people in the world live in poverty while another billion are overweight. The richest 10% consume about 10 times the food that the poorest 10% consume. (SMH).
• In summary, the western world's greed for petrol, rich foods and a high standard of living is not just an unfair distribution of wealth, but is a direct cause of food shortages and high food prices which leave poor people hungry.
  

So what of the future?

The world's population growth is slowing, but so is the world's food production. The pressure on the world's food supply will not come so much from the increasing population, because the highest population growth is generally in the poorer, low consuming countries (SMH). Rather, the pressure will come from the western countries maintaining their high consumption lifestyles as resources get tighter, and from developing countries raising the standard of living and becoming as greedy as the west.

But there are things we can do. I'll look at them in another blog.

perfumes, organic chemicals and other nasties

When they decided to replace the carpet in our office a few years ago, we had no idea how much of an effect it would have. I am not normally affected by chemicals, but the solvents in the adhesives (I think) gave me headaches and a heavy head for days, and stank to high heaven for weeks and weeks. One of my colleagues was pregnant, and we all wondered what the chemicals might be doing to the baby, but he was OK.

We who live in so-called advanced western societies seem to be increasingly affected by chemicals - not just the well known asthma or allergies to pollens, but all sorts of odd and debilitating sensitivities to chemicals like volatile organic compounds, solvents, adhesives, petrol, perfumes and deodorisers, and food additives. Some say as many as 15% of the population have adverse health impacts from these chemicals.

Those affected can have their lives seriously curtailed, and sometimes made a real misery. Here are some effects I have observed in others:

• re-carpeting an office (not the one mentioned above) left a worker so sensitised that several years later they were still unable to visit that office for very long;
• application of a sealant to a concrete driveway left a neighbour with a bedroom window close to the drive unable to sleep in the bedroom for four months;
• chemicals used in modern car interiors make it impossible for some people to travel in them without being adversely affected;
• use of chemical air fresheners in motels and hotels make them hazardous for some visitors;
• some washing powders and fabric softeners are perfumed, causing significant irritation and inability to sleep, for some;
• perfumes and after-shaves can cause some people to react, and have to move out of the room.

Medical science so far understands little about these sensitivities, and "cures" are a long way off. Those of us who are not affected need to become more aware of these problems and more sensitive to the distress of others. And it is easy to help:

• Do you really have to wear after-shave and perfume? Could you at least wear less, and choose a less perfumed brand?
• It is easy to find "green" and non-allergenic washing powders.
• If smokers don't smoke in confined spaces such as motel rooms, managers have less need to use chemical air fresheners.
• It would be wonderful if the manufacturing and building industries could develop and use less intrusive and unhealthy solvents, adhesives and chemicals generally.

Read more about Fragrances and Chemical Sensitivities, Allergies to Perfumes (people's stories) and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. Anyone have their own story to tell?

we didn't really want to win this one

Australians are very competitive when it comes to sport, and most other things. But here's one world championship we didn't want.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australia now has an estimated 26% of its adult population classed as obese, the highest rate in the world, and 1% more than the USA.

Oh the shame of it!

More seriously, the overweight epidemic is expected to cost money in increased hospital admissions for treatment for strokes and heart attacks and surgery for overloaded knees, with consequent increases in the mortality rates.

car dependence

I'm writing this from Houston, Texas. I've only been here for two days so far, but first impressions are that the land is flat, the weather is hot - and the city is highly dependent on the car. There is very little public transport outside the city centre, the suburbs are well spread out, and getting anywhere from where we are staying in the suburbs requires a car. You see few pedestrians in the suburbs.

I don't travel overseas all that much, but last year I spent a week in the east end of London, where the population density is high, there were crowds of pedestrians, public transport has its problems but can get you anywhere pretty quickly, and there is a tax to deter cars from entering the inner city.

So I thought I'd check out how London and Houston compare to Sydney in term of car usage and population density. The classic graph for this is shown by Wikipedia:

I was pleased to see that all three cities appeared on the graph, and my observations confirmed. Houston has the lowest population density of the cities shown and by far the highest petrol consumption. It is an oil city, but you can't help feeling it will suffer the most when the oil prices rise even higher, and eventually the oil runs out. Reduced private transport will be inconvenient in London, but will make life very difficult in Sydney and almost impossible in Houston.

We need to be planning cities differently, I reckon.

get your priorities right!

Wearing of seatbelts is compulsory for all passengers in a car in Australia.

Recently, it was reported a man was arrested for driving with a 5 year old child not belted in. However he had put a 30-pack of beer next to the child in a belt.

aiding and a-betting

Photo: Flickr

Some of Sydney's poorer families are spending huge proportions of their disposable income on gambling, a new report reveals.

In Fairfield in Sydney's southwest, the average annual household income in 2006 was $47,500. Of this, about $3,180 (6.7%) was considered to be "disposable" (i.e. available after necessities like food, rent, clothing, etc, were paid for). And of this, a huge 78% or $2,484 was spent on poker machines. I'm guessing some of the remaining was spent on other forms of gambling, such as lotteries, off-course horse race betting, etc.

Other suburbs had lower levels of gambling (30-50% of disposable incomes), though this may not indicate lower expenditure on pokies, but higher disposable incomes.

Almost a decade ago, annual expenditure on gambling was estimated at about $14bn, or $1000 per adult, and total stakes were about $100bn. Significant social problems, including compulsive and excessive gambling, depression and suicide, significant involvement of organised crime, and corruption of police and government, have been identified by Government inquiries.

So it is all big business. Little wonder that the two current operators of poker machines feel the heat when just one Australian state (Victoria) plans to open the market up to other companies and apply new forms of regulation to the gambling industry.

At present, all state, territory and the Commonwealth Governments are controlled by the Australian Labor Party, which supposedly represents the interests of "ordinary working families". Yet these same families are the hardest hit by the slow increase in gambling outlets, and the rich owners are the main beneficiaries. Governments gain enormous revenues from taxes on gambling.

I don't think many people seriously suggest restricting gambling opportunities to any great extent, but the whole thing still looks like it benefits the rich and the politicians more than the people. One can't help feeling there must be a better way to supply this service.

the high cost of pleasure

A report just released shows that alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use cost Australia $56bn in 2004/5, up more than 50% in 6 years. That's almost $3,000 for every Australian. Tobacco accounts for more than half of the costs.

The costs come from illness, premature deaths, lost productivity, crime and accidents.

Read the sorry story in the Sydney Morning Herald and news.com.au.

the good, the bad and the ugly

Religion can bring out the best, and unfortunately the worst, in people ....

the good

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on Catherine Hamlin and her late husband Reg, both doctors, who have given the entire working lives helping women in Ethiopia who suffer from terrible birth injuries.

Often giving birth at a very young age, and in unhealthy conditions without medical help, these girls suffer from incontinence caused by the injuries (fistulas), which makes them socially ostracised. The Hamlins performed thousands of operation to restore good health since they went to Africa in the 1960s.

Several Fistula hospitals have been built, and Catherine, now 84, is leading a campaign to train and send out Ethiopian midwives to villages all over the country. The couple's motivation came from the words of Jesus: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Catherine says: "I do believe this is a God-given job".

the bad

The same issue of the SMH reported on a christian school in Australia which has been accused of defrauding the Government of $2M by falsifying enrolments to attract greater subsidies.

I won't give any further details because I don't want to be a gossip, and because the matter has not been resolved legally, but reportedly the principal has been sacked and the school closed.

These things just shouldn't happen. We christians need to learn that the ends never justify bad means, and that if we trust God, we should never need to cut corners.

the ugly

Christians face persecution from other religions in many places over the world:

• In Sri Lanka, a Christian pastor was shot dead in February, and since then a "wave" of attacks, including burning a church down, attacks by armed mobs, stony and threats, have been made against Christians.
• Violence against Christians in India is increasing, according to a UN representative; in many cases police are complicit or turning a blind eye. Hindu extremists have reacted in recent years to the conversion of former Hindus to Christianity - efforts to free the low Dalit caste from oppression have been particularly effective and resented.
• In Palestine, itself suffering in the ongoing "war" between Islamic militants and Israel, Christians have been murdered abused and intimidated, leading to an exodus of Christians from the country.
• Christians in Iran face imprisonment, harassment and discrimination in Iran, despite being guaranteed religious freedom in law.
• A recent court ruling in Malaysia that a woman did not have the right to convert from Islam to another religion has alarmed religious minorities in that country.

We in the west need to be careful about being too judgmental about these problems - after all similar acts are in our heritage. Humility and tolerance all round would be a start!

Sources for information include Christian Solidarity Worldwide, International Christian Concern, United Nations and Amnesty International.

tv and bad choices

Photo: Flickr

Another study on the impacts of TV on children, another adverse report .....

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on a New Zealand study that found that watching more than 2 hours television per day during the pre-teen years had adverse effects during adolescence, with greater impacts if the child watched more than 3 hours. Some of the impacts:

• a significant increase in attention problems;
• more excessive TV watching;
• reduced interest in school work, perhaps because TV overstimulates and makes more mundane activities such as homework seem boring in comparison.

We know we need to encourage our children's development by spending time with them, and building all manner of good things into their lives and characters. But somehow, our busy lives, often made busier by wanting so many material things and having to work so much more to afford them, leads to us using TV as a substitute.

This is another example where what we commonly choose, or are conditioned by advertising to choose, is not in our best interests - how we so often choose the convenient and superficially attractive over the good. I think I'll make this a theme, which I'll return to a few more times.

Read more from the SMH article.