Sometimes a slight is delivered purposefully and deliberately. But sometimes, more often perhaps, hurt feelings are the by-product of good intentions. Such a set of misunderstandings risks leading us into dangerous and disrespectful territory on the question of commemorating the first world war. The war is remembered largely as a tragedy rather than a victory. While the second world war has the benefit of central casting baddies—with skull and crossbones insignia and genocidal impulses—the first world war is the story of a family needlessly torn apart.
It is this narrative, in part, that has created the possibility that, as we remember the centenary of the war’s first shots, we will officially commemorate the dead of both sides. This move, reported in the Sunday Times, is endorsed by Andrew Murrison, the government’s special representative for centenary events, and is supported by the Canadian government, amongst others. It would mean the names of Germans being projected alongside the dead of England and the Commonwealth as part of a special remembrance installation.
The logic behind this measure is that the commemoration of war dead is simply an act of mourning for the loss of life. We gather around the Cenotaph, so the thinking runs, in order to remember the dead and to express our sorrow at the horrors of war. That makes it natural to include our one-time enemies when we pay our respects. But this does not really make sense. If we are just remembering lives lost then why do we commemorate lives lost to war? Why doesn’t the Queen lay a wreath once a year at a memorial to the Spanish flu epidemic? Or, if this is about the role of human…