There have been quite a number of ceremonies in recent years honouring historic battles and the like from the twentieth century. Just last weekend Canadians "celebrated" the ninetieth anniversary of their participation in the slaughter of Vimy Ridge during World War One (why if they've waited this long they couldn't hold out for another ten years for the centenary I don't know) with the opening of a new memorial in France at the site of the battle.
Of course the Canadian Prime Minister, Steven Harper, couldn't pass up the opportunity to link Canada's presence at Vimy with the Canadian troops being killed in Afghanistan today. Not that he said anything remotely resembling the truth; ninety years later and we still haven't learned anything, our soldiers are still dying in someone else's war.
No he hauled out the usual platitudes about paying the ultimate price, making the supreme sacrifice, and dying for your freedom. Nobody has bothered to explain how a Canadian soldier getting blown up on either Vimy Ridge in France in 1917 or some outback near Kandahar in Afghanistan guaranteed or is guaranteeing my freedom.
Hell, the men who are dying in Afghanistan aren't even ensuring the freedom of the people who live in that country, so I don't know how anybody can claim they're doing anything for me. But that's what politicians do, they try and make use of symbols to generate emotional responses in people so they don't think about the illogic of what is being said and question things being done in their name.
But amidst all the hoopla surrounding Vimy this year, the invasion of Normandy during World War Two three years ago, and every November 11th commemorating the end of World War One, an anniversary of import has managed to slip by most politicians. This April 26th will mark the 70th anniversary of the bombing of the Spanish village of Guernica by German bombers supporting the fascist rebellion in Spain led Francisco Franco.
The bombing raid has the distinction of being the first full scale attack on a strictly civilian target during a war. While Mussolini had used some air power in his ugly conquest of Ethiopia the year earlier and others have tried to lay claim latterly to being the first civilian targets hit by bombs, the attack on Guernica still holds the dubious distinction of being the first ever deliberate targeting of civilians by the military.
Article comments
1 - Rick Calhoun
I have seen some idiotic stuff on the internet, but this takes the cake.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Richard,
While I sympathize with your efforts here, I have to point out that military conflicts had been going in the direction of total war waged on civilians and soldiers since the time of Napoleon, and that the campaign fought in Spain against the French puppet king in the early 1800's had all the brutality of the attack on Guernica in 1937, 130 years later. In fact the word, guerrilla entered the English language because of this war.
In addition, I would ask you to consider General William Sherman's campaign in Georgia in 1864 - with its clear goal of "making Georgia howl." Had Union armies access to aircraft in 1864, the campaign waged in Georgia by General Sherman would have made Guernica look like a picnic.
G'mar Hatima Tova,
Reuven
3 - Dr Dreadful
Civilian casualties have always been a part of warfare as collateral damage. In the Middle Ages it was accepted practice for the winning side in a battle to attack, loot and sack the nearest town.
The significant thing about Guernica, and the reason why it set a historical precedent, is that Franco and the Germans attacked the town in full knowledge that there was little to no military presence there. It was simply an opportunity for the Luftwaffe to get in some target practice in preparation for the larger war to come.
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"The significant thing about Guernica, and the reason why it set a historical precedent, is that Franco and the Germans attacked the town in full knowledge that there was little to no military presence there. It was simply an opportunity for the Luftwaffe to get in some target practice in preparation for the larger war to come."
That, DD is precisely the point.
The guerrilla war in Spain (the Peninsula War against Napoleon's brother, the Spanish king) took loads of civilian casualties because the civilians themselves were divided in loyalty and each side murdered off people like they were nothing but passenger pigeons.
The 1864 campaign by General "War is hell" Sherman was aimed at the civilians living in Georgia, not the weak Confederate force defending the state. Had Sherman the ordnance that was available to the Fascists and Nazis, or had he the aircraft, the civilian casualties would have been much higher.
The Germans watched carefully what had happened during the American Civil War and took careful note. Some of the "lessons" learned were applied at Guernica.
5 - bliffle
One would be well advised to read Ambrose Bierce' "Tales of Soldiers and Civilians" to get some idea of the horror of the USA civil war.
6 - Clavos
Or take a really good look at Matthew Brady's photos.