Mein Großvater starb 1945 an einer Gasverletzung der Lungen, welche er sich im ersten Weltkrieg zugezogen hatte.
Mein Vater war so lange ich ihn kannte krank, von einem Bauchschuss, den er sich im zweiten Weltkrieg zugezogen hatte.
Die Stadt Pforzheim, in deren Umgebung ich wohne, wurde von der britischen Luftflotte am 23. Februar 1945 abgefackelt, mit einer Tötungsrate höhrer als nach den Atombombenabwürfen in Japan.
Ich begreife nicht, was es an einem Krieg zu feiern gibt.
Wenn ich den ersten und den zweiten Weltkrieg betrachte, so frage ich mich, wie man Sieg definieren soll. Gut Amerika und Russland haben eindeutig den 2. Weltkrieg gewonnen. Aber England und Frankreich?
Amerika, Italien und Japan haben ohne Zweifel den ersten Weltkrieg gewonnen. Aber England, Frankreich und Russland? Und selbst, wenn man bescheinigt, dass der russische Staat den zweiten Weltkrieg gewonnen hat, hat ihn auch das russische Volk gewonnen?
Amerika hat ohne Zweifel den Kalten Krieg gewonnen. Aber hat es auch die Nachkriegszeit gewonnen? Wie lange wird die amerikanische Hegemonie der Welt noch andauern?
Deutschland hat beide Weltkriege verloren! Also gibt es da nichts zu feiern und nichts zu erinnern! Es ist keine Schande, gegen drei Weltmächte anzutreten und dann zu verlieren. Es ist nur so unendlich nutzlos. Die Dummheit der deutschen politischen Klasse ist kaum zu übertreffen, höchstens vielleicht von der Dummheit der französischen politischen Klasse. Ja, die Niederlage 1871 hat den französischen Nationalstolz verletzt. Aber war die Wiedergewinnung von Elsaß-Lothringen, einem kleinen randständigen Landstreifen mit überwiegend deutsch-sprechender Bevölkerung den Tod und die Verstümmelung von Millionen französischer Soldaten und die Verwüstung großer Landesteile wert. Hätte nicht eine Versöhnungspolitik mit dem Reich sowohl für die Elsässer als auch für die Franzosen größeren Nutzen gestiftet. Wäre es nicht auch möglich gewesen, mit dem Reich eine Entente cordiale zu bilden und die Deutschen von dem Horror eines Zweifrontenkrieges zu entlasten.
Seit dem 15. Jahrhundert, besonders aber seit dem 30.Jährigen Krieg war doch das Alte Reich der Tummelplatz französischer Truppen und dann Napoleon sein Totengräber. Es gibt in Baden-Württemberg kaum einen Ort, eine Stadt, die nicht mindestens einmal von französischen Truppen abgefackelt wurde. Die sogenannte Erzfeindschaft wurde von Frankreich begonnen. Man denke an die Raubkriege des 14. Louis. Sollte man da nicht eine Niederlage verschmerzen und eine positive Zukunft planen. Hat man denn keine Lehren aus dem siebenjährigen Krieg gezogen, als Frankreich unter dem 15. Louis sich einer Koalition gegen Preussen anschloss, das mit England verbündet war, und dann sein gesamtes Kolonialreich an England verlor. Was hatte sich Frankreich in die Streitigkeiten zwischen Preussen und Habsburg einzumischen?
Warum musste Frankreich nach 1923 das Ruhrgebiet besetzen? Erst 1929 zogen die letzten Truppen ab. Die deutsche Republik war am Ende und 1933 kam dann Hitler an die Macht. Welch instinktlose französische Politik. Und die Befreiung von den Deutschen 1944, was war das denn? Haben die Befreier nicht viele französische Frauen vergewaltigt, französische Städte zerstört? Das war eine tolle Befreiung! Herzlichen Glückwunsch! Anschließend ging dann das französische Kolonialreich flöten, unter teilweise erbärmlichen Umständen, wie z.B. in Algerien, wo kein Unterschied zwischen der nationalsozialistischen und der französischen Besatzungspolitik zu erkennen war.
Und jetzt meinen die alten Kolonialmächte des Beginns des ersten Weltkrieges gedenken zu müssen. Und dann erwarten diese "Sieger", die Verlierer mögen sich noch dazu gesellen.
Das erinnert mich doch gleich an die römischen Triumphzüge, bei denen die Verlierer auch teilnehmen durften, um dann in den Kerkern erwürgt zu werden, oder den Arenen zu sterben.
Soll diese Teilnahme, dem sinnlosen Sterben in zwei sinnlosen Kriegen noch die Gloriole des "gerechten Krieges" geben, die Absolution durch den Besiegten, der damit eingesteht, zu recht besiegt worden zu sein. Wie Winkler seine Deutsche Geschichte untertitelt mit : Der lange Weg nach Westen. Winkler, dieser BRD-Hofsänger, nach dem Deutschland vergehen musste, damit Europa lebe und Restdeutschland im Westen ankomme. Und das kastrierte Deutschland (die BRD) trägt dann den heldenhaften Siegermächten, den Lorbeer hinterher.
Der erste Weltkrieg wurde nicht für die Freiheit und die Demokratie geführt, denn er dritte Alliierte war das zaristische Russland, dem Frankreich zu gestand, im Falle des Sieges, seine Westgrenze nach eigenem Gutdünken festzulegen. Und die beiden Westalliierten waren rassistische Unterdrücker, Imperialisten reinsten Wassers und ein Großteil der eingesetzen Soldaten hatten nicht einmal das Wahlrecht. Man mag das deutsche Kaiserreich unter diesem kaiserlichen Gockel mit diesem schnarrenden preußischen Militarismus nicht sympathisch finden, die Alliierten waren es noch weniger. Angenommen Deutschland hätte Habsburg nicht den Rücken gestärkt, Habsburg wäre einfach kollabiert und russische Truppen hätten Konstantinopel und den ganzen Balkan eingenommen. Wo wäre dann das europäische Gleichgewicht geblieben. Hätten England und Frankreich den Krimkrieg noch einmal geführt? Und wenn die russische Revolution auf das besiegte Deutschland übergegriffen hätte, sich die beiden kommunistischen Regimes verbrüdert hätten und dann deutsch-russische Revolutionstruppen am Rhein gestanden wären. Wo wäre das europäische Gleichgewicht geblieben. Hätte Frankreich diesen Truppen stand gehalten?
Und hat der zweite Weltkrieg ein europäisches Gleichgewicht geschaffen? War, mit dem stalinistischen Russland im Boot, der zweite Weltkrieg ein Kampf für Demokratie? Hat der zweite Weltkrieg dem Ostblock Demokratie gebracht? Hat der zweite Weltkrieg der Welt Demokratie gebracht? Hat der Friede von Versailles den Frieden gebracht? Was es Friede, was aus dem Sieg der Alliierten nach 1945 entstand? Der Krieg gegen die Deutschen endete nicht 1945! Der Krieg gegen die deutsche Zivilbevölkerung im Osten begann 1945 und zog sich bis 1949 hin. Noch 1949 wurden deutsche Kriegsgefangene in Jugoslavien erschossen! Welch ein Friede! Nur durch die Drohung atomarer Auslöschung konnte verhindert werden, dass die sowjetischen (=russischen) Truppen nach 1945 ganz Europa überrennen. Die Engländer und Amerikaner fanden einfach die russischen Nationalsozialisten unter ihrem Führer Stalin sympathischer als die deutschen Nationalsozialisten unter ihrem Führer Hitler. Und darum müssen ja die deutschen Nationalsozialisten für alle Zeiten als viel schlimmere Ungeheuer dargestellt werden, als die russischen, weil sonst nämlich der Krieg der Westalliierten als total sinnlos dastehen würde, was er aber tatsächlich war. Obwohl, nicht ganz, denn jetzt war England ganz am Ende und Amerika konnte die Erbschaft antreten. Und Amerika konnte in der BRD und in Japan zwei sehr lukrative Protektorate einrichten.
Es gibt in Europa nichts zu gedenken! Die Europäer sollten sich schämen, schämen für soviel Skrupellosigkeit, für so viel Dummheit und Arroganz. Es gibt hier keine glorreiche Vergangenheit zu beschwören. Europa ist ein verfluchter Kontinent, und ständen nicht amerikanische Truppen in Deutschland, ich würde mich vor unseren Nachbarnationen fürchten, deren Deutschenfeindlichkeit nicht weniger alt ist, als der Judenhass.
Freitag, 31. Januar 2014
Samstag, 25. Januar 2014
Warum Frauen kleiner sind als Männer - ARTE
ARTE-TV
Der Film ist sehenswert, weil er viele Aspekte beleuchtet, wie phänotypische Merkmale aus der Wechselwirkung von Genom und Umwelt entstehen.
Nur das Ende des Films ist enttäuschend, weil hier als Erklärung für die unterschiedlichen Körpergrößen von Mann und Frau angeboten wird, dass Frauen von Männern Nahrung und darunter insbesondere Fleisch vorenthalten wird. Dabei will ich nicht bestreiten, dass es durchaus Kulturen und Umstände gibt, bei denen geschlechtsspezifisch ein unterschiedliches Nahrungsangebot herrscht. Da aber für Nahrung in der Regel Frauen zuständig sind, kann das nur bedeuten, dass es in der Regel Frauen sind, die so ein Arrangement am Laufen halten. Auch ist die Erklärung dafür nicht seriös. Es entsteht nämlich der Eindruck der Willkür, also ob Männer willkürlich Frauen ausreichend und vor allem proteinreiche Nahrung vorenthalten und Macht nutzen würden, um diesen ungerechten Zustand aufrecht zu erhalten.
Ich erinnere mich an einen Film, der von einem chinesischen Bauern berichtet, der nur einen einzigen Wasserbüffel besitzt, der ihm aber sehr, sehr wichtig ist. In diesem Fall wichtig, weil es Wasserbüffelkämpfe gibt, und der Sieg eines Büffels bei diesen Kämpfen viel Ehre für den Bauern, seine Familie und seine Sippe bringt. Der Büffel sah sehr gesund, rund und wohlgenährt aus, während der Bauer eher als ein schmächtiges Männlein daher kam. Ich denke, dass der Unterschied in der Wahrnehmung von Büffel und Bauer nicht geringer wäre, hinge das Wohl und Wehe, die Existenz des Bauern von der Kraft und Gesundheit dieses Büffels ab. Es gibt im Schwäbischen einen Witz, der geht etwa so: Wenn das Schwein krank wird, holt man den Tierarzt. Erkrankt ein Familienmitglied heißt es: Stell' Dich nicht so an.
Kränkliche und schwächliche Männer können für eine Familie, einen Stamm, ja ein Volk verheerende Folgen haben. Die Tatsache, dass weltweit Männer größer sind als Frauen, jedenfalls im Schnitt, zeigt, dass dieses Arrangement gegenüber anderen Arrangements Vorteile hat. Auch müssten sich in den entwickelten Gesellschaften mit ihrem großen Nahrungsangebot und der Präferenz weiblicher Kinder jetzt die Unterschiede in der Größe langsam angleichen.
Falsch ist jedenfalls auf Grund unklarer Datenlage eine Ursache zu postulieren, die nur Empörung zwischen den Geschlechtern hervorruft und Unfrieden schafft und bei Frauen den Eindruck erweckt, Opfer einer Verschwörung zu sein.
Der Film ist sehenswert, weil er viele Aspekte beleuchtet, wie phänotypische Merkmale aus der Wechselwirkung von Genom und Umwelt entstehen.
Nur das Ende des Films ist enttäuschend, weil hier als Erklärung für die unterschiedlichen Körpergrößen von Mann und Frau angeboten wird, dass Frauen von Männern Nahrung und darunter insbesondere Fleisch vorenthalten wird. Dabei will ich nicht bestreiten, dass es durchaus Kulturen und Umstände gibt, bei denen geschlechtsspezifisch ein unterschiedliches Nahrungsangebot herrscht. Da aber für Nahrung in der Regel Frauen zuständig sind, kann das nur bedeuten, dass es in der Regel Frauen sind, die so ein Arrangement am Laufen halten. Auch ist die Erklärung dafür nicht seriös. Es entsteht nämlich der Eindruck der Willkür, also ob Männer willkürlich Frauen ausreichend und vor allem proteinreiche Nahrung vorenthalten und Macht nutzen würden, um diesen ungerechten Zustand aufrecht zu erhalten.
Ich erinnere mich an einen Film, der von einem chinesischen Bauern berichtet, der nur einen einzigen Wasserbüffel besitzt, der ihm aber sehr, sehr wichtig ist. In diesem Fall wichtig, weil es Wasserbüffelkämpfe gibt, und der Sieg eines Büffels bei diesen Kämpfen viel Ehre für den Bauern, seine Familie und seine Sippe bringt. Der Büffel sah sehr gesund, rund und wohlgenährt aus, während der Bauer eher als ein schmächtiges Männlein daher kam. Ich denke, dass der Unterschied in der Wahrnehmung von Büffel und Bauer nicht geringer wäre, hinge das Wohl und Wehe, die Existenz des Bauern von der Kraft und Gesundheit dieses Büffels ab. Es gibt im Schwäbischen einen Witz, der geht etwa so: Wenn das Schwein krank wird, holt man den Tierarzt. Erkrankt ein Familienmitglied heißt es: Stell' Dich nicht so an.
Kränkliche und schwächliche Männer können für eine Familie, einen Stamm, ja ein Volk verheerende Folgen haben. Die Tatsache, dass weltweit Männer größer sind als Frauen, jedenfalls im Schnitt, zeigt, dass dieses Arrangement gegenüber anderen Arrangements Vorteile hat. Auch müssten sich in den entwickelten Gesellschaften mit ihrem großen Nahrungsangebot und der Präferenz weiblicher Kinder jetzt die Unterschiede in der Größe langsam angleichen.
Falsch ist jedenfalls auf Grund unklarer Datenlage eine Ursache zu postulieren, die nur Empörung zwischen den Geschlechtern hervorruft und Unfrieden schafft und bei Frauen den Eindruck erweckt, Opfer einer Verschwörung zu sein.
Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2014
Warum ich nicht politisch korrekt bin, dafür aber höflich!
Bismarck, der ja als Erzreaktionär galt, wird der Spruch zugeschrieben: "Müllerchen, wenn wir regieren wird gehenkt, aber höflich, bis zur letzten Galgensprosse."
Er hat dann doch nicht gehenkt, sondern Realpolitik betrieben. Aber er war ein Mann markiger Sprüche. Dass internationale Machtfragen nicht durch Parlamentsbeschlüsse, sondern durch Blut und Eisen geklärt werden, hat ihm viele Feinde gebracht, war aber zu seiner Zeit die Realität. Denn schon immer waren deutsche Parlamente groß darin, blumige Beschlüsse zu fassen, ohne die Folgen für die Machtinteressen der Nachbarstaaten zu berücksichtigen. Bismarck hatte Recht und die Schwätzer nicht.
Es nützt nichts, harte Fakten durch verbalen Schleim zu verkleistern. Scheiße bleibt Scheiße, auch wenn man sie anders nennt. Und weil mir an den klaren Fakten gelegen ist, spreche ich politisch inkorrekt.
Nehmen wir die Nationalsozialisten und den 2. Weltkrieg. Hinsichtlich der moralischen und rechtlichen Bewertung gibt es da gar keine Frage. Moralisch und völkerrechtlich war dieser Krieg ein Angriffskrieg und ein Verbrechen. Es gibt keine Entschuldigung und keine Beschönigung.
Eine andere Frage ist, ob es der richtige Krieg war? Die Frage ob richtig oder falsch beantwortet sich durch den Bezug auf die Ziele, die Chancen und die Risiken. Ein Krieg ist erst mal ein Investment, d.h. es geht letzlich um Geld, um Gewinn, um Land und Bodenschätze, um Optionen auf die Zukunft. Wer Kriege aus moralischen Gründen führt ist ein Depp. Er verschleudert Leben und Werte für nichts.
Cäsar führte den gallischen Krieg, weil er ein Imperium brauchte, um seine Schulden zu bezahlen und um Land zu haben, um seine Soldaten damit abzufinden. Außerdem wollte er die vordringenden Germanen daran hindern, ihm die Beute streitig zu machen. Gallien war politisch zerrissen und damit schwach. Das Vordringen der Germanen sprach eine deutliche Sprache. Die Frucht war reif, jetzt galt es zuzugreifen.
Cäsar griff zu und veni, vidi, vici, Gallien wurde römisch. Ein Teil der Gallier wurde gleich getötet, ein Teil wurde in die Arenen getrieben und dort getötet, der Rest durfte unter römischer Herrschaft weiterleben. Frankreich, das neue Gallien, ist ein romanisches Land. Also hat Cäsar doch den richtigen Krieg richtig geführt, weder Mann noch Weib noch Kind schonend, so kann man das Vorgehen der römischen Truppen wohl bezeichnen, klassisch eben.
Also bleibt die Frage, ob die Nationalsozialisten den richtigen Krieg geführt haben. Die Antwort: teils teils.
Der Krieg im Westen war der falsche Krieg, war auch nicht gewollt und wurde bezüglich England auch nur halbherzig geführt. Der richtige Krieg war der Krieg im Osten. (Bitte nicht verwechseln mit gerechter Krieg oder gerechtfertigter Krieg. Der ganze Krieg war unter dem Aspekt der Moral und des Völkerrechts ein Verbrechen!) Richtig aber in Bezug auf Ziel und Chance. Ziel: Ein deutsches Großreich begründen, das mit den Großmächten der Zeit und der Zukunft auf Augenhöhe agieren kann. Chance: Polen militärisch schwach. Russland, wie der russische Krieg gegen Finnland zeigte, ebenfalls militärisch schwach. Chance also gegeben. Ohne die massive Hilfe durch die Westmächte wäre Russland unter den deutschen Schlägen einfach zusammengebrochen. Also Chance 60:40 für Sieg. Wurde der Krieg richtig geführt? - Kann man sagen, fast! Richtig heißt, mit allem, was man hat, ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste, ohne Rücksicht auf die gegnerische Zivilbevölkerung, gnadenlos. Ziel war schließlich nicht ein Verhandlungsfrieden, sondern ein totaler Sieg mit der Absicht der völligen Umwandlung des eroberten Gebietes, wie eben auch bei Cäsar. Gut am Ende wäre es wohl ein deutsch-russisches Großreich geworden, mit Deutsch als einziger Staatssprache. Die Russen wären deutscher und die Deutschen russischer geworden. Wie immer wäre die Verschmelzung über die Frauen gelaufen. Im Falle des deutschen Sieges befände sich heute zwischen Rhein und Ural ein 300 Millionen Volk deutscher Sprache und deutsch-slawischer Kultur, eine Weltmacht, bei der die USA Probleme hätten, technologisch Schritt zu halten. Wie ich darauf komme? Nun, China ist ein nationalsozialistisches System: Totalitäres Einparteienregime mit Privatwirtschaft.
Es gibt natürlich auch das Alternativszenario eines Pseudosieges, bei welchem die Assimilation der Eroberten nicht gelingt und der ganze Laden im Partisanen- und Bürgerkrieg explodiert, wie Exjugoslawien. Hätte Vercingetorix gewonnen, wäre Frankreich heute gallisch und Lutetia berühmt für seine Dudelsackpfeifer.
Für die Deutschen hätte alles davon ab gehangen, ob es gelungen wäre, die Reproduktionsorgane der deutschen Frauen kräftig in Gang zu setzen. Hätten sich die deutschen Frauen mit den gleichen Raten vermehrt, wie die palästinensischen Frauen, gäbe es heute 500 Millionen Deutsche. Es geht doch!
Rapax, die Reißende hieß eine Legion in Kaiseraugst. Und so hat die auch gekämpft. Wer nett ist gründet und erhält kein Großreich. SS und die römischen Legionen haben auf die gleiche Weise gekämpft, klassisch eben. Wo die hin fassten, da wuchs kein Kraut mehr.
Ob ich das für gut halte? - Nein, auf gar keinen Fall! - Wenn ich aber ein Großreich gründen müsste, würde ich meine Methoden an den Erfolgreichen ausrichten. Und ein kleines Land mit einem relativ kleinen Volk muss eben schneller und aggressiver vorgehen, als ein großes Volk, das die anderen einfach Stück für Stück auffressen kann, wie es die Russen bei ihrer Reichsgründung gemacht haben, und wie es die EU soeben macht.
Die EU nagt so Stück um Stück den Russen ihr europäisches Einflussgebiet weg. Das sieht alles so friedlich und harmlos aus, so demokratisch und fluffig. Die EU hat aber ein heißes Herz mit einem ziemlichen Gewicht, nämlich Deutschland, und die Planeten beginnen langsam aber sicher um diese Sonne zu kreisen. Und wenn erst mal das süße Gift der Subvention eingedrungen ist, wenn sich die Wirtschaft auf diese Sonne eingestellt hat, dann ist ein Entkommen aus dem Schwerefeld kaum noch möglich. Und ob dann alle auf den Konferenzen Deutsch oder Englisch sprechen, das ist völlig egal. Die Irritationen unserer Nachbarn sind nicht ganz ohne Grund. Das Nilpferd in der Hängematte bestimmt, wohin das Netz schaukelt.
Der Fehler der Nationalsozialisten: der Rassismus. Wer ein Großreich gründen will, der muss den töten, der sich wehrt und den einbinden, der mit macht. Rasse, Herkunft, Religion, Geschlecht, alles ganz egal. Wer mitmacht, sich einfügt, der ist willkommen und darf seine (kleinen) Besonderheiten bewahren. Die Juden zu ermorden war nicht nur ein Verbrechen, sondern, und das ist noch viel schlimmer, ein Fehler. Wer bringt schon tüchtige, deutschfreundliche, Menschen um, nur weil die ein paar Schrullen haben?
Ein Großreich zu bewohnen macht nicht glücklicher, im Gegenteil. Meist geht es den Bewohnern kleiner Staaten besser. Ich heiße deutsche Expansionspolitik also nicht für gut und will so was in Zukunft auch nicht erleben. Ich lehne Eroberungskriege und die damit einher gehenden Exzesse ab. Ich will ein ruhiges und friedliches Leben führen und gönne das auch all unseren Nachbarn. Aber wenn es darum geht, Kriege zu beurteilen, so interessiert mich nur die Frage: War es der richtige Krieg und wurde er auch richtig geführt.
Übrigens ist ein Krieg erst dann gewonnen, wenn man den folgenden Frieden auch gewinnt. Und auch hier hatte der Plan der Nationalsozialisten eine Macke. Die planten nämlich an der Ostgrenze so eine Art Dauerkrieg, weil sie glaubten, ohne Krieg würde das Volk degenerieren. Da man aber nicht die Alten, Kranken und Behinderten an die Front treibt, sondern die Jungen und Gesunden, ist ein Krieg in dieser Hinsicht total kontraproduktiv.
Manchmal kann man als Nachgeborener froh sein, wenn die Vorfahren bestimmte Kriege nicht gewonnen haben.
Meine Frau hat mir eine Grußkarte mit einem Schaf darauf geschenkt.
Er hat dann doch nicht gehenkt, sondern Realpolitik betrieben. Aber er war ein Mann markiger Sprüche. Dass internationale Machtfragen nicht durch Parlamentsbeschlüsse, sondern durch Blut und Eisen geklärt werden, hat ihm viele Feinde gebracht, war aber zu seiner Zeit die Realität. Denn schon immer waren deutsche Parlamente groß darin, blumige Beschlüsse zu fassen, ohne die Folgen für die Machtinteressen der Nachbarstaaten zu berücksichtigen. Bismarck hatte Recht und die Schwätzer nicht.
Es nützt nichts, harte Fakten durch verbalen Schleim zu verkleistern. Scheiße bleibt Scheiße, auch wenn man sie anders nennt. Und weil mir an den klaren Fakten gelegen ist, spreche ich politisch inkorrekt.
Nehmen wir die Nationalsozialisten und den 2. Weltkrieg. Hinsichtlich der moralischen und rechtlichen Bewertung gibt es da gar keine Frage. Moralisch und völkerrechtlich war dieser Krieg ein Angriffskrieg und ein Verbrechen. Es gibt keine Entschuldigung und keine Beschönigung.
Eine andere Frage ist, ob es der richtige Krieg war? Die Frage ob richtig oder falsch beantwortet sich durch den Bezug auf die Ziele, die Chancen und die Risiken. Ein Krieg ist erst mal ein Investment, d.h. es geht letzlich um Geld, um Gewinn, um Land und Bodenschätze, um Optionen auf die Zukunft. Wer Kriege aus moralischen Gründen führt ist ein Depp. Er verschleudert Leben und Werte für nichts.
Cäsar führte den gallischen Krieg, weil er ein Imperium brauchte, um seine Schulden zu bezahlen und um Land zu haben, um seine Soldaten damit abzufinden. Außerdem wollte er die vordringenden Germanen daran hindern, ihm die Beute streitig zu machen. Gallien war politisch zerrissen und damit schwach. Das Vordringen der Germanen sprach eine deutliche Sprache. Die Frucht war reif, jetzt galt es zuzugreifen.
Cäsar griff zu und veni, vidi, vici, Gallien wurde römisch. Ein Teil der Gallier wurde gleich getötet, ein Teil wurde in die Arenen getrieben und dort getötet, der Rest durfte unter römischer Herrschaft weiterleben. Frankreich, das neue Gallien, ist ein romanisches Land. Also hat Cäsar doch den richtigen Krieg richtig geführt, weder Mann noch Weib noch Kind schonend, so kann man das Vorgehen der römischen Truppen wohl bezeichnen, klassisch eben.
Also bleibt die Frage, ob die Nationalsozialisten den richtigen Krieg geführt haben. Die Antwort: teils teils.
Der Krieg im Westen war der falsche Krieg, war auch nicht gewollt und wurde bezüglich England auch nur halbherzig geführt. Der richtige Krieg war der Krieg im Osten. (Bitte nicht verwechseln mit gerechter Krieg oder gerechtfertigter Krieg. Der ganze Krieg war unter dem Aspekt der Moral und des Völkerrechts ein Verbrechen!) Richtig aber in Bezug auf Ziel und Chance. Ziel: Ein deutsches Großreich begründen, das mit den Großmächten der Zeit und der Zukunft auf Augenhöhe agieren kann. Chance: Polen militärisch schwach. Russland, wie der russische Krieg gegen Finnland zeigte, ebenfalls militärisch schwach. Chance also gegeben. Ohne die massive Hilfe durch die Westmächte wäre Russland unter den deutschen Schlägen einfach zusammengebrochen. Also Chance 60:40 für Sieg. Wurde der Krieg richtig geführt? - Kann man sagen, fast! Richtig heißt, mit allem, was man hat, ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste, ohne Rücksicht auf die gegnerische Zivilbevölkerung, gnadenlos. Ziel war schließlich nicht ein Verhandlungsfrieden, sondern ein totaler Sieg mit der Absicht der völligen Umwandlung des eroberten Gebietes, wie eben auch bei Cäsar. Gut am Ende wäre es wohl ein deutsch-russisches Großreich geworden, mit Deutsch als einziger Staatssprache. Die Russen wären deutscher und die Deutschen russischer geworden. Wie immer wäre die Verschmelzung über die Frauen gelaufen. Im Falle des deutschen Sieges befände sich heute zwischen Rhein und Ural ein 300 Millionen Volk deutscher Sprache und deutsch-slawischer Kultur, eine Weltmacht, bei der die USA Probleme hätten, technologisch Schritt zu halten. Wie ich darauf komme? Nun, China ist ein nationalsozialistisches System: Totalitäres Einparteienregime mit Privatwirtschaft.
Es gibt natürlich auch das Alternativszenario eines Pseudosieges, bei welchem die Assimilation der Eroberten nicht gelingt und der ganze Laden im Partisanen- und Bürgerkrieg explodiert, wie Exjugoslawien. Hätte Vercingetorix gewonnen, wäre Frankreich heute gallisch und Lutetia berühmt für seine Dudelsackpfeifer.
Für die Deutschen hätte alles davon ab gehangen, ob es gelungen wäre, die Reproduktionsorgane der deutschen Frauen kräftig in Gang zu setzen. Hätten sich die deutschen Frauen mit den gleichen Raten vermehrt, wie die palästinensischen Frauen, gäbe es heute 500 Millionen Deutsche. Es geht doch!
Rapax, die Reißende hieß eine Legion in Kaiseraugst. Und so hat die auch gekämpft. Wer nett ist gründet und erhält kein Großreich. SS und die römischen Legionen haben auf die gleiche Weise gekämpft, klassisch eben. Wo die hin fassten, da wuchs kein Kraut mehr.
Ob ich das für gut halte? - Nein, auf gar keinen Fall! - Wenn ich aber ein Großreich gründen müsste, würde ich meine Methoden an den Erfolgreichen ausrichten. Und ein kleines Land mit einem relativ kleinen Volk muss eben schneller und aggressiver vorgehen, als ein großes Volk, das die anderen einfach Stück für Stück auffressen kann, wie es die Russen bei ihrer Reichsgründung gemacht haben, und wie es die EU soeben macht.
Die EU nagt so Stück um Stück den Russen ihr europäisches Einflussgebiet weg. Das sieht alles so friedlich und harmlos aus, so demokratisch und fluffig. Die EU hat aber ein heißes Herz mit einem ziemlichen Gewicht, nämlich Deutschland, und die Planeten beginnen langsam aber sicher um diese Sonne zu kreisen. Und wenn erst mal das süße Gift der Subvention eingedrungen ist, wenn sich die Wirtschaft auf diese Sonne eingestellt hat, dann ist ein Entkommen aus dem Schwerefeld kaum noch möglich. Und ob dann alle auf den Konferenzen Deutsch oder Englisch sprechen, das ist völlig egal. Die Irritationen unserer Nachbarn sind nicht ganz ohne Grund. Das Nilpferd in der Hängematte bestimmt, wohin das Netz schaukelt.
Der Fehler der Nationalsozialisten: der Rassismus. Wer ein Großreich gründen will, der muss den töten, der sich wehrt und den einbinden, der mit macht. Rasse, Herkunft, Religion, Geschlecht, alles ganz egal. Wer mitmacht, sich einfügt, der ist willkommen und darf seine (kleinen) Besonderheiten bewahren. Die Juden zu ermorden war nicht nur ein Verbrechen, sondern, und das ist noch viel schlimmer, ein Fehler. Wer bringt schon tüchtige, deutschfreundliche, Menschen um, nur weil die ein paar Schrullen haben?
Ein Großreich zu bewohnen macht nicht glücklicher, im Gegenteil. Meist geht es den Bewohnern kleiner Staaten besser. Ich heiße deutsche Expansionspolitik also nicht für gut und will so was in Zukunft auch nicht erleben. Ich lehne Eroberungskriege und die damit einher gehenden Exzesse ab. Ich will ein ruhiges und friedliches Leben führen und gönne das auch all unseren Nachbarn. Aber wenn es darum geht, Kriege zu beurteilen, so interessiert mich nur die Frage: War es der richtige Krieg und wurde er auch richtig geführt.
Übrigens ist ein Krieg erst dann gewonnen, wenn man den folgenden Frieden auch gewinnt. Und auch hier hatte der Plan der Nationalsozialisten eine Macke. Die planten nämlich an der Ostgrenze so eine Art Dauerkrieg, weil sie glaubten, ohne Krieg würde das Volk degenerieren. Da man aber nicht die Alten, Kranken und Behinderten an die Front treibt, sondern die Jungen und Gesunden, ist ein Krieg in dieser Hinsicht total kontraproduktiv.
Manchmal kann man als Nachgeborener froh sein, wenn die Vorfahren bestimmte Kriege nicht gewonnen haben.
Meine Frau hat mir eine Grußkarte mit einem Schaf darauf geschenkt.
 |
| Quelle: Wall Art |
Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014
The Fatherhood Race Gap
Gerne verlinke ich auf Texte der amerikanischen Männer- und Väterrechtsbewegung, weil diese vielfältiger und fortgeschrittener ist, als die deutsche.
Alan B, der Autor von Spearhead Blog entwickelt in diesem Kommentar ein Bild, von den Strategien der Unterklassenmutti im Vergleich zu den Strategien der Mittelklassemutti, wenn es darum geht, Resourcen aus dem Ex-Mann und Vater der Kinder zu ziehen.
Deutlich wird dabei, welche Rolle das Sozialsystem bei der Strategiewahl der Frau spielt.
Der Text wurde unverändert aus dem Kommentarbereich von Guccy Little Piggy übernommen:
Quelle: Alan B
Alan B, der Autor von Spearhead Blog entwickelt in diesem Kommentar ein Bild, von den Strategien der Unterklassenmutti im Vergleich zu den Strategien der Mittelklassemutti, wenn es darum geht, Resourcen aus dem Ex-Mann und Vater der Kinder zu ziehen.
Deutlich wird dabei, welche Rolle das Sozialsystem bei der Strategiewahl der Frau spielt.
Der Text wurde unverändert aus dem Kommentarbereich von Guccy Little Piggy übernommen:
Quelle: Alan B
AlanB 01/17/2014 at 4:58 pm
Dienstag, 21. Januar 2014
Feminismus ist die Fortsetzung des Patriarchats mit anderen Mitteln
Früher, vor der industriellen Revolution und auch zu deren Beginn, da war das Leben extrem hart, die Arbeit körperlich sehr belastend. Verständlich, dass die Eltern Söhne bevorzugten, konnten doch diese z.B. auf dem Hof, kräftig mit an packen. Auch in den Fabriken brachten Söhne mehr Geld nach Hause als Töchter. Darum musste bei Töchtern immer noch Mitgift dazu gelegt werden, wollten diese Heiraten.
Waren sie denn verheiratet, kamen dauernd Kinder. Die Frau fiel als volle Arbeitskraft aus. Frauen waren also ein schlechtes Investment. Ging die Ehe schief, hatte der Vater neben seiner Frau auch noch die Töchter an der Backe.
Darum diese Gesellschaftsstruktur, bei welcher der Mann die Verantwortung für die Frau zu tragen und auch über sie zu bestimmen hatte, wenn es ihm denn gelang, das auch durchzusetzen. Denn seien wir ehrlich, wie bis heute sind doch viele (Ehe-)männer doch nichts, als die Knechte ihrer Frauen.
Mit dem Aufweichen der Familienbande, kommt den Frauen der Knecht abhanden. Unfähig und unwillig sich dem harten Lebenskampf zu stellen, wird jetzt ein neuer Knecht gesucht, der in Gestalt staatlicher Organisationen auch gefunden wurde. Jetzt greift die Frau nicht mehr auf den konkreten (Ehe-)mann zu, sondern über den Staat auf die anonyme Masse aller Männer, um sich ihr biologisch bedingtes Defizit vergüten zu lassen.
Und so ist der Feminismus nichts anderes, als die Fortsetzung des Patriarchats mit anderen Mitteln, nur dass die emanzipierte Frau nicht mehr den (Ehe-)mann benölt, sondern den Staat.
Waren sie denn verheiratet, kamen dauernd Kinder. Die Frau fiel als volle Arbeitskraft aus. Frauen waren also ein schlechtes Investment. Ging die Ehe schief, hatte der Vater neben seiner Frau auch noch die Töchter an der Backe.
Darum diese Gesellschaftsstruktur, bei welcher der Mann die Verantwortung für die Frau zu tragen und auch über sie zu bestimmen hatte, wenn es ihm denn gelang, das auch durchzusetzen. Denn seien wir ehrlich, wie bis heute sind doch viele (Ehe-)männer doch nichts, als die Knechte ihrer Frauen.
Mit dem Aufweichen der Familienbande, kommt den Frauen der Knecht abhanden. Unfähig und unwillig sich dem harten Lebenskampf zu stellen, wird jetzt ein neuer Knecht gesucht, der in Gestalt staatlicher Organisationen auch gefunden wurde. Jetzt greift die Frau nicht mehr auf den konkreten (Ehe-)mann zu, sondern über den Staat auf die anonyme Masse aller Männer, um sich ihr biologisch bedingtes Defizit vergüten zu lassen.
Und so ist der Feminismus nichts anderes, als die Fortsetzung des Patriarchats mit anderen Mitteln, nur dass die emanzipierte Frau nicht mehr den (Ehe-)mann benölt, sondern den Staat.
1. Weltkrieg - Grund für den Kriegseintritt der USAmerikaner
Zur Zeit belese ich mich intensiv zum Thema 1. Weltkrieg, und was mich sehr beschäftigt, ist der Grund für den Kriegseintritt Amerikas.
Denn der Kampf für mehr Demokratie kann es nicht gewesen sein. Das deutsche Kaiserreich war nicht undemokratischer als Großbritannien, und es war auch nicht militaristischer als Großbritannien, und es hatte auch kein größeres Streben nach Weltherrschaft als Großbritannien, das die Weltherrschaft ja schon inne hatte.
Weswegen also der Kriegseintritt?
Die Sache mit dem U-Boot-Krieg ist ja wohl vorgeschoben. Ich kann doch nicht in ein Kriegsgebiet einfahren, mit Gütern für eine Kriegspartei an Bord, und dann klagen, wenn mich die andere Kriegspartei versenkt.
Der Grund ist total Banal: Kredite.
Die USAmerikaner haben Großbritannien und Frankreich für geliefert Waren großzügig Kredit gewährt. Diese Kredite wären mit einem Sieg Deutschlands und sogar bei einem Remis verloren gewesen, denn im Grunde genommen waren sowohl Großbritannien als auch Frankreich pleite.
Die USA sind gegen Deutschland in den Krieg gezogen, um ihre Kredite zu retten. D.h. die USA haben das Leben ihrer Soldaten hingegeben, um die Kredite der Reichen zu sichern.
Auch bei den Reparationen ging es immer auch um diese Kredite.
To make the world safe for democracy! - Ziel total verfehlt, kann man nur konstatieren. Aber darum ging es doch gar nicht. Es ging einzig um Geld. Und Wehrpflichtige sind ja billig!
Das trifft übrigens auf alle Kriegsparteien zu. Hätten die Herrschenden wie früher Söldnerheere unterhalten müssen, so wären sie nicht so verschwenderisch mit dem Leben der Soldaten umgegangen.
Niemals darf man den Herrschenden eine schimmernde Wehr in die Hand geben. Keine Waffen in Kinderhände. Und niemals Wehrpflichtige - die sind einfach zu billig.
Was das mit dem Thema meines Blog zu tun hat? - Sehr viel, denn es sind junge Männer, die getötet wurden, ermordet von den Vaterländern.
Niemals hätte man Frauen in den sicheren Tod geschickt.
Denn der Kampf für mehr Demokratie kann es nicht gewesen sein. Das deutsche Kaiserreich war nicht undemokratischer als Großbritannien, und es war auch nicht militaristischer als Großbritannien, und es hatte auch kein größeres Streben nach Weltherrschaft als Großbritannien, das die Weltherrschaft ja schon inne hatte.
Weswegen also der Kriegseintritt?
Die Sache mit dem U-Boot-Krieg ist ja wohl vorgeschoben. Ich kann doch nicht in ein Kriegsgebiet einfahren, mit Gütern für eine Kriegspartei an Bord, und dann klagen, wenn mich die andere Kriegspartei versenkt.
Der Grund ist total Banal: Kredite.
Die USAmerikaner haben Großbritannien und Frankreich für geliefert Waren großzügig Kredit gewährt. Diese Kredite wären mit einem Sieg Deutschlands und sogar bei einem Remis verloren gewesen, denn im Grunde genommen waren sowohl Großbritannien als auch Frankreich pleite.
Die USA sind gegen Deutschland in den Krieg gezogen, um ihre Kredite zu retten. D.h. die USA haben das Leben ihrer Soldaten hingegeben, um die Kredite der Reichen zu sichern.
Auch bei den Reparationen ging es immer auch um diese Kredite.
To make the world safe for democracy! - Ziel total verfehlt, kann man nur konstatieren. Aber darum ging es doch gar nicht. Es ging einzig um Geld. Und Wehrpflichtige sind ja billig!
Das trifft übrigens auf alle Kriegsparteien zu. Hätten die Herrschenden wie früher Söldnerheere unterhalten müssen, so wären sie nicht so verschwenderisch mit dem Leben der Soldaten umgegangen.
Niemals darf man den Herrschenden eine schimmernde Wehr in die Hand geben. Keine Waffen in Kinderhände. Und niemals Wehrpflichtige - die sind einfach zu billig.
Was das mit dem Thema meines Blog zu tun hat? - Sehr viel, denn es sind junge Männer, die getötet wurden, ermordet von den Vaterländern.
Niemals hätte man Frauen in den sicheren Tod geschickt.
Freitag, 17. Januar 2014
Die Weiße Feder Kampagne in England z.Zt. des 1. Weltkriegs
Hinweis: Der ganze Artikel wurde einer externen Quelle entnommen
2010, Vol. 2 No. 02 | pg. 1/4
Quelle: Studentpulse
World War I was a brutal conflict that shattered countries, redefined warfare with its bloody massacres, and left a generation with only the memories of the horrors they had seen. The trench warfare of the battlefield tore young Englishmen apart and turned their long held belief in the nobility of battle into a terrifying mockery.
But it wasn’t only on the Front that the men of England faced a fight that threatened their very being. Those men left at home, whether by their choice or by some restriction, were forced to undergo a swift and merciless assault on the most important part of their essence: their masculinity. With the security of England threatened, those able-bodied men left behind were looked down upon as cowards, and passionate English women across the country launched a crusade against them.
The White Feather Campaign began with the creation of the white feather as a symbol of cowardice and unfulfilled civic duty. With the war effort and the recruitment campaign in full swing, the women of the White Feather would present any healthy young Englishman in civilian dress with this token, in order to symbolize their scorn for him and his failure to be man. Upon receipt of a white feather, these men were being told that they weren’t “real men” and that the women around them looked upon this apparent lack of masculinity with disgust. The campaign was meant to make these men question their gender identity and hopefully drive them to enlist in the military so that they could correct this perceived imbalance.
The Campaign worked fairly well and by shaming Home front men, these women drove many into the army out of dread of receiving a white feather themselves. But an unexpected consequence arose from this attack upon Englishmen’s masculinity, one that these “patriotic” women didn’t foresee. As this campaign became more public and recognized, the community backlash against women who engaged in this practice became increasingly harsh. Englishwomen had been molded into a weapon against the masculine identity through propaganda and promises of patriotism.
Their efforts were successful but the campaign eventually incited a feeling of outrage among the English population for the terrible shame that they brought upon both deserving and undeserving men. What I seek to argue in this paper is that by choosing to make a judgment of noncombatant men’s identity, these women unintentionally forced a harsh criticism to be made of English women. An attack on one gender identity caused ripples to run through the other, the White Feather campaign did not simply affect masculinity but also brought femininity into the light for condemnation. The recruitment movement of the white feather waged outright war against English masculinity and before it was over, both male and female gender identities changed as a result of this tactic.
The history of the white feather really began almost a decade before the start of World War I with the publishing of The Four Feathers by A.E.W. Mason.
The novel tells the tale of a young British officer, Harry Feversham, who resigns from the British armed forces and attempts to return home from the war in the Sudan. Upon his resignation Feversham receives four white feathers as symbols of cowardice and loss of respect. Three are from former comrades in arms who believe that Feversham is fleeing the army in order to avoid the coming war. The fourth is from his fiancée, Ethne, who is stricken at Harry’s resignation from the armed service. She returns her engagement ring to him to show that she no longer loves him and gives him the fourth feather to express her belief that he is a coward for leaving the war. The rest of novel chronicles Feversham’s attempt to regain his honor and the favor of his love. The only way that he achieves this is by returning to the Sudan where he kills his Arab enemies and saves his unit from destruction. Now with these actions having proven him to be a real man, Ethne promptly takes him back and they are soon happily married [i].
This novel was a popular adventure novel in England at the time of World War I and, because of Feversham’s experiences, the white feather was commonly thought of as a sign of cowardice and shame.
Admiral Charles Penrose Fitzgerald was a military man who strongly believed in using conscription yet was forced to run a recruitment effort for an all-volunteer English army.
Understanding the power of the symbol that this novel created, Fitzgerald devised a plan that he believed would help drive unenlisted, able-bodied men into the English military. On August 30, 1914 in the city of Folkstone, Admiral Fitzgerald gave thirty women the duty of handing out white feathers to men who were not in uniform [ii]. Fitzgerald looked upon the men who were not out fighting for England as “deaf or indifferent to their country’s need” and that by giving the use of the white feather to women he would show them that they had “a danger awaiting them far more terrible than anything they can meeting battle” [iii]. This idea quickly took effect and began to sweep across England. Females everywhere would hear stories of women giving out feathers, or read in the newspaper of how these men were shamed for “shirking their duty in not coming forward” [iv].
Women who handed out white feathers to civilian men became known as members of the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather.
Women were always the lesser gender in England, overshadowed by the dominance of their male counterparts, especially in the political arena. But when Britain joined the war, they were allowed and, in fact, encouraged to participate in the war effort, a chance that they seized with great vigor [v]. The White Feather movement gained a good amount of popularity with English women because it allowed them to feel as if they were fervent English patriots. The White Feather women began to see themselves as the guardians of the English spirit and that through their recruitment work they would make sure that all men did their duties for the Union Jack. Women were barred from fighting in the war as combatants, they were forced to stay at home and wait while their husbands or relatives were out dying in the trenches. The White Feather Campaign gave them a chance to actively participate in the war effort and see themselves as helping the English army by sending them more soldiers.
Furthermore the white feather allowed them to gain power over the men who usually ruled them. This kind of gender power reversal was a chance that women rarely got, much less one that the government endorsed. These women became the harbingers of doom to those civilian men who were attempting to get out of fighting; they were no longer the lesser sex. What Fitzgerald had deftly understood was that there was something that was more terrifying to youthful Englishmen than a gruesome death on some foreign battlefield. The campaign showed a great knowledge of how masculinity functioned and the white feather played directly into this gender structure. The most devastating blow that could be dealt to an English youth was the sudden recognition of a woman’s shame and disapproval.
War and masculinity have long been associated with each other, and many consider being a fighting man to be the most potent and impressive show of masculinity. Over the twentieth century and into the new millennium this conception has been largely disproved, no longer does one need to be a military man in order to uphold their masculinity. But the old understanding of battle as a place of honor or an event where boys become men was still upheld in England. World War I was the point in which this concept was beginning to be questioned. It was just becoming understood that machine-gunning each other from opposing trenches was far from a dashing duel between two swordsmen, and yet these youths had still been raised to believe that fighting (and if necessary dying) for their country was the epitome of manhood. It was because of this shifting ideology that England gradually had to change between voluntarism and conscriptionist status during World War I. They were optimistic at the onset of the war that their men would rise to the challenge and provide enough manpower to push the war effort through to the end.
The English leaders thought it would be a short war and that volunteers would swell their ranks sufficiently [vi]. Even when it became apparent that this war was going to be a long and costly battle, the government held back from conscription. Most democratic governments do not wish to implement a draft that will legally make male citizens of their country pick up arms and march out to their deaths (especially because of political repercussions). It is the hope of every country that nationalism and patriotic fervor will fill their ranks with willing men who believe in the cause. Unfortunately this can’t always be the case, especially in such large-scale wars. The days where hoards of men would rush off to war to be heroes were gone. Many men felt comfortable with their manhood and no longer felt the need to prove it on the battlefield with their own blood and amidst so much death. This new ideology of masculinity and civic duty wasn’t enough to satisfy Britain’s needs.
In 1917 and 1918 Britain began to move towards conscription as it became clear that these able-bodied men would have to be forced into the armed forces. This is not an argument over whether a draft is moral but rather a sign that the age of martial masculinity was beginning to slip away. Fighting in a war was no longer an honor but was beginning to become a compulsion. While change was in the air for masculinity, this transition was far from complete and many men still unconsciously equated war and manhood. By capitalizing on these civilian men’s fears of masculine inadequacy, the White Feather Campaign was striking at the heart of a changing male gender identity.
The English propaganda effort was extremely focused on gender issues, specifically those of masculinity. Most posters questioned a man’s responsibility in one way or another. Some centered on the defense of women, while others asked what a father would answer if his children asked him “Daddy, What did you do in the Great War? [vii]” The most compelling gender propaganda of them all was the use of everyday Englishwomen as recruiters for the army. But the English government did not just sit by idly and wait for these women to take up the cause. Those in power, specifically in the recruitment branch, realized the influence that these women had over men. “Many correspondents point out that recruitment lectures are not the best means of reaching the workingman and that all-important recruiting agency, his sister or sweetheart.” [viii] The government was legally barred from using conscription within England at the beginning of the war, so they put a large amount of effort behind this propaganda campaign that urged women to take up this fight.
Propaganda posters plastered around England were aimed not only at men, but also at mothers, sisters, and lovers. One such propaganda poster depicts two women and a young child looking out a window at a departing troop of British soldiers. The caption reads “Women of Britain Say- Go!” which is a strong statement for the recruitment campaign. The caption really implies two level of meaning; one aimed at women and the other at men. The poster can be aimed at men to be saying that the women of Britain are commanding them to go to war. Yet at the same time, it portrays the idea to women that it is their duty to say go to their men. The faces of the women are not grieving, there are no tears running down their faces. Rather they look at their loved ones march away with stoic faces and a glimmer of pride in their eyes. These posters, along with other popular slogans like “Is your Best Boy in Khaki?”[ix], aimed to give these women a sense of military importance.
The English government was pushing for these women to take up the standard of war recruitment for them. Women could become an alternative method to conscription; they were almost as effective in shipping young men off to war. Recruitment methods such as these were immediately labelled by the public as attacking and manipulating gender structures, but the government was willing to take this criticism. The power an Englishwoman yielded over an unenlisted man was a weapon that Britain intended to use to its fullest extent. In this way, Englishwomen themselves became a walking, talking form of war propaganda. How a demeaning or accusatory poster could make a civilian man feel was multiplied a hundredfold when an acquaintance or any young woman presented that same man with a white feather. Through the government’s effective use of propaganda and the feeling of empowerment that the White Feather Brigade gave women, English masculinity now found itself with a cruel enemy.
Masculinity has always been a fragile concept, especially to the men who strive to meet what they perceive as the criteria for manhood. These Englishmen were raised in a patriarchal culture that believed, and taught, that men were the pinnacle of society. To be a weak man meant that you were below contempt, and manhood wasn’t measured by strength of arms (or at least not anymore) but rather by the way a man lived his life. Nothing was worse to a man than being accused of a lack of manhood. Being portrayed as a coward who wouldn’t fight was an accusation that made these men seem like women, and feminizing a man was a titanic insult. Englishmen were willing to fight, and to die, to defend their manhood and to prove to those around them that they lived up to that standard. The notion that masculine identity was so frail was what made the White Feather Campaign so strong. Giving a white feather to a man in civilian dress was truly a brilliant tactic because it worked on so many different levels. Not only did it make men feel shame for not enlisting, but it also made them feel like they weren’t good enough for these women. Both sexual conquest and masculine virility were essential components in allowing a young English male to be secure with his manhood.
What more does a young man want than the knowledge that women desire him and that he is able to obtain the object of his desire? It was being instilled in English women that those men who were unable to face battle and fight for their country were unsuitable husbands and fathers. Women were being encouraged to behave like Ethne in The Four Feathers and adopt the attitude that if their man wasn’t a true fighter then they should leave him. Women would refuse to be seen in public with men out of uniform, and would scorn those who did not enlist. An amorous young man’s sexual desire was a potent weapon to use against them when they wanted nothing more than a willing woman with whom to prove their manliness. In this respect, the receipt of a white feather was an even harsher blow than a woman’s refusal to appear in public with a man. It was a performance in which an attractive young woman would walk up to a man in a public place and give him a symbol that she would never want a man like him. It was a sudden, unexpected blow to a man’s perception of his own sexuality and his ability to attract a woman.
The beauty of this tactic was that the white feather came with an obvious solution to this insecurity, if the man joined the army all would be forgiven and the woman would show her affection.
Mr. H. Symonds was a young boy of only seventeen when he received a white feather from an attractive English woman. Right after he had been given the feather, Symonds rushed off to the nearest recruiter and enlisted in the army (even though he was too young to serve). Symonds recounts that several days later he encountered the same woman giving a recruitment speech and that she had called Symonds onto the stage, this time in uniform. With tears streaming down her face, she took back the feather from Symonds and gave him a long kiss in return [x].
This was the kind of action that would stand as an example to other men who received the white feather and even to those who hadn’t received one. The men were given a criticism in the form of a white feather and if they corrected this problem by enlisting then they were given the gift of women’s affection in return. A feeling of sexual conquest and reaffirmed masculinity could be achieved if they only enlisted.
But the White Feather Campaign did not only deprive these Englishmen of their sexual desires. The main focus of the campaign was something deeper than simple lust and sexuality. What these women, and the military men behind them, were attacking was a man’s security in his masculinity. This could be achieved through withdrawal of females’ sexuality but it was a more brutal wound when words like coward or shame were leveled at them. Regardless of the time period or the situation, the use of cowardice as a weapon against masculinity has always been present in Western society’s gender structures. Whether in battle or in the schoolyard, the term “coward” is one that carries great importance for a man’s perception of his masculinity. It is a gauntlet that is thrown down, a challenge to the insulted man to prove himself better than a coward.
The white feather was so effective because it was a physical symbol of cowardice, something that could be seen by all. When a man was given a white feather, deserving or not, he was marked as a coward and there was only one real path to completely remove this blemish on his manhood. Having a woman deliver the feather was a masterstroke, the perfect messenger. If a fellow man called a civilian a coward for not enlisting, at very least the man could defend himself using force. But no proper Englishmen would strike a woman without doing even further damage to his honor. The receipt of a feather caused civilian men to question themselves, it gave them the idea that those around them viewed them as less than men, fearful, gutless wretches. While this judgment was obviously not true, it was a time of changing masculinity and a war the likes of which had never been seen. The feather was all that was necessary to cause Englishmen to look within themselves and try to determine whether they were real men or not. This was an answer that didn’t come easily to these men, and only by joining the military could they finally be free of their doubts.
While the White Feather Campaign, or appropriately Admiral Fitzgerald, chose their targets and their methods cleverly, this doesn’t entail that the campaign went off without any problems. The women of the White Feather Brigade often encountered trouble when it came to finding truly deserving “slackers” to deliver their white feather of shame to.
The women of the White Feather Brigade were tasked with finding men in civilian dress walking around England and giving them the feather to force them to enlist. Their selection of targets was based entirely upon outward appearance. To English women of this time, the qualities that made up a real man were completely external. Only visible shows of masculinity would be sufficient to mollify these women enough to keep them from handing out a white feather. If a man’s dress, age, and vitality seemed to fit the civilian profile then they were a potential mark for receiving the white feather of cowardice. This kind of selection criteria was accurate in some ways because the “shirkers [xi]” that the women were searching for certainly would not be wearing a uniform of the English military. Yet these women seemed to forget that to wear civilian dress doesn’t necessarily mean that a man wasn’t enlisted, or that he hadn’t enlisted sometime in the past. This was the beginning of the downfall of the White Feather Campaign, when there began to be situations when these women went out to shame men who weren’t deserving of such a grave insult.
The Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration that could be awarded to a member of the English military. It is given "for most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.xii" It is of such importance that this medal is usually bestowed upon the deserving soldier by the British monarch.
One young English officer had been returned to London because of an act of great bravery on the Eastern Front. He was brought to Buckingham Palace where he was given the Victoria Cross by the King himself. After having received his medal, the man had returned to his hotel where he changed into civilian clothes. Later that day as he strolled through the city, a group of haughty young girls went up to him and presented him with a white feather to taunt him for his cowardice. The soldier found it extremely ironic that he was given the country’s greatest award for bravery on the same day that he was also presented with the most recognizable symbol of cowardicex [iii].
The man obviously did not take much offense to this action, as a group of young girls isn’t much of an ideological opponent compared to the King of England. Yet at the same time it shows how unbelievably inaccurate these white feather deliveries could be. If these women chose to regard military service and bravery as the qualities to judge a man by, then this young officer was a perfect example of a true man. But the judgment of the white feather women was so skewed that even the greatest model of military masculinity could be mistaken for a coward and a slacker.
While this solider wasn’t offended by his receipt of a white feather, there were also far more insulting and shameful instances where these symbols were given to men who didn’t deserve that kind of public battery. Many men went off to war early on but were wounded in some way during the bloody battles that took place in the trenches. If these wounds were sufficiently incapacitating then these men would be sent home to England. Some would stay during their recuperation while others were wounded severely enough that they would never be able to fight again. While these soldiers were staying in London, or other English cities, they would dress in civilian wear sometimes because they didn’t need to adhere to the military’s dress policy while on disability leave. But by wearing this kind of dress code, they looked just like normal civilian men, which left them vulnerable to receiving white feathers. When a wounded veteran received a feather it was a terrible insult. Some of these encounters managed to end happily.
Bill Lawrence was a soldier who had been wounded and was riding a train across the country in civilian dress. His wound was in the small of his back and while severe and ugly, it was easily hidden from view when he was dressedxiv. An English woman accosted him concerning his cowardice and attempted to shame him at the train station. Mr. Lawrence promptly pulled up his shirt to show the women his battle scar and told her off for being so cruel. The woman was so embarrassed by her actions that she took Mr. Lawrence back to her house where she “put a bottle of whiskey at the side of the bed, took off all her clothes, got in bed, and said do as you like you earned it [xv]”.
Much like Mr. Symonds experience with his white feather, Mr. Lawrence’s female assailant repaid her false judgment of his manhood with sexual favors. Now even though the woman may have tried to make up for her mistake, Mr. Lawrence remarked that had he been “a nasty temper man she may have got what they call a smack in the gab [xvi]”. He was obviously very offended by this stranger judging the amount that he had given for his country.
Other accounts of underserved white feathers do not even end with this kind of “happy ending” but rather leave both parties emotionally wounded.
One veteran, Reuben W. Farrow, had been sent back to England after he had one of his hands blown off in a battle on the Front. He was riding a tramcar in civilian dress and had both his hands (or his upper wrist) shoved into his pants pockets. A woman walked up to him and asked him very harshly why he was hiding from his duty to his country. Mr. Farrow said nothing, but calmly stood up and shoved the stump of his hand in her face. The woman was horrified and quickly apologized before fleeing the car. Mr. Farrow felt pained by this encounter as he was questioned on what he was willing to give for his country, a question that he had already given a strong answer to [xvii].
This was the point at which the White Feather Campaign began to run into severe criticism. Many had questioned the morality of such a campaign from the beginning, but now that these White Feather women were beginning to accuse war veterans who had been wounded in service to their country, the public began to have far greater problems with this propaganda tactic. These occurrences only increased in frequency as the war dragged on because more and more men were being sent back to England with war wounds.
These women had made the mistake of assuming that masculinity came only with a uniform while these wounded men proved that the mark of a fighting man was carried beneath the clothes, on their bodies and in their spirit. The women of the White Feather had taken up this task because they believed themselves to be patriots and valuable instruments for the war effort. But their actions against the men of England began to evoke an outcry and soon enough the women of the white feather were the ones facing the harsh glare of gender criticism.
The White Feather Campaign was an obvious attack on masculinity and a blatant manipulation of gender in the pursuit of national recruitment. There was no subtlety in the actions of these women, their tactics were clear for all to see. The withdrawal of sexual desire and the public shaming of a man were clear signs of a well thought out recruitment operation. The public knowledge of the gender attack behind the White Feather Campaign did not make it any less effective, but it also brought about a building of disgust and hatred towards those women who dared to participate. It was a patriotic movement but it was still an underhanded effort, one that hurt young Englishmen for the benefit of the country.
One of the reasons that this campaign was successful was that these Englishwomen were viewed as innocent, beautiful, and pure. Females were the gentler sex, which is why criticism from them caused such pain. But as Nicoletta Gullace describes it the actions of these women in harshly manipulating male identity was a “monstrous distortion of femininity [xviii]”. The white feather women’s innocence became tainted when they went to such the immoral lengths in the service of their country. Beautiful young faces were distorted and changed into sneers of hatred when they would stick a feather into the buttonhole of a man’s jacket. There was a loss of femininity, women were supposed to be kind and caring, the mothers of the nation. There wasn’t supposed to be this level of cruelty and spite within women. In London during the early years of the war a trio of women confronted two Englishmen, “one of the girls was a pretty wench. She dishonoured one of the young men, as she thought, by sticking a white feather in his buttonhole, and a look of contempt for a moment spoiled her pretty face [xix]”. This scene is a perfect example of how the white feather campaign was affecting females. It was a changing in the way that femininity was perceived. Women lost their air of purity and the people of England were disgusted at what their image of women had become.
This campaign had been started by the English military, in the form of Admiral Fitzgerald, but even diehard recruitment agents found something repulsive and disgraceful about the use of white feathers in this manner. A recruitment sergeant with the army, Coulson Kernahan, believed in the use of female recruiters but even he found the use of the white feather despicable. According to Sergeant Kernahan, “the sending or offering of white feathers, so far from witnessing to your patriotism, witnesses only to the fact that you are unpardonably ignorant, vulgar, and impertinent.”[xx] Especially coming directly from a recruitment officer this comment shows that, while female recruiting might be acceptable, the White Feather Brigade stepped over a moral barrier that should not have been crossed.
By definition, recruitment and propaganda may be tools that seek to play off people’s desires and fears. Yet the giving of a white feather was a manipulation that went too far. The White Feather Campaign didn’t play off of the good within men; the urge to serve their country, courage, the desire to protect their loved ones. Instead it drew upon the flaws in men, self-consciousness, fear of failure, and sexual desire. Propaganda was meant to recruit men through the bolstering of their spirits not through the crushing of their confidence. It was the wrong way to send men off to war, with a sense of shame rather than a feeling of patriotic spirit. By taking up this effort and choosing to attack men this way, the white feather women put themselves in the crosshairs of a public that was sickened by the degradation of their men. This feeling of hostility even went so far that the White Feather Brigade was blamed for the deaths of innocent Englishmen.
A war veteran by the name of Backhaus told the BBC the stories of two of his friends and how the White Feather Campaign had been responsible for their deaths. Both of his friends had been given a white feather by patriotic young women to “encourage” them to join the military. The first had been Backhaus’ cousin who was too young to enlist in the military. But with the White Feather Brigade’s notorious inaccuracy in choosing their targets the young boy had been given the symbol of cowardice regardless of his ineligibility. He subsequently joined the army illegally, went off to war, and was blown apart during a battle. Backhaus’ other friend had been too old to fight even though he wanted to. When he was given his white feather and was unable to restore his honor by joining the army, he was driven mad by guilt. Backhaus placed the deaths of his friends firmly at the feet of the white feather women [xxi]. Similar stories were heard all over England where friends and brothers were given a white feather and rushed off to war…only to die. The fault didn’t lie with the German who fired the bullet or planted the mine; it was the women who were to blame. Without their immoral recruitment campaign, many men of England would be alive and well. As the guilt and disgust at the campaign began to grow, the white feather women slowly became the enemy.
The symbol of a stoic Englishwoman telling her man to “go!” was no more; there wasn’t any beauty to the image that remained. The White Feather Campaign had turned these female recruiters into scornful, vindictive women who bestowed the kiss of death along with the white feather. Feminism was no longer the realm of the innocent and pure, the white feather had taught England that even the fairer sex had cruelty in their souls.
The White Feather Campaign caused havoc on both male and female gender identities in England. Neither of the genders managed to escape the war unscathed or unchanged. For the men, they had been brutally attacked by the women whom they sought to protect. The weaknesses and vulnerabilities that English masculinity had were exposed and exploited by women for the recruitment effort. A white feather left a mark on any man who received one, a shame that they couldn’t forget, regardless of how inaccurate such a judgment might be. Yet masculinity was almost strengthened by this unjust attack. After World War I the white feather was never again used as a recruitment tool in England. With the disgust raised at the campaign, men begin to realize that such a symbol of cowardice was not something that should hurt their feeling of masculinity. Men who stayed on the Home Front during the wars weren’t the scum of the Earth anymore. Perhaps they were not as brave, but they were never again treated with such disdain and disrespect. In today’s world the white feather would be completely ineffective, with all-volunteer armies being the standard for the West. Masculinity had evolved as a consequence of these tactics; men understood their duties and identities differently. The White Feather Campaign was instrumental in causing this transformation, not by doing good but rather by doing enough damage to make the old understanding of masculinity seem flawed. Femininity, on the other hand, seemed to change for the worse as a result of the actions of the White Feather Brigade.
Women were considered to be the perfect recruiters prior to the White Feather Campaign. Females’ effectiveness was the entire reason that the Campaign was ever considered as a tactic. Women could be patriots in this way and they could help the war effort through active recruiting. But the public reaction to the distribution of white feathers and women’s attitudes while doing it caused a serious rethinking of that role. Women weren’t supposed to take such joy in sending young Englishmen off to their potential deaths. Nor were they supposed to accost war veterans who had done their part and deserved to live unmolested. But both of these things happened in the public eye and this kind of involvement was no longer an act of patriotism. Never again would women be asked to take up this kind of shaming action, their job would be to support their men, never again to humiliate them. Females lost a part of their responsibilities in wartime because of this misstep.
They could support the war but women were never again active to the point that they were during the White Feather Campaign. It was no longer seen as a women’s role to force her man into battle or to scorn those who didn’t. The stigma that quickly grew to surround practices such as these is underscored by the actions of the white feather women as they grew older. BBC asked any women who had ever been part of the white feather movement to write in and to remark on their experiences and their motivations. Considering the vast number of men who were given white feathers or those who saw a white feather being given, the number of women who participated had to at least number in the thousands. But out of this request only two women wrote in to claim that they had given a white feather during World War I. Both letters admitted that the women felt shamed by their actions and would not repeat them if they had the chance [xxii]. This lack of response shows how much femininity has changed through the white feather campaign. What was once an encouraged, acceptable patriotic act became something so vile that even forty years later the women would not admit involvement.
Both gender roles underwent some changes as a result of the White Feather Campaign and the attack it waged on masculinity. Females may have been the aggressors in this situation, but by no means did they escape this manipulative recruitment tactic without damage.
Whenever a specific gender role is attacked, the entire gender system feels the ripples of this change. By using femininity to attack masculinity the British Recruitment officers were making a decision that would ultimately cause both of these gender identities to transform as a result. At first glance it seems as if only masculinity suffered the consequences of the White Feather Campaign, especially considering that they were the target and not the attackers.
Yet because of the blatant and public manipulation, the female identity was critiqued as well. Viewing the events in this light could raise the argument of which gender underwent the most drastic changes, but that is a question for another time. What is most important to understand is that the White Feather Campaign was not a one-sided transformation of gender identity. Both genders were wounded by this outright manipulation, and neither side came out of the war with the same standards that they had before. With such grave consequences that arose from the campaign, no English feminist organization ever dared to use the white feather in such a way again.
i.) Mason A.E.W., The Four Feathers (London, 1902).
ii.) Nicoletta Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002): 74.
iii.) Daily Mail, "Women's War: White Feathers for 'Slackers'," August 31, 1914: 3.
iv.) Chatham News, "White Feathers' A Novel Method of Making Young Men Enlist," September 5, 1914: 8.
v.) Paul Ward, "'Women of Britain Say Go': Women's Patriotism in the First World War," Twentieth Century British History, 2001: 23-45.
vi.) Poirier Philip, Adams R.J., The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900-18 (UK: Ohio State Press, 1987): 6.
vii.) Savile Lumley (Poster 1915)
viii.) The Times, "A Fight to the Finish: Work of National Enlightenment," August 31, 1914: 4.
ix.) Nicoletta Gullace, "White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War," The Journal of British Studies, April 1997: 185.
x.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 91.
xi.) Gullace, "White Feathers and Wounded Men”: 178.
xii.) Ministry of Defense - UK, www.mod.uk/defenceinternet (accessed April 20, 2009).
xiii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 93.
xiv.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 91.
xv.) Bill Lawrence, interview by BBC, (May 1954).
xvi.) Lawrence.
xvii.) R.W. Farrow, Recollections of a Conscientious Objector Pg.290. (As Marked in Gullace’s The Blood of Our Sons)
xviii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 84.
xix.) MacDonagh Michael, In London During the Great War (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935).
xx.) Kernahan Coulson, The Experiences of a Recruitment Officer (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915): 69.
xxi.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 95.
xxii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 76.
A.E.W., Mason. The Four Feathers. London, 1902.
Adams R.J., Poirier Philip. The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900-18. UK: Ohio State Press, 1987.
Chatham News. "White Feathers' A Novel Method of Making Young Men Enlist." September 5, 1914: 8.
Coulson, Kernahan. The Experiences of a Recruitment Officer. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.
Daily Mail. "Women's War: White Feathers for 'Slackers'." August 31, 1914: 3.
Farrow, R.W. Recollections of a Conscientious Objector.
Gullace, Nicoletta. The Blood of Our Sons. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Gullace, Nicoletta. "White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War." The Journal of British Studies, April 1997: 178-206.
Lawrence, Bill, interview by BBC. (May 1954).
Michael, MacDonagh. In London During the Great War. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935.
Ministry of Defense - UK. www.mod.uk/defenceinternet (accessed April 20, 2009).
The Times. "A Fight to the Finish: Work of National Enlightenment." August 31, 1914: 4.
Ward, Paul. "'Women of Britain Say Go': Women's Patriotism in the First World War." Twentieth Century British History, 2001: 23-45.
The White Feather Campaign: A Struggle with Masculinity During World War I
By Peter J. Hart2010, Vol. 2 No. 02 | pg. 1/4
Quelle: Studentpulse
World War I was a brutal conflict that shattered countries, redefined warfare with its bloody massacres, and left a generation with only the memories of the horrors they had seen. The trench warfare of the battlefield tore young Englishmen apart and turned their long held belief in the nobility of battle into a terrifying mockery.
But it wasn’t only on the Front that the men of England faced a fight that threatened their very being. Those men left at home, whether by their choice or by some restriction, were forced to undergo a swift and merciless assault on the most important part of their essence: their masculinity. With the security of England threatened, those able-bodied men left behind were looked down upon as cowards, and passionate English women across the country launched a crusade against them.
The White Feather Campaign began with the creation of the white feather as a symbol of cowardice and unfulfilled civic duty. With the war effort and the recruitment campaign in full swing, the women of the White Feather would present any healthy young Englishman in civilian dress with this token, in order to symbolize their scorn for him and his failure to be man. Upon receipt of a white feather, these men were being told that they weren’t “real men” and that the women around them looked upon this apparent lack of masculinity with disgust. The campaign was meant to make these men question their gender identity and hopefully drive them to enlist in the military so that they could correct this perceived imbalance.
The Campaign worked fairly well and by shaming Home front men, these women drove many into the army out of dread of receiving a white feather themselves. But an unexpected consequence arose from this attack upon Englishmen’s masculinity, one that these “patriotic” women didn’t foresee. As this campaign became more public and recognized, the community backlash against women who engaged in this practice became increasingly harsh. Englishwomen had been molded into a weapon against the masculine identity through propaganda and promises of patriotism.
Their efforts were successful but the campaign eventually incited a feeling of outrage among the English population for the terrible shame that they brought upon both deserving and undeserving men. What I seek to argue in this paper is that by choosing to make a judgment of noncombatant men’s identity, these women unintentionally forced a harsh criticism to be made of English women. An attack on one gender identity caused ripples to run through the other, the White Feather campaign did not simply affect masculinity but also brought femininity into the light for condemnation. The recruitment movement of the white feather waged outright war against English masculinity and before it was over, both male and female gender identities changed as a result of this tactic.
Constructing Women as a Gendered Weapon
The history of the white feather really began almost a decade before the start of World War I with the publishing of The Four Feathers by A.E.W. Mason.
The novel tells the tale of a young British officer, Harry Feversham, who resigns from the British armed forces and attempts to return home from the war in the Sudan. Upon his resignation Feversham receives four white feathers as symbols of cowardice and loss of respect. Three are from former comrades in arms who believe that Feversham is fleeing the army in order to avoid the coming war. The fourth is from his fiancée, Ethne, who is stricken at Harry’s resignation from the armed service. She returns her engagement ring to him to show that she no longer loves him and gives him the fourth feather to express her belief that he is a coward for leaving the war. The rest of novel chronicles Feversham’s attempt to regain his honor and the favor of his love. The only way that he achieves this is by returning to the Sudan where he kills his Arab enemies and saves his unit from destruction. Now with these actions having proven him to be a real man, Ethne promptly takes him back and they are soon happily married [i].
This novel was a popular adventure novel in England at the time of World War I and, because of Feversham’s experiences, the white feather was commonly thought of as a sign of cowardice and shame.
Admiral Charles Penrose Fitzgerald was a military man who strongly believed in using conscription yet was forced to run a recruitment effort for an all-volunteer English army.
Understanding the power of the symbol that this novel created, Fitzgerald devised a plan that he believed would help drive unenlisted, able-bodied men into the English military. On August 30, 1914 in the city of Folkstone, Admiral Fitzgerald gave thirty women the duty of handing out white feathers to men who were not in uniform [ii]. Fitzgerald looked upon the men who were not out fighting for England as “deaf or indifferent to their country’s need” and that by giving the use of the white feather to women he would show them that they had “a danger awaiting them far more terrible than anything they can meeting battle” [iii]. This idea quickly took effect and began to sweep across England. Females everywhere would hear stories of women giving out feathers, or read in the newspaper of how these men were shamed for “shirking their duty in not coming forward” [iv].
Women who handed out white feathers to civilian men became known as members of the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather.
Women were always the lesser gender in England, overshadowed by the dominance of their male counterparts, especially in the political arena. But when Britain joined the war, they were allowed and, in fact, encouraged to participate in the war effort, a chance that they seized with great vigor [v]. The White Feather movement gained a good amount of popularity with English women because it allowed them to feel as if they were fervent English patriots. The White Feather women began to see themselves as the guardians of the English spirit and that through their recruitment work they would make sure that all men did their duties for the Union Jack. Women were barred from fighting in the war as combatants, they were forced to stay at home and wait while their husbands or relatives were out dying in the trenches. The White Feather Campaign gave them a chance to actively participate in the war effort and see themselves as helping the English army by sending them more soldiers.
Furthermore the white feather allowed them to gain power over the men who usually ruled them. This kind of gender power reversal was a chance that women rarely got, much less one that the government endorsed. These women became the harbingers of doom to those civilian men who were attempting to get out of fighting; they were no longer the lesser sex. What Fitzgerald had deftly understood was that there was something that was more terrifying to youthful Englishmen than a gruesome death on some foreign battlefield. The campaign showed a great knowledge of how masculinity functioned and the white feather played directly into this gender structure. The most devastating blow that could be dealt to an English youth was the sudden recognition of a woman’s shame and disapproval.
War and masculinity have long been associated with each other, and many consider being a fighting man to be the most potent and impressive show of masculinity. Over the twentieth century and into the new millennium this conception has been largely disproved, no longer does one need to be a military man in order to uphold their masculinity. But the old understanding of battle as a place of honor or an event where boys become men was still upheld in England. World War I was the point in which this concept was beginning to be questioned. It was just becoming understood that machine-gunning each other from opposing trenches was far from a dashing duel between two swordsmen, and yet these youths had still been raised to believe that fighting (and if necessary dying) for their country was the epitome of manhood. It was because of this shifting ideology that England gradually had to change between voluntarism and conscriptionist status during World War I. They were optimistic at the onset of the war that their men would rise to the challenge and provide enough manpower to push the war effort through to the end.
The English leaders thought it would be a short war and that volunteers would swell their ranks sufficiently [vi]. Even when it became apparent that this war was going to be a long and costly battle, the government held back from conscription. Most democratic governments do not wish to implement a draft that will legally make male citizens of their country pick up arms and march out to their deaths (especially because of political repercussions). It is the hope of every country that nationalism and patriotic fervor will fill their ranks with willing men who believe in the cause. Unfortunately this can’t always be the case, especially in such large-scale wars. The days where hoards of men would rush off to war to be heroes were gone. Many men felt comfortable with their manhood and no longer felt the need to prove it on the battlefield with their own blood and amidst so much death. This new ideology of masculinity and civic duty wasn’t enough to satisfy Britain’s needs.
In 1917 and 1918 Britain began to move towards conscription as it became clear that these able-bodied men would have to be forced into the armed forces. This is not an argument over whether a draft is moral but rather a sign that the age of martial masculinity was beginning to slip away. Fighting in a war was no longer an honor but was beginning to become a compulsion. While change was in the air for masculinity, this transition was far from complete and many men still unconsciously equated war and manhood. By capitalizing on these civilian men’s fears of masculine inadequacy, the White Feather Campaign was striking at the heart of a changing male gender identity.
The English propaganda effort was extremely focused on gender issues, specifically those of masculinity. Most posters questioned a man’s responsibility in one way or another. Some centered on the defense of women, while others asked what a father would answer if his children asked him “Daddy, What did you do in the Great War? [vii]” The most compelling gender propaganda of them all was the use of everyday Englishwomen as recruiters for the army. But the English government did not just sit by idly and wait for these women to take up the cause. Those in power, specifically in the recruitment branch, realized the influence that these women had over men. “Many correspondents point out that recruitment lectures are not the best means of reaching the workingman and that all-important recruiting agency, his sister or sweetheart.” [viii] The government was legally barred from using conscription within England at the beginning of the war, so they put a large amount of effort behind this propaganda campaign that urged women to take up this fight.
Propaganda posters plastered around England were aimed not only at men, but also at mothers, sisters, and lovers. One such propaganda poster depicts two women and a young child looking out a window at a departing troop of British soldiers. The caption reads “Women of Britain Say- Go!” which is a strong statement for the recruitment campaign. The caption really implies two level of meaning; one aimed at women and the other at men. The poster can be aimed at men to be saying that the women of Britain are commanding them to go to war. Yet at the same time, it portrays the idea to women that it is their duty to say go to their men. The faces of the women are not grieving, there are no tears running down their faces. Rather they look at their loved ones march away with stoic faces and a glimmer of pride in their eyes. These posters, along with other popular slogans like “Is your Best Boy in Khaki?”[ix], aimed to give these women a sense of military importance.
The English government was pushing for these women to take up the standard of war recruitment for them. Women could become an alternative method to conscription; they were almost as effective in shipping young men off to war. Recruitment methods such as these were immediately labelled by the public as attacking and manipulating gender structures, but the government was willing to take this criticism. The power an Englishwoman yielded over an unenlisted man was a weapon that Britain intended to use to its fullest extent. In this way, Englishwomen themselves became a walking, talking form of war propaganda. How a demeaning or accusatory poster could make a civilian man feel was multiplied a hundredfold when an acquaintance or any young woman presented that same man with a white feather. Through the government’s effective use of propaganda and the feeling of empowerment that the White Feather Brigade gave women, English masculinity now found itself with a cruel enemy.
Attacking Masculinity with a Feather
Masculinity has always been a fragile concept, especially to the men who strive to meet what they perceive as the criteria for manhood. These Englishmen were raised in a patriarchal culture that believed, and taught, that men were the pinnacle of society. To be a weak man meant that you were below contempt, and manhood wasn’t measured by strength of arms (or at least not anymore) but rather by the way a man lived his life. Nothing was worse to a man than being accused of a lack of manhood. Being portrayed as a coward who wouldn’t fight was an accusation that made these men seem like women, and feminizing a man was a titanic insult. Englishmen were willing to fight, and to die, to defend their manhood and to prove to those around them that they lived up to that standard. The notion that masculine identity was so frail was what made the White Feather Campaign so strong. Giving a white feather to a man in civilian dress was truly a brilliant tactic because it worked on so many different levels. Not only did it make men feel shame for not enlisting, but it also made them feel like they weren’t good enough for these women. Both sexual conquest and masculine virility were essential components in allowing a young English male to be secure with his manhood.
What more does a young man want than the knowledge that women desire him and that he is able to obtain the object of his desire? It was being instilled in English women that those men who were unable to face battle and fight for their country were unsuitable husbands and fathers. Women were being encouraged to behave like Ethne in The Four Feathers and adopt the attitude that if their man wasn’t a true fighter then they should leave him. Women would refuse to be seen in public with men out of uniform, and would scorn those who did not enlist. An amorous young man’s sexual desire was a potent weapon to use against them when they wanted nothing more than a willing woman with whom to prove their manliness. In this respect, the receipt of a white feather was an even harsher blow than a woman’s refusal to appear in public with a man. It was a performance in which an attractive young woman would walk up to a man in a public place and give him a symbol that she would never want a man like him. It was a sudden, unexpected blow to a man’s perception of his own sexuality and his ability to attract a woman.
The beauty of this tactic was that the white feather came with an obvious solution to this insecurity, if the man joined the army all would be forgiven and the woman would show her affection.
Mr. H. Symonds was a young boy of only seventeen when he received a white feather from an attractive English woman. Right after he had been given the feather, Symonds rushed off to the nearest recruiter and enlisted in the army (even though he was too young to serve). Symonds recounts that several days later he encountered the same woman giving a recruitment speech and that she had called Symonds onto the stage, this time in uniform. With tears streaming down her face, she took back the feather from Symonds and gave him a long kiss in return [x].
This was the kind of action that would stand as an example to other men who received the white feather and even to those who hadn’t received one. The men were given a criticism in the form of a white feather and if they corrected this problem by enlisting then they were given the gift of women’s affection in return. A feeling of sexual conquest and reaffirmed masculinity could be achieved if they only enlisted.
But the White Feather Campaign did not only deprive these Englishmen of their sexual desires. The main focus of the campaign was something deeper than simple lust and sexuality. What these women, and the military men behind them, were attacking was a man’s security in his masculinity. This could be achieved through withdrawal of females’ sexuality but it was a more brutal wound when words like coward or shame were leveled at them. Regardless of the time period or the situation, the use of cowardice as a weapon against masculinity has always been present in Western society’s gender structures. Whether in battle or in the schoolyard, the term “coward” is one that carries great importance for a man’s perception of his masculinity. It is a gauntlet that is thrown down, a challenge to the insulted man to prove himself better than a coward.
The white feather was so effective because it was a physical symbol of cowardice, something that could be seen by all. When a man was given a white feather, deserving or not, he was marked as a coward and there was only one real path to completely remove this blemish on his manhood. Having a woman deliver the feather was a masterstroke, the perfect messenger. If a fellow man called a civilian a coward for not enlisting, at very least the man could defend himself using force. But no proper Englishmen would strike a woman without doing even further damage to his honor. The receipt of a feather caused civilian men to question themselves, it gave them the idea that those around them viewed them as less than men, fearful, gutless wretches. While this judgment was obviously not true, it was a time of changing masculinity and a war the likes of which had never been seen. The feather was all that was necessary to cause Englishmen to look within themselves and try to determine whether they were real men or not. This was an answer that didn’t come easily to these men, and only by joining the military could they finally be free of their doubts.
While the White Feather Campaign, or appropriately Admiral Fitzgerald, chose their targets and their methods cleverly, this doesn’t entail that the campaign went off without any problems. The women of the White Feather Brigade often encountered trouble when it came to finding truly deserving “slackers” to deliver their white feather of shame to.
Undeserving Victims
The women of the White Feather Brigade were tasked with finding men in civilian dress walking around England and giving them the feather to force them to enlist. Their selection of targets was based entirely upon outward appearance. To English women of this time, the qualities that made up a real man were completely external. Only visible shows of masculinity would be sufficient to mollify these women enough to keep them from handing out a white feather. If a man’s dress, age, and vitality seemed to fit the civilian profile then they were a potential mark for receiving the white feather of cowardice. This kind of selection criteria was accurate in some ways because the “shirkers [xi]” that the women were searching for certainly would not be wearing a uniform of the English military. Yet these women seemed to forget that to wear civilian dress doesn’t necessarily mean that a man wasn’t enlisted, or that he hadn’t enlisted sometime in the past. This was the beginning of the downfall of the White Feather Campaign, when there began to be situations when these women went out to shame men who weren’t deserving of such a grave insult.
The Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration that could be awarded to a member of the English military. It is given "for most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.xii" It is of such importance that this medal is usually bestowed upon the deserving soldier by the British monarch.
One young English officer had been returned to London because of an act of great bravery on the Eastern Front. He was brought to Buckingham Palace where he was given the Victoria Cross by the King himself. After having received his medal, the man had returned to his hotel where he changed into civilian clothes. Later that day as he strolled through the city, a group of haughty young girls went up to him and presented him with a white feather to taunt him for his cowardice. The soldier found it extremely ironic that he was given the country’s greatest award for bravery on the same day that he was also presented with the most recognizable symbol of cowardicex [iii].
The man obviously did not take much offense to this action, as a group of young girls isn’t much of an ideological opponent compared to the King of England. Yet at the same time it shows how unbelievably inaccurate these white feather deliveries could be. If these women chose to regard military service and bravery as the qualities to judge a man by, then this young officer was a perfect example of a true man. But the judgment of the white feather women was so skewed that even the greatest model of military masculinity could be mistaken for a coward and a slacker.
While this solider wasn’t offended by his receipt of a white feather, there were also far more insulting and shameful instances where these symbols were given to men who didn’t deserve that kind of public battery. Many men went off to war early on but were wounded in some way during the bloody battles that took place in the trenches. If these wounds were sufficiently incapacitating then these men would be sent home to England. Some would stay during their recuperation while others were wounded severely enough that they would never be able to fight again. While these soldiers were staying in London, or other English cities, they would dress in civilian wear sometimes because they didn’t need to adhere to the military’s dress policy while on disability leave. But by wearing this kind of dress code, they looked just like normal civilian men, which left them vulnerable to receiving white feathers. When a wounded veteran received a feather it was a terrible insult. Some of these encounters managed to end happily.
Bill Lawrence was a soldier who had been wounded and was riding a train across the country in civilian dress. His wound was in the small of his back and while severe and ugly, it was easily hidden from view when he was dressedxiv. An English woman accosted him concerning his cowardice and attempted to shame him at the train station. Mr. Lawrence promptly pulled up his shirt to show the women his battle scar and told her off for being so cruel. The woman was so embarrassed by her actions that she took Mr. Lawrence back to her house where she “put a bottle of whiskey at the side of the bed, took off all her clothes, got in bed, and said do as you like you earned it [xv]”.
Much like Mr. Symonds experience with his white feather, Mr. Lawrence’s female assailant repaid her false judgment of his manhood with sexual favors. Now even though the woman may have tried to make up for her mistake, Mr. Lawrence remarked that had he been “a nasty temper man she may have got what they call a smack in the gab [xvi]”. He was obviously very offended by this stranger judging the amount that he had given for his country.
Other accounts of underserved white feathers do not even end with this kind of “happy ending” but rather leave both parties emotionally wounded.
One veteran, Reuben W. Farrow, had been sent back to England after he had one of his hands blown off in a battle on the Front. He was riding a tramcar in civilian dress and had both his hands (or his upper wrist) shoved into his pants pockets. A woman walked up to him and asked him very harshly why he was hiding from his duty to his country. Mr. Farrow said nothing, but calmly stood up and shoved the stump of his hand in her face. The woman was horrified and quickly apologized before fleeing the car. Mr. Farrow felt pained by this encounter as he was questioned on what he was willing to give for his country, a question that he had already given a strong answer to [xvii].
This was the point at which the White Feather Campaign began to run into severe criticism. Many had questioned the morality of such a campaign from the beginning, but now that these White Feather women were beginning to accuse war veterans who had been wounded in service to their country, the public began to have far greater problems with this propaganda tactic. These occurrences only increased in frequency as the war dragged on because more and more men were being sent back to England with war wounds.
These women had made the mistake of assuming that masculinity came only with a uniform while these wounded men proved that the mark of a fighting man was carried beneath the clothes, on their bodies and in their spirit. The women of the White Feather had taken up this task because they believed themselves to be patriots and valuable instruments for the war effort. But their actions against the men of England began to evoke an outcry and soon enough the women of the white feather were the ones facing the harsh glare of gender criticism.
Harsh Repercussions
The White Feather Campaign was an obvious attack on masculinity and a blatant manipulation of gender in the pursuit of national recruitment. There was no subtlety in the actions of these women, their tactics were clear for all to see. The withdrawal of sexual desire and the public shaming of a man were clear signs of a well thought out recruitment operation. The public knowledge of the gender attack behind the White Feather Campaign did not make it any less effective, but it also brought about a building of disgust and hatred towards those women who dared to participate. It was a patriotic movement but it was still an underhanded effort, one that hurt young Englishmen for the benefit of the country.
One of the reasons that this campaign was successful was that these Englishwomen were viewed as innocent, beautiful, and pure. Females were the gentler sex, which is why criticism from them caused such pain. But as Nicoletta Gullace describes it the actions of these women in harshly manipulating male identity was a “monstrous distortion of femininity [xviii]”. The white feather women’s innocence became tainted when they went to such the immoral lengths in the service of their country. Beautiful young faces were distorted and changed into sneers of hatred when they would stick a feather into the buttonhole of a man’s jacket. There was a loss of femininity, women were supposed to be kind and caring, the mothers of the nation. There wasn’t supposed to be this level of cruelty and spite within women. In London during the early years of the war a trio of women confronted two Englishmen, “one of the girls was a pretty wench. She dishonoured one of the young men, as she thought, by sticking a white feather in his buttonhole, and a look of contempt for a moment spoiled her pretty face [xix]”. This scene is a perfect example of how the white feather campaign was affecting females. It was a changing in the way that femininity was perceived. Women lost their air of purity and the people of England were disgusted at what their image of women had become.
This campaign had been started by the English military, in the form of Admiral Fitzgerald, but even diehard recruitment agents found something repulsive and disgraceful about the use of white feathers in this manner. A recruitment sergeant with the army, Coulson Kernahan, believed in the use of female recruiters but even he found the use of the white feather despicable. According to Sergeant Kernahan, “the sending or offering of white feathers, so far from witnessing to your patriotism, witnesses only to the fact that you are unpardonably ignorant, vulgar, and impertinent.”[xx] Especially coming directly from a recruitment officer this comment shows that, while female recruiting might be acceptable, the White Feather Brigade stepped over a moral barrier that should not have been crossed.
By definition, recruitment and propaganda may be tools that seek to play off people’s desires and fears. Yet the giving of a white feather was a manipulation that went too far. The White Feather Campaign didn’t play off of the good within men; the urge to serve their country, courage, the desire to protect their loved ones. Instead it drew upon the flaws in men, self-consciousness, fear of failure, and sexual desire. Propaganda was meant to recruit men through the bolstering of their spirits not through the crushing of their confidence. It was the wrong way to send men off to war, with a sense of shame rather than a feeling of patriotic spirit. By taking up this effort and choosing to attack men this way, the white feather women put themselves in the crosshairs of a public that was sickened by the degradation of their men. This feeling of hostility even went so far that the White Feather Brigade was blamed for the deaths of innocent Englishmen.
A war veteran by the name of Backhaus told the BBC the stories of two of his friends and how the White Feather Campaign had been responsible for their deaths. Both of his friends had been given a white feather by patriotic young women to “encourage” them to join the military. The first had been Backhaus’ cousin who was too young to enlist in the military. But with the White Feather Brigade’s notorious inaccuracy in choosing their targets the young boy had been given the symbol of cowardice regardless of his ineligibility. He subsequently joined the army illegally, went off to war, and was blown apart during a battle. Backhaus’ other friend had been too old to fight even though he wanted to. When he was given his white feather and was unable to restore his honor by joining the army, he was driven mad by guilt. Backhaus placed the deaths of his friends firmly at the feet of the white feather women [xxi]. Similar stories were heard all over England where friends and brothers were given a white feather and rushed off to war…only to die. The fault didn’t lie with the German who fired the bullet or planted the mine; it was the women who were to blame. Without their immoral recruitment campaign, many men of England would be alive and well. As the guilt and disgust at the campaign began to grow, the white feather women slowly became the enemy.
The symbol of a stoic Englishwoman telling her man to “go!” was no more; there wasn’t any beauty to the image that remained. The White Feather Campaign had turned these female recruiters into scornful, vindictive women who bestowed the kiss of death along with the white feather. Feminism was no longer the realm of the innocent and pure, the white feather had taught England that even the fairer sex had cruelty in their souls.
Aftermath and Effects of The Campaign
The White Feather Campaign caused havoc on both male and female gender identities in England. Neither of the genders managed to escape the war unscathed or unchanged. For the men, they had been brutally attacked by the women whom they sought to protect. The weaknesses and vulnerabilities that English masculinity had were exposed and exploited by women for the recruitment effort. A white feather left a mark on any man who received one, a shame that they couldn’t forget, regardless of how inaccurate such a judgment might be. Yet masculinity was almost strengthened by this unjust attack. After World War I the white feather was never again used as a recruitment tool in England. With the disgust raised at the campaign, men begin to realize that such a symbol of cowardice was not something that should hurt their feeling of masculinity. Men who stayed on the Home Front during the wars weren’t the scum of the Earth anymore. Perhaps they were not as brave, but they were never again treated with such disdain and disrespect. In today’s world the white feather would be completely ineffective, with all-volunteer armies being the standard for the West. Masculinity had evolved as a consequence of these tactics; men understood their duties and identities differently. The White Feather Campaign was instrumental in causing this transformation, not by doing good but rather by doing enough damage to make the old understanding of masculinity seem flawed. Femininity, on the other hand, seemed to change for the worse as a result of the actions of the White Feather Brigade.
Women were considered to be the perfect recruiters prior to the White Feather Campaign. Females’ effectiveness was the entire reason that the Campaign was ever considered as a tactic. Women could be patriots in this way and they could help the war effort through active recruiting. But the public reaction to the distribution of white feathers and women’s attitudes while doing it caused a serious rethinking of that role. Women weren’t supposed to take such joy in sending young Englishmen off to their potential deaths. Nor were they supposed to accost war veterans who had done their part and deserved to live unmolested. But both of these things happened in the public eye and this kind of involvement was no longer an act of patriotism. Never again would women be asked to take up this kind of shaming action, their job would be to support their men, never again to humiliate them. Females lost a part of their responsibilities in wartime because of this misstep.
They could support the war but women were never again active to the point that they were during the White Feather Campaign. It was no longer seen as a women’s role to force her man into battle or to scorn those who didn’t. The stigma that quickly grew to surround practices such as these is underscored by the actions of the white feather women as they grew older. BBC asked any women who had ever been part of the white feather movement to write in and to remark on their experiences and their motivations. Considering the vast number of men who were given white feathers or those who saw a white feather being given, the number of women who participated had to at least number in the thousands. But out of this request only two women wrote in to claim that they had given a white feather during World War I. Both letters admitted that the women felt shamed by their actions and would not repeat them if they had the chance [xxii]. This lack of response shows how much femininity has changed through the white feather campaign. What was once an encouraged, acceptable patriotic act became something so vile that even forty years later the women would not admit involvement.
Both gender roles underwent some changes as a result of the White Feather Campaign and the attack it waged on masculinity. Females may have been the aggressors in this situation, but by no means did they escape this manipulative recruitment tactic without damage.
Conclusion
Whenever a specific gender role is attacked, the entire gender system feels the ripples of this change. By using femininity to attack masculinity the British Recruitment officers were making a decision that would ultimately cause both of these gender identities to transform as a result. At first glance it seems as if only masculinity suffered the consequences of the White Feather Campaign, especially considering that they were the target and not the attackers.
Yet because of the blatant and public manipulation, the female identity was critiqued as well. Viewing the events in this light could raise the argument of which gender underwent the most drastic changes, but that is a question for another time. What is most important to understand is that the White Feather Campaign was not a one-sided transformation of gender identity. Both genders were wounded by this outright manipulation, and neither side came out of the war with the same standards that they had before. With such grave consequences that arose from the campaign, no English feminist organization ever dared to use the white feather in such a way again.
i.) Mason A.E.W., The Four Feathers (London, 1902).
ii.) Nicoletta Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002): 74.
iii.) Daily Mail, "Women's War: White Feathers for 'Slackers'," August 31, 1914: 3.
iv.) Chatham News, "White Feathers' A Novel Method of Making Young Men Enlist," September 5, 1914: 8.
v.) Paul Ward, "'Women of Britain Say Go': Women's Patriotism in the First World War," Twentieth Century British History, 2001: 23-45.
vi.) Poirier Philip, Adams R.J., The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900-18 (UK: Ohio State Press, 1987): 6.
vii.) Savile Lumley (Poster 1915)
viii.) The Times, "A Fight to the Finish: Work of National Enlightenment," August 31, 1914: 4.
ix.) Nicoletta Gullace, "White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War," The Journal of British Studies, April 1997: 185.
x.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 91.
xi.) Gullace, "White Feathers and Wounded Men”: 178.
xii.) Ministry of Defense - UK, www.mod.uk/defenceinternet (accessed April 20, 2009).
xiii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 93.
xiv.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 91.
xv.) Bill Lawrence, interview by BBC, (May 1954).
xvi.) Lawrence.
xvii.) R.W. Farrow, Recollections of a Conscientious Objector Pg.290. (As Marked in Gullace’s The Blood of Our Sons)
xviii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 84.
xix.) MacDonagh Michael, In London During the Great War (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935).
xx.) Kernahan Coulson, The Experiences of a Recruitment Officer (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915): 69.
xxi.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 95.
xxii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 76.
A.E.W., Mason. The Four Feathers. London, 1902.
Adams R.J., Poirier Philip. The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900-18. UK: Ohio State Press, 1987.
Chatham News. "White Feathers' A Novel Method of Making Young Men Enlist." September 5, 1914: 8.
Coulson, Kernahan. The Experiences of a Recruitment Officer. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.
Daily Mail. "Women's War: White Feathers for 'Slackers'." August 31, 1914: 3.
Farrow, R.W. Recollections of a Conscientious Objector.
Gullace, Nicoletta. The Blood of Our Sons. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Gullace, Nicoletta. "White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War." The Journal of British Studies, April 1997: 178-206.
Lawrence, Bill, interview by BBC. (May 1954).
Michael, MacDonagh. In London During the Great War. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935.
Ministry of Defense - UK. www.mod.uk/defenceinternet (accessed April 20, 2009).
The Times. "A Fight to the Finish: Work of National Enlightenment." August 31, 1914: 4.
Ward, Paul. "'Women of Britain Say Go': Women's Patriotism in the First World War." Twentieth Century British History, 2001: 23-45.
Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2014
1. Weltkrieg - 100 Jahre Traurigkeit
Cora Stephan, Publizistin Wer in Nordfrankreich die Picardie besucht, ein Gebiet nördlich von Paris und Reims, ist meist weniger an deren lieblicher Landschaft interessiert als an dem, was darunter liegt. Es sind die Toten, die Jahr um Jahr die Besucher anziehen. Vor allem Briten pilgern an die Somme, in das Dreieck zwischen Péronne und Abbeville, auf der Suche nach einem der rund 400 Friedhöfe, die zwischen Wiese, Rübenfeld und Wald liegen, dazwischen Monumente und Totenhallen, Kapellen und Denkmäler. Tausende weisser Steine über den Überresten von Briten und Franzosen – manchmal liegen darunter sogar die Knochen der Männer, deren Namen auf den Steinen stehen, mitsamt Rang, Geburts- und Todestag. Meist ist dazu ein Kreuz eingraviert, oft ein Davidstern, auf vielen aber steht kein Name, sondern nur «A Soldier of the Great War. Known unto God.».
Weiterlesen: Neue Züricher Zeitung
Bis jetzt der beste Kommentar zum historischen Ereignis, der mir untergekommen ist.
Ein Kurzkommentar stammt von einem Engländer: Wer ist so blöd, einen Kriegsbeginn zu feiern?
Und das frage ich mich auch! Wenn es einen völlig sinnlosen Krieg gibt, dann ist es der Erste Weltkrieg. Gewonnen haben Randfiguren: Amerika, Japan, die kleinen Völker Mitteleuropas, sofern man den Besitz eines Pseudonationalstaates als Gewinn ansieht. Italien mag man zu den Siegern zählen, wenn man den Verlust der Menschenleben als notwendiges Übel betrachtet. Aber auch diese Pseudosieger wurden ihres Sieges nicht lange froh.
Warum wärmen die politischen Eliten der Nachbarländer dieses Gemetzel noch einmal auf?
Die Siegermächte haben den Frieden verloren, und wenn nicht die Atomwaffen erfunden worden wären, hätte der 1. Weltkrieg über den 2. Weltkrieg direkt zur bolschewistischen Herrschaft über Gesamteuropa geführt. Und hätte Deutschland den 2. Weltkrieg gewonnen, wären die Ziele der Herren in London und Paris sowieso Makulatur geworden. Und ob jetzt, mit einem geschwächten und militärisch wehrlosen Deutschland in der Mitte Europas Europa als Ganzes sicherer ist, das wird die Zukunft zeigen. Vielleicht endet Europa wie das alte Griechenland, als Provinz eines Großreichs. Nachdem Napoleon gescheitert ist, war vielleicht Hitler die letzte Chance der europäischen Völker ein Staat zu werden, der den Großmächten der Zukunft die Stirn bieten kann. Der Einiger Chinas war auch nicht eben sympathisch und nicht ohne Grund nennen sich die Chinesen Han und nicht Chin.
Ein Deutscher, der an den Feiern der Siegermächte teilnimmt, ist eine schäbige Figur. Er schändet das Sterben der vielen deutschen Soldaten, die ebenfalls der Ansicht waren, für eine gerechte Sache zu kämpfen. Mögen die Sieger ihren Sieg feiern, als Deutscher gedenkt man des Todes der Seinen. Man muss pervers veranlagt sein, um die Niederlage des eigenen Volkes zu feiern. Und selbst beim 2. Weltkrieg: Stalin war nicht moralischer und nicht sympathischer als Hitler und hatte nicht weniger Blut an den Händen. Und der Kommunismus war auch nicht zukunftsfähiger als der Faschismus. Und ob man gemeuchelt wird, weil man die falsche Religion (Judentum) hat oder wegen der falschen Herkunft (Bourgeois oder nicht-linienkompatibler Sozialist), ob man durch Gas stirbt oder Genickschuss oder sich zu Tode arbeiten muss, das kann dem Opfer jeweils egal sein. Der Kern beider Weltkriege war, dass saturierte Räuber auf neue und noch hungrige Räuber stießen.
Warum also diese unsägliche Gedenkerei? Diese europäischen Eunuchenstaaten wollen noch einmal an dem süßen Opium des Sieges schnuppern, wollen noch einmal die Zeit erwecken, als sie sich groß und mächtig dünkten, Herren der ganzen Welt. Vorbei, vorbei, vorbei! Europa ist eine unbedeutende Halbinsel Asiens geworden. Deutschland hat durch die beiden Großkriege den Kolonialherren so in die Fresse geschlagen, dass denen die Zähne ausgefallen sind, und sie ihre Kolonien ziehen lassen mussten. Das war das Gute daran. Denn das ist klar, die Europäer führen heute nicht deswegen keine Kriege gegeneinander, weil sie nicht wollen, sondern weil sie einfach nicht mehr können. Und das ist das Allerbeste.
Ach, fast hätte ich es ja vergessen: Die Helden der ganzen Story sind die Deutschen, tragische Helden zwar, aber echte Helden. Tragischer Held
Ein relativ kleines Land, das sich mit sämtlichen Großmächten seiner Zeit anlegt, diese an den Rand der Katastrophe treibt und dann tragisch scheitert. Welch' ein Volk. Der Ruhm der deutschen Waffen und der deutschen Soldaten ist mit Flammen in das Buch der Historie geschrieben. Nicht schlecht! Man muss sich als Volk so was nicht immer wieder geben. Aber einmal die volle Dröhnung, das macht sich gut in der Vita. Ihr wisst ja: die geilen Typen sind die bösen Buben.
Als Napoleon gefragt wurde, ob er sich nicht schämt, das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation, dieses uralte und harmlose Relikt, einfach aufzulösen, da meinte er, dass dieses Reich wie eine Köchin schon so oft vergewaltigt worden sei, dass es nicht mehr darauf ankäme. Nachdem die französische Marianne in drei Kriegen durch die Deutschen so gründlich gefickt wurde, ist diese Schande abgewaschen. Denn was als französischer Sieg ausschaut, gleicht dem Mann, der nach einem Unfall unter seinem Auto liegt und sagt: Wenn ich den Kopf unter dem Motorblock hervor bringen würde, könnte ich laut lachen. Und England ist schon lange kein Weltreich mehr. Als Tiger gesprungen und als Bettvorleger gelandet. Toller Sieg!
Und heute machen die Deutschen, kuschelig in der Mitte Europas gelegen, endlich das, was sie schon immer hätten machen sollen: Geschäfte!
Und auch, wenn der Verlust von Ostpommern, Ostbrandenburg, Schlesien, Westpreußen, Posen und Ostpreußen schmerzt, es ist heute egal, ob polnische oder deutsche Bauern die Kartoffeln aus der Erde krubbeln. Wichtig ist, dass zwischen Deutschland und Russland ein Puffer liegt und es andere Mächte gibt, welche diesen Puffer beschützen müssen. Künftig steht Deutschland immer fest hinter seinen Alliierten, weit hinten. Gute Sache!
Was auch viel Freude macht ist, aus sicherer Distanz, Russland beim Sterben zuzuschauen. Rohstoffe sind nämlich ein echter Fluch, fast so schlimm wie Korruption und Wodka. Irgenwann implodiert dieses dann slawenleere Land, man muss nur lange genug warten. Fläche allein ist auch kein Reichtum. Und wenn ich China als direkten Nachbarn hätte, würde ich mich richtig fürchten.
Also dann feiert mal schön, ihr Sieger alle!
PS.: Der beste Film zum 1. Weltkrieg in diesem Zusammenhang ist übrigens Mathilde, eine große Liebe mit Audrey Tautou. Sehr ergreifend, sehr romantisch, sehr drastisch, sehr versöhnlich.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)