Part 1 :: Part 2 :: Part 3 :: Part 4 :: Part 5 :: Part 6 :: Part 7 :: Part 8

7. If Ye Break Faith

Residents of Windsor, Ontario, congregate at the city's cenotaph to observe Armistice Day 1929. 1

The November ritual
One way to discern the importance and meaning of Armistice Day at the end of the interwar period is to examine the responses elicited when the observance was criticized. Few such criticisms have been found, but two significant incidents are worthy of comment. In 1938, the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil published a particularly strong attack on Armistice Day:

Those who left voluntarily on this false crusade died in the illusion of a useful and commendable sacrifice ... On this gloomy Armistice Day, believers, whether resigned or revolted, bow with respect and humility before this frightful symbol of a crucified sword, without even having the strength to think that, with the same sacreligious emblem, new and inhuman sacrifices will be demanded of them, in the future ... we carry on the infamous myth that the Canadian heroes of the Great War fell on the field of battle for the cause of their country ... has the time not come to suppress finally this Armistice celebration, since, from now on, it evokes less the dearly bought victory than this era of weakness and aberration? 2

We have no way of knowing the response that this editorial drew from readers of the newspaper. We do, however, know the uproar it caused amongst federal Liberals, primarily because the paper called itself an organ of the Liberal party. Party workers promptly forwarded a copy of the offending article to Mackenzie King, so that he could take all necessary steps to dissociate the party from such views. Even a year before the coming of another war, anything arguing against the honour of the sacrifice of the previous war was politically dangerous. Another significant incident occurred the same year at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. What follows is a selection of excerpts from the Students' Union newspaper The Sheaf which sketch out the course of the controversy. It began on 10 November 1938 when Cleo Mowers, the editor of The Sheaf, published an edition marking Armistice Day. A number of articles in the edition provoked controversy, but none more than his editorial:

My Contribution
For a long time I have been wanting to speak my mind about this whole business of war, but for your satisfaction I decided to hold it till the Armistice Issue, then to shout a few dogmas and display a few obsessions and prejudices, and finally to settle down and try to keep my mouth shut for the rest of the year about those particular subjects. The following statements are merely brief reflections on a few random phases of peace and war.

Falsehood in Wartime
The first casualty in war, it has been said, is Truth. Today the only possible war is the totalitarian kind, where nothing is allowed to impede the progress of a military machine. And by far the most important impediment to any campaign of hate and slaughter is Truth, truth about the real cause of a conflict and about the real nature of the enemy and one's own side.

Today we know the real issues of the last war. And we were totally ignorant of them then. We thought we were fighting for issues which were far removed from the actual stakes.

And if we had gone to war last September, we probably would have been fighting for ideals totally foreign to the actual issues.

Speaking as an amateur newspaperman I submit that, just as soon as we get into another crisis and war breaks out, you disregard entirely your newspapers and radio news broadcasts, as they are sure to be distorted into everything but the truth. In peace-time the press in democratic countries is fairly reliable because it has to be. But at the outbreak of war the democratic nations will be forced to become totalitarian, and the press will have to serve, not Truth, but the State ... You may, if the press is fortunate, still get some enjoyment from Popeye.

The Ten Commandments
No modern war can be waged without breaking every one of the ten commandments of Moses and the two of Christ. Whether those commandments are any good in the first place is another matter, but the nature of warfare is now such that it violates every principle of reasonable behaviour.

A.A. Milne, in "Peace With Honour," give an imaginary dialogue between himself and a clergyman who sanctions war because the state commands it and because the state is part of God's machinery. "Although it is hard to do," says the clergyman in effect, "I would aid in warfare if the State were threatened and needed my help."

But it is a different matter when Milne asks him "And what if the state needed a bigger population and wholesale adultery, considering the 2,000,000 surplus of women over men in Britain, offered the only solution?"

Padres and chaplains blessed "the boys" when they went over the top to kill. It would be interesting to discover their attitude to the prostitution sanctioned and organised by the officers to alleviate the abnormal sexual life of the trenches.

Professional Soldiers
Among the professions least becoming an intelligent and social human being, I would put first that of the soldier, particularly the mercenary soldier, the member of the standing army.

War is admitted by nearly every sane person to be wrong, a wicked way of settling disputes. Yet most people insist that it is often the only way. The wickedness lies in its inherent disrespect for the values of human personality.

The professional soldier, on the other hand, deliberately sells his body to the State. He signs away his privilege to judge his own country and commits himself to service of that country, and to that country, right or wrong. And the service he promises to render is one of hate, plunder and murder, service he passes off as loyalty.

Patriotism is noble, perhaps divine - but only insofar as it does not mean hate of other countries or of the great human family.

The true patriot, I submit, is he who sacrifices for the good of his country, to make his country more worthy of its place in the world. The true patriot is he who dares to oppose his country if he thinks his country is in the wrong.

The professional soldier, on the other hand, has surrendered the privilege of judging those whom he hopes to serve.

Killing
Certainly a lot of things are worth sacrifices. Democracy and liberty, for instance, are very precious and perhaps are worth working for, and, if need be, worth dying for. But war is much more than that. It involves killing. Soldiers are sometimes guilty of a crime if they do not seek to save their own lives. And they certainly are guilty of the most terrible crimes if, on most occasions, they do not take other lives.

Although some things may be worth dying for, I submit there is nothing under the sun worth the deliberate taking of the life of another human being.

Hate
One of the fallacies of war is that it can be carried on without hate. Legion officers and army captains are always anxious to point out to the civilian that they bear no malice towards the enemy. "We love them," they say, "but we have to stop them." But an analysis of military manuals and army orders and "pep talks" shows that the soldiers are forced to believe that they are out to rid the world of Huns, curs and baby-killers.

One returned man told me of an incident in France when his brigade or battalion or whatever-it-was had over 200 enemy prisoners. Food was short, and as prisoners are supposed to be fed before the other soldiers, the officer in charge lined the Germans up against a dirt wall and turned a machine-gun on them. Whether this is the whole truth I cannot say, but certain it is that often orders went out, 'no more prisoners!'

Conclusion
Just as I see no good in war, I see some good in other methods or action. Gandhi, for instance, if he had used violence against the British, would have been beaten long ago. But he organised campaigns of non-violent resistance, non-co-operation, civil disobedience, and he has started something which, within a few years, will probably drive the British out of India.

There may be weaknesses in Gandhi's method. Insofar as he lets hate enter into his program, it is weak. I am personally convinced that understanding, respect and love will achieve victory for any cause deserving victory. Perhaps individual or national crucifixion would be involved, but what of it, if a better world resulted?

But it is not my aim now to present the whole case for constructive non-violence. If I have partially debunked war I am satisfied for now. 3

At 10:45 on Saturday morning, November 12th, President Armour instructed the secretary to convene an emergency meeting of the Students' Council for Monday, November 14th at 3:00 PM to discuss The Sheaf ... This meeting of the S.R.C. was duly held with twenty of the twenty-four members present ... The question of the Remembrance Day issue was next raised and Mr. Mowers being questioned by the council outlined his reasons for thus editing the paper and admitted certain indiscretion in publishing Thursday's Sheaf and apologized for needlessly hurting people's feelings ... Mr. Mowers then related that the president severely criticized many articles which had appeared in The Sheaf and stated that in his opinion Mr Mowers, for the good of the University, had to reform or resign ... Finally at about 10:00 p.m. a resolution of censure was passed on the November 10 issue to this effect:

That a vote of censure be passed on the Remembrance Day issue of The Sheaf with particular reference to the article by Douglas Cherry on page one, the "In Memoriam" on the sports page, the editorial comment with respect to professional soldiers and the absence of any general tone of Remembrance on the part of the members of the Sheaf staff who contributed to this issue. This motion was passed unanimously.

The next meeting was held on Wednesday, November 16th with all members present. At the first of the meeting president Armour expressed his desire to make a statement. He pointed out that while up to the present he had been reluctant to state his views on the matter he felt that the very nature of his office demanded that he make his position clear. He was responsible to the student body and if he remained silent he would not be doing his duty by them. Three problems had been raised in his mind. First, did the majority of students concur in statements made in the Remembrance Day Sheaf, - was the Remembrance Day Sheaf a fit and proper representation of student opinion?

A resolution asking for Mr. Mowers' resignation was then passed and the vote which follows:

in favour of motion 17
against motion 4
not voting 3
was recorded in the Minute books of the council. 4

Armour's Statement
Did Mr. Mowers use good judgement and discretion in issuing the Nov. 10 Sheaf? I felt that he had not done so for I could not believe that the majority of the students would concur in some of the statements made in that paper under authorization of the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union. I felt also that it was not in the best interests of the student body that such statements should go forth as student opinion .... 5

Editorial - Obituary
I have been asked by the Students' Representative Council to resign as editor of The Sheaf. The issue is not at all clear in my mind. Regardless of how much the decision of the council was influenced by former numbers of the paper and by other individuals and bodies, I think the chief consideration was the Remembrance Day issue of the paper.

I am sorry that anyone was needlessly "hurt" by any statement in the paper. I confess certain indiscretions and errors of judgement, but beyond that I have no apologies. The Council has seen fit to order a change in editorship, and I have no reason or desire to stand in their way. Cleo Mowers 6

Why did these two critiques of Armistice Day draw such ire? Quite simply because they called into question the value of the sacrifice. By questioning the motives of the war and its soldiers, they chipped away at the foundations of the memory of the war, threatening to destroy the consolation, explanation, and meaning that had been carefully constructed.

Suggestions for further reading

War memorials:
• Annette Becker, 'From Death to Memory: The National Ossuaries in France after the Great War,' History and Memory 5, no. 2 (1993): 59-69.
• K.S. Inglis, 'A Sacred Place: The Making of the Australian War Memorial,' War & Society 3, no. 2 (1985): 99-126.
• Gaynor Kavanaugh, 'Museum as Memorial: The Origins of the Imperial War Museum,' Journal of Contemporary History 23, no. 1 (Jan. 1988): 77-98.
• Special issue on war memorials, Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains 42, no. 167 (1992).

Armistice Day:
• N. Annan, 'Remembrance Sunday,' Theology 64 (1961): 442-5.
• M. McKernan and P. Stanley, eds., Anzac Day: Seventy Years On (Sydney 1986).
• John A. Munro, 'Armistice Day in France 1918: A Letter from John Wilson (Mike) O'Daniel,' Delaware History 25, no. 4 (1993-4): 264-8.
• V. Newell, 'Armistice Day: Folk Tradition in an English Festival of Remembrance,' Folk-Lore 87 (1976): 226-9.
• Mary Wilson, 'The Making of Melbourne's Anzac Day,' Australian Journal of Politics and History 20 (1974): 197-209.

Footnotes
1. Windsor Municipal Archives.
2. Translation from Le Soleil, 11 November 1938, in NAC, W.L.M. King Papers, series J4, vol. 205, 141795.
3. Editorial, The Sheaf, 10 November 1938.
4. The Sheaf, 25 November 1938.
5. The Sheaf, 25 November 1938.
6. The Sheaf, 18 November 1938.