Commentators

11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Robert Fisk’s World: Some lessons in sacrifice from Liverpool in two world wars

Were we made of ‘sterner stuff’, as my Dad would have said, in those days

I used to read and re-read The Spire by William Golding – he of Lord of the Flies fame – awed by the corruption of the medieval church and stunned by the venality but determination of the bishop who insisted on building the highest spire in the land ever higher as a nail from the True Cross was wending its way in a baggage train from Rome.

Even when the architect warned the bishop that he was committing hubris by building God's mansion to such a height that its Gothic stones and arches were "singing" with the enormous and unprecedented weight, up went the cathedral spire, ever higher.

I was reminded of The Spire when I sat in Liverpool Cathedral last week, the first Anglican cathedral ever designed by a Catholic. Giles Gilbert Scott was the grandson of the man who built St Pancras, and Scott himself was the architect of Bankside power station – so no one had any excuse to be ignorant of what they were getting: technology and Gothic folly, Britain's largest cathedral with the highest and widest Gothic arches in the world, as Liverpool's Anglican Bishop James Jones reminded me. You could fit Nelson's column inside – provided you took off the admiral's hat.

Even if I would sometimes wish that bishops (Jones excepted, of course) would spend less time boasting of the size of their institutions and more time reflecting on the changing nature of their faith, you've got to be impressed. The whole edifice took 74 years to build, and they were still craning stones up to the heights as German bombs were bringing some of it crashing to the ground in the Second World War. Scott didn't live to see it but he was able to use modern building techniques to achieve what the technology of the 14th and 15th century couldn't do. Hence the width of the arches and the strength of their walls, adorned with Lutyens-like figures – who in some cases bore the faces of the 20th-century Liverpool stonemasons who actually built them.

A non-churchgoing Fisk, it has to be admitted, was being given an honorary doctor of letters from Liverpool Hope University – these honours are often given to long-serving foreign correspondents, more out of astonishment at their survival, I suspect, than their work – and was faced with a 10-minute mini-speech in the cathedral for the new graduates and their parents who included some of the finest burghers of a city whose wealth was originally supported by the slave trade. Dr Bob was introduced as "inevitably controversial" – "controversial", I long ago realised, was one of those code words applied to Middle East correspondents if they have been abused by Israel's so-called supporters abroad – so controversial I intended to be.

I said that we should not be in Afghanistan, that we Westerners now have 22 times as many military personnel in the Muslim world than the Crusaders had in the 12th century (the great age of real Gothic cathedrals, of course) and that the Muslim lands did not belong to us. Send them our doctors and our teachers and our agronomists – but not our soldiers. They should be brought home. This was the week in which we had all seen the heartbreaking grief which greeted the return of another eight Brits from Afghanistan.

And to my astonishment, the burghers and their families, students and their mums and dads – hitherto silent in expectation of a soft homily – began to clap, a great wash of sound that spread through the chapels and aisles of Scott's cathedral. This was due to no Fisk eloquence (nor did everyone applaud). But something had been touched off. That very morning, The Guardian had assured us that an opinion poll showed the great British public remained "firm" in its support for our campaign in Afghanistan. Well, I thought, as the clapping echoed through the nave, I wonder...

But unkinder ideas also crossed my mind. At the side of Liverpool Cathedral is a beautiful chapel dedicated to the dead of two world wars. British battle honours hang high above – I noticed "Chindits" sewn in gold on green (we shall let Wingate's bloody Middle East adventures pass without comment here) – and there is an alabaster panel showing Christ kneeling by the Sea of Galilee. But what struck me was the memorial to Liverpool's fatalities in the Hitler war, including the engineer to the Dean and Chapter, his wife and daughter.

In just one month – May of 1941 – Liverpudlians lost 1,453 men, women and children to Luftwaffe raids. In my cruel calculations, this means that our 185 dead in Afghanistan in eight years – from all over Britain – represent a mere seventh of what Liverpool alone suffered in one month of the Second World War. But the chapel archives also show that in the First World War, Liverpool lost 40,000 lives in the trenches and at sea – Liverpool alone, mark you – and the obscene exchange rate of losses thus demonstrates that for each of our total British losses in Afghanistan in eight years, 217 Liverpudlians (again, we're talking just Liverpool here) died in a war that lasted only half the length of the Afghan campaign.

Were we made of "sterner stuff" – as my Dad would have said – in those days? Churchill himself feared this in the 1940s, after Dunkirk and Greece and Crete and the fall of Tobruk. Have we all today come to expect war without death? Or is it that we accepted massive sacrifice when the enemy was, so to speak, "at the gates" – when the Germans wanted to destroy Europe in 1914 and 1939 – but cannot comprehend why our soldiers are dying, on however small a scale, in Afghanistan in 2009? It's the "why", not the "how many". Brits accept casualties, but not when the cause of those casualties is so vain – in both senses of the word when applied to the Blair/Brown governments.

That's what my Liverpool visit taught me. In a spiritual emporium, Brits showed that, even if their Government tried to convince them that Afghanistan was worth the bones of British grenadiers, they did not believe it. The Taliban are not on the Western Front or flying over Liverpool. In fact, the Taliban themselves have never bombed us – except in the land to which we have sent our soldiers. The clapping in Liverpool Cathedral last Wednesday had nothing to do with me. It had everything to do with a hopeless, lost military campaign in which we should never have become involved, whose casualties – yes, let's remember the thousands of Afghans here – are a mockery of the dead of two world wars.

And as the Catholic archbishop of Liverpool, Patrick Kelly, observed to me last week, most of the students receiving degrees in the cathedral were three years older than many of the soldiers who were dying in Afghanistan. That said it all.

More from Robert Fisk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Once again, spot on
[info]49niner wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 05:20 am (UTC)
Indeed! The Taliban are not "knocking at the gates". We're invading their country. In WW2 especially we were a nation fighting for survival. In 2009, Afghanistan and Iraq are all about the vanity of leaders who are out of touch with reality.

So let's disregard all the scare stories about how, if we left Afghanistan, we'd get bombs on our streets and Al qaida would roam the land. And our drug problem is all about our dysfunctional society, not the fault of Afghan farmers who grow poppies.

It's time to bring the troops home. Their job is to guard the gates, not massage the vanity of politicians.
Re: Once again, spot on
[info]rayleddy wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:20 am (UTC)
spot on, well said that man!
anti fisk brigade
[info]confusedcitizen wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 07:22 am (UTC)
another well written comment by Fisk. The anti Fisk brigade must still be in bed but they will be up shortly to try and turn this commentry into something it is not. Their desperation makes me smile.
Re: anti fisk brigade
[info]ganef wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
Don't look at me. I read his piece at 4.00am BST.
Re: anti fisk brigade
[info]rustybees wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
Your spot on....I have only just got up!!

Is that a piece of evidence-based research regarding sleeping pattens of those who disagree with Heir Fisk? However as I have only just got up I guess I cannot disagree, alas I we must be lazier per se, in my!!

(just a thought US anti-Fisk Brigade can sleep a lot easier than you pro-Fisk'ers!?!?)
what if Wolfs can't feed the Dogs ?
[info]amenaman wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
the reason why USA/UK in Afghan land is not to change the way they are living,but to get control of Afghan land,some we know about,some not.
"Wolfs want to keep dogs satisfied by bringing investment".
Violence..
Excellent piece
[info]philliverpool wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:16 am (UTC)

It also astonished and heartened me that the poll revealed that most Brits are opposed to our occupation of Afghanistan in spite of the media's gung-ho support. Thankfully, we have the internet which is the only place people can read the truth and which is no doubt going to come under attack by the Ziocons who wish to remain the masters of discourse.

I'd just like to add that the Merchant Navy lost 2,476 ships and more than 35,000 sailors, many from Merseyside, during WW2. At least 400 Liverpool-registered ships, were lost during the war - more than a quarter of all British tonnage lost.



Afghanistan
[info]durendal187 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:17 pm (UTC)
Afghanistan is the result of the attacks on the USA by Al Qaida on 9/11 and the refusal of the Taliban to hand over to the USA the people responsible for those attacks.
So NATO went in.
Britain is not the only country who has suffered losses in Afghanistan.
But I agree that it would be nice if other countries would take over.
NATO is supposed to be a collective defense organisation where it´s members vow to protect each other when attacked.
Certain countries are not carrying the weight they should carry.
There should be sanctions put on those countries which refuse to go along by excluding them from NATO all together.
NATO is supposed to be a collective defense organisation
[info]libertarian09 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 06:31 pm (UTC)
When if ever has NATO actually defended a member country? What NATO countries have been attacked militarily? Time to abolish this outdated institution.
Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]libertarian09 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:18 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]durendal187 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 11:10 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]libertarian09 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 11:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]amenaman - Monday, 20 July 2009 at 08:41 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]airtobs - Monday, 20 July 2009 at 08:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]amenaman - Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 09:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]durendal187 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 11:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]amenaman - Monday, 20 July 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 08:13 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida - [info]juve_girl - Monday, 17 August 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan
[info]gerry3273 wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:00 pm (UTC)
This war is not primarily about bin Laden or the Taliban. It's about the historical rivalry in that region between Russia and the UK. Since the decline of the UK as a world power, this has now become a rivalry between Russia and the US. It goes back to Tsarist times, when the UK saw Russia as a regional threat to its control of India, and now it is about energy resources in the Caspian Sea.

Afghanistan is a key location for proposed oil and gas pipelines, if only the country can be stabilised sufficiently for the pipelines to be viable. That requires a compliant government in Kabul that actually controls most of Afghan territory. This is the main focus of the current war. The Taliban are merely one of the forces that stands in the way of achieving that compliant and stable government. It's highly unlikely, of course, that such stability could ever be achieved.

Fisk is quite right. We should get out of Afghanistan. The war, as usual, is being fought on a lie to the people of the western powers involved. And the stability that the western governments and oil companies seek is likely unachievable. Sadly, the UK government will probably find it less risky to keep pouring money into this mess and sacrificing our soldiers' lives for nothing. The Tories, if elected, will do the same thing (they would have done the same thing in Iraq too -- another futile war that they supported).
Re: Afghanistan - [info]durendal187 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]gerry3273 - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan
[info]amenaman wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 08:07 pm (UTC)
USA/NATO will not fined it difficult to invade Afghanistan,as in Iraq....Even if Taliban hand over Bin-laden,USA/NATO will come in.
It was planed long time ago....as Israel planed invasion to Lebanon on 2006, and as Israel planed on Gaza operation 2008/09.
Do not be naive....!
some one like to keep war to sell weapon,distracting minds from what is happening in the country.
we learned from history in Iraq invasion by saying :- Saddam (45 minutes ...),giving democracy to Iraqi people....! and many good reasons......etc..?! what we have seen .... now..?!
In politics ;there are many nasty reasons behind a good reason...!
Re: Afghanistan - [info]durendal187 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:25 pm (UTC) Expand
read with eyes not ears..! - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan
[info]amenaman wrote:
Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 09:09 pm (UTC)
if Country breech the rules of law and justice as in Israel attacking Gaza and Lebanon 2008/2006.NATO should use power.
NATO/UN has been used by USA .
Re: Afghanistan - [info]durendal187 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 09:24 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]libertarian09 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]durendal187 - Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Preventing war between major powers - [info]libertarian09 - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 08:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 06:01 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]gerry3273 - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 02:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]libertarian09 - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 05:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 06:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]libertarian09 - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 08:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghanistan - [info]amenaman - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 08:47 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]elmagq - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 03:23 pm (UTC)
The Taliban government sheltered Bib Laden and allowed him to commit his atrocities. that is why we bombed them and invaded. Its why we are still there and justified to be there. What is wrong is the lack of political strategy adn leadership and the lack of will in governemnt to prosecute the war and eal with the problem of aid and rebuilding and the problem of a corrupt ineffective Afghan government to look after its own people.

Ben Laden can't do it alone.....Lot of questions than answers..!
[info]amenaman wrote:
Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 07:01 pm (UTC)
there are a lot of questions about 11/9.
Israel is involved in it.Moussad were dancing ,Not a single Jew was killed,injured,all money were taken out from the accounts,sell all the investment for Jews,the steel was melted, the building collapsed

in the the way that not only Ben Laden did it. in Mofaz was not allowing the investigator to enter Airport ,when he was told that the world will say ;Israel is not Democratic,Mofaz reply, was let the world say that;better than the world say when see Jennin burns ;that Israel is involved in 11/9...!!!!Burns shows the similarity..!
read not not google it....to think not to be receiver only..
[info]amenaman wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 07:26 pm (UTC)
read this book,written by western :
9.11 Revealed challenging the facts behind the war on terror......!
"by Ian Henshall/Rowland Korgan,
ISBN 1-84529-140-9.
think not to be receiver only....!!
many people insult only themselves y saying that,we know them....!
(no subject) - [info]iq_tester - Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 07:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Who were the 9/11 attackers?
[info]jl3793 wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 02:50 am (UTC)
And just how many of the 9/11 attackers were uneducated goat herders who spoke only Pashtun, couldn't write a memo or sign their name, grew poppies, believed in 27 or so virgins as their reward, and learned to fly Boeing 757's in the training camps of southern Hellmand? Somehow me thinks these folk aren't the real threat.
Re: Who were the 9/11 attackers?
[info]amenaman wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 07:13 pm (UTC)
you need to educate yourself....only....!
since you do not know about 9/11attackers !s
start with simple book,do you read books ? or Google education ?
read about 9/11 called Revealed,challenging the facts behind the war on terror by :-
Ian Henshall and rowland Mogan....
readers will see if you can not see....jl3793..the goats are those who see what USA/Israel want them to see..!
Nolw we know:-
1-election have been won.
2-Laws have been passed
3-War have been fought because of "9/11.
It is time for us to decide whether this story is right or fabricated by FBI,Mousad..!
Re: Who were the 9/11 attackers? - [info]achilles0200 - Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 06:15 pm (UTC) Expand
ABDALLAH AZZAM....?
[info]amenaman wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 09:00 am (UTC)
why Israel killed "ABDALLAH AZZAM" in Afghanistan over 20 years ago ? read more about this man.
he fight Russia ?far way from Palestine.
Afghanistan is main enemy TO ISRAEL no the long run..!
WE know better ;if we know What Israel is planing for..!
[info]amenaman wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC)
IS UK Going to fight with Saudi of the Prince commented adultery ?asking to apply UK law in SAUDI ?
Israel ...wanted...!
[info]amenaman wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 10:13 am (UTC)
USA will never attack Mexico for Illegal opioid while USA attack Afghanistan ?
Why /
Because ISRAEL did not ask USA to do so...
Ben Laden can't do it alone.....Lot of questions than answers..!
[info]amenaman wrote:
Monday, 20 July 2009 at 08:22 pm (UTC)
part (1) that Ben laden can't do it alone...! But no one has been successfully prosecuted for complicity in the attacks and the evidence for the official story has been tested in the court.An unknown number of anti-terrorism exercises were running that morning,a skyscraper untouched by the planes collapsed that same afternoon,flight recorders from the world Trade Center are unaccountably missing.for the most part we are relying on government leaks and press releases for our information on what is perhaps the most significant single day since the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor.
many independent jouralist reveal the important part of the official story.
Re: Ben Laden can't do it alone.....Lot of questions than answers..!
[info]libertarian09 wrote:
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 02:20 am (UTC)
I believe August 6/ 1945 is the most significant single day in history let alone since Pearl Harbour.

We have just been told what to think of 9/11 significance. Remember "9/11 changed everything". Why? Why didn't 1st of July 1916 when almost 20,000 Britons and God knows how many Germans lost their lives "changed everything"? Or the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia with its horrendous loss of life.

There are many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. Only the perpetrators know for sure. The only thing I am certain of is that we are not being told the truth
Re: 9/11-Israel - [info]libertarian09 - Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 04:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: 9/11-Israel - [info]amenaman - Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC) Expand
Re: 9/11-Israel - [info]amenaman - Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 04:56 pm (UTC) Expand
UN/International community - [info]libertarian09 - Thursday, 23 July 2009 at 01:14 am (UTC) Expand
Puerile
[info]achilles0200 wrote:
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 06:13 pm (UTC)
"Dr Bob was introduced as "inevitably controversial" - "controversial",
I long ago realised, was one of those code words applied to Middle East
correspondents if they have been abused by Israel's so-called supporters
abroad - so controversial I intended to be."


Yawn. The honorary doctor is not simply boring with his repetitive and
persistent sniping at Israel he is exhibiting signs of paranoia. For
someone who dishes out abuse he seems surprisingly sensitive to
receiving it. And as for 'controversial' how about being considered,
dispassionate and objective? Or does that not get a look in as
qualities that we do not require from a 'commentator'.

What is truly pathetic about Fisk (sorry is that abuse?) is that within
weeks he has turned his back on the tumultuous events and the wholesale
oppression that is taking place there so that he can go back to
indulging in Israel bashing which he works into nearly all his articles
on the flimsiest of associations with the topic in hand.

It's not controversial, it's puerile. Grow up 'Dr' Bob!
Re: Puerile
[info]scotttracey wrote:
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 07:54 pm (UTC)
Fisk's obsession with Israel isn't so much puerile as manipulative of his fawning audience of assorted racists, weirdos and losers. He's clever enough to know that there's very little journalistic mileage in writing about, for example, Liverpool; but if he spices up his feature with a contrived link to matters Israeli, out they all come. Like Galloway he is making a living as a professional Israel-basher. It's his job - see him for what he is.

The word "pathetic" is best kept for those manipulated by the likes of Fisk. Out they obediently trot when Fisk calls with their silly, and faintly offensive, nonsensical mix of urban myths and paranoia. I'm sure some of them would look you in the eye and with a straight face tell you that Mossad ran Auschwitz as a fiendish plot to establish Zionist hegemony over the blessed Palestinians.
Re: Puerile - [info]achilles0200 - Thursday, 23 July 2009 at 12:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Puerile - [info]scotttracey - Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 08:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Puerile - [info]achilles0200 - Monday, 27 July 2009 at 07:12 am (UTC) Expand

Most popular in Opinion