What the Armistice Day Means 100 Years Later

Source: Irish Independent

Today is a big day. It is exactly 100 years since the Armistice was signed, silencing the guns across the Western Front and relieving fatigued, abused soldiers fighting the First World War. The leaders of France and Germany, hand in hand, walked up to the newly unveiled monument.

Leaders of the world were present in Paris to commemorate the occasion and observe remembrance of the fallen soldiers of probably the most traumatic battlefield experiences in history. The moment is celebrated around the world as two civilized nations reiterate the commitment to peace and promise to avoid war at all costs. People around the world aspire to moments such as these.

The European colonial powers have finally figured out how destructive war is and rightly so. The bitter experiences of centuries of war had reduced a very small continent to rubble. War has vanished from Europe, thank God. But has it from the world?

The Armistice Day 100 years later brings a message of hope and optimism. A message inspiring nations in conflict around the world to set aside their differences and settle issues with diplomacy. Even to nations like India and Pakistan and those in the Middle East.

More importantly, a message of caution was sent out by the French leader who recognized that the “old demons” were coming back to life again. He warned against “nationalism,” which like a century ago had become synonymous with fascism.

However, it also sends a message of disappointment to nations where many wars are actually being fueled, directly or indirectly, by the very nations that are commemorating the Armistice Day. The citizens of Libya, Yemen, and Syria might not appreciate this ode to European harmony too much. And not just out of plain envy.

Perhaps on this Armistice Day, the world is satisfied that the center of war and conflict has shifted outside Europe 100 years later.

Advertisements

Lessons from Chernobyl 30 Years Later

Source: history.com

Source: history.com

Each April 26, apart from recalling the anniversary of my first ever hard drive crash, I wonder if we have learned anything from Chernobyl.

Thirty years ago on this day, easily the worst peacetime nuclear disaster occurred on this planet. And it leaves us with a big question.

Can nuclear installations be trusted in the hands of the government near population centers?

I wonder why Chernobyl has not made the answer easier for us. Clearly not. Chernobyl is not just a reflection of the horrors of nuclear technology, but it is also an insight into the mindset of the bureaucracy in a country with a massive government.

Granted, such a design mistake has not been repeated since, yet that is not the only danger involved in nuclear reactors.

We probably do not realize the extent of irreversible damage nuclear radiation could cause. Actually, we clearly don’t.

 

Chernobyl released at least 100 times more radiation than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb, according to the BBC. Other sources consider the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone uninhabitable for humans due to dangerous Cesium radiation levels, and that the inhabitable zone would remain dangerous for the next 20,000 years. That’s shocking.

Not to mention the terrible toll the disaster has taken on animal life in the region, with suppressed biodiversity and startling diseases emerging among newborn and children as a result of genetic mutations.

 

Chernobyl disaster literally turned the neighboring Pripyat into a ghost town, which sends chills down your spine.

The nuclear radiation from the disaster spread out as far as Sweden and Western Europe.

Source: BBC

Source: BBC

We may hear about it on a day like this, but we never really believe that a nuclear spill or meltdown as in the case of Chernobyl could last for thousands of years.

As of January 2016, 439 nuclear reactors are operating around the world on five continents. While there is no doubt that nuclear technology has only improved over the years and most scientists consider nuclear technology very safe, it hardly changes the lethality of a possible accident.

Fukushima could not have been a harsher reminder of our vulnerability. If a highly advanced industrial nation such as Japan cannot handle the breakdown of a nuclear reactor in the aftermath of a natural disaster, even worse can be expected from countries with far poorer government infrastructure, such as Pakistan and India.

As a matter of fact, some reports suggest that the fallout from Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl and Hiroshima and that the worst effects of the accident are yet to materialize. However, the reporting of the risk has largely to do with the politics of the source as well, there is little doubt that Chernobyl was incomparable in its consequences due to its meltdown nature.

Fukushima also reveals is that no nuclear facility is completely disaster proof and that the potential fallout is nothing short of an environmental apocalypse.

I leave this post by pondering what to make of nuclear energy policy. Nuclear energy has its benefits as clean energy and the probability of nuclear accidents is considered very low. Furthermore, with maintaining nuclear weapons becoming almost a necessity for world powers, why not just take the risk of building nuclear reactors for power generation as well?

After all, they are well protected anyway.

But isn’t the risk of the pervasiveness of civil nuclear power plants unique in its own right? Despite the fact that most of the warnings about the potential danger of this mode of generating power are dismissed as pure alarmism.

Clearly, the only lesson that is visible after 30 years is that we are only building more nuclear reactors.

But what if we were building around our neighborhoods, with our own hands, the same disaster that we feared and dreaded so much during the uncertain Cold War?

Sadly, the evidence that we have witnessed over the years is just too overwhelming to ignore.

———————————————————————————————————————–

Happy Birthday Allan B. Calhamer

Source: Chicago Mag (Megan Lovejoy)

Today is a special day. It is the 80th birthday of Allan B. Calhamer.

But who in the world is he?

Calhamer is the creator of one of the most successful and challenging strategy board games in history, fittingly called Diplomacy. Although people may shrug off Diplomacy as just another board game, but it can be safely said that in terms of effectiveness in strategic gameplay, it is the only one which comes even close to Chess and even surpassing it when it comes to resemblance with actual diplomacy, emulation of broad military geo-strategy and human interaction.

Actually it is the very human interaction and interrelation of players which earn Diplomacy a spot in world history and in the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design Hall of Fame. Calhamer started the idea while he studied at Harvard in the late 1950s, completing his majors in history when he started toying with old maps and books discussing the origins of the Great War in Europe, as the game itself is set in the Pre-WWI Europe. His earliest typed draft of the rules of Diplomacy is still available on the internet to whoever wants to take a look at it. A lot of Diplomacy players are traditionalists and like to preserve things as much as possible. After all, Diplomacy is a game of records and statistics as much as it concerns geo-strategy, politics and negotiations. Just like life.

For someone who doesn’t play Diplomacy and does not feel strongly about it, all what has just been written about it is a mere exaggeration. However, Diplomacy enthusiasts would like to think otherwise. You can trivialize any given game but if played in its correct spirit and with understanding, it can offer one of the most delightful and rewarding experiences that a board game could offer. But as Diplomacy is also played online and has also been played through mail, its scope reaches way beyond just a board game.

Diplomacy gained instant success after its publication in 1959 with hundreds of thousands of copies sold. Calhamer eventually sold the rights to Avalon Hill, which publishes the game to this day, offering a small fragment of sales proceed as royalties to him. But the best thing is that you don’t really need to own the copy of the board game to play the game today. Of course the game evolved to Postal Diplomacy through fanzines in no time, which was more out of necessity, as you can’t always find seven interested players all the time. Web Diplomacy sites such as PlayDiplomacy.com, WebDiplomacy.net and Stabbeurfou.org have made life even easier for Diplomacy players and is played either on interactive maps or on discussion forum websites.

Originally called RealPolitik, it is no surprise at all that Diplomacy is the favorite game of Henry Kissinger, the most famous diplomat of our times, and also that of President John F. Kennedy. No wonder any regular player of Diplomacy can find him or herself practicing more or less the same skill that the American diplomat employed during his actual diplomatic career, depending on how good you are at the game. Diplomacy had been quite a frequent visitor of the White House during the 1960s and 1970s. However, we don’t hear about that any more, if it is played there these days at all, that is. But history classes in American schools are often considered incomplete by teachers without the introduction of Diplomacy to their young students. It is then when you either fall in love with it or hate it forever.

Allan Calhamer probably never achieved a lot of fame, apart from inventing a board game, but he should be appreciated as an inspiration to all of us. He continues to inspire thousands of Diplomacy players around the world with the fascinating game that he has created, which so closely emulates real world politics, alliances, deception and backstabbing. No player can progress without another’s help. There is no dice, as in Risk, which frankly is a child’s version of a World Diplomacy variant and is far less intriguing.  Although one problem with Diplomacy is the number of players required, which is 7 in the Standard version, but there even are scenarios for lesser number of players.

Calhamer is an inspiration for his creativity and shows us that all of us can create something fascinating even when it is something as simple as a board game. Of course, it was his original invention that triggered a flood of hundreds of variants of Diplomacy created by several people. You can find a record of all those variants at the Variant Bank. He has been places as well, trying his hand at foreign service and serving briefly in Africa and has also enjoyed a fair bit of popularity at the State Department. He has settled down in his hometown of La Grange Park, Illinois, with his wife Hilda and happily works at the local post office as per the last reports. Seemingly an oblivious and quiet job he has, but he surely has created enough waves to imprint his footstep on history.

Allan B. Calhamer, you will always be remembered for Diplomacy. Thank you.

There are No Lies in the Battlefield

Courtesy: James Montgomery, acclaimimages.com

What is it about wars that thrill us? What is it that makes us feel so good, so proud, as if we have accomplished something. Is it the bravery, the chivalry, the defiance to death that men can display, or simply because it makes great stories to tell? It does not matter, because in our world it is a glorious thing to go to wars.

But war is an intellectual concept nevertheless. I have to acknowledge that fact. It is as intellectual as it is stupid and nonsense. This is why it is fought by people far away from action in the battlefield. You know, far away from those mindless soldiers, who are brainwashed the moment they land into Boot Camp. They are fed lies, and they are fed truths. But one thing is for sure. They take away from them a part of humanity and they get to earn a part of it that no one else would ever know about.

But even more cruel are the ones who do not even set foot on the battlefield and expect others to sacrifice themselves for them. The one who dodges the bullet, the one who bears the wounds and the one who witnesses the horrors of war can only know what war is like and how vain national glory means when you only have your life to lose, unless they are hardened by war and it becomes their way of living. Some do it by choice and suffer, others are forced into it and made to suffer.

You would have heard about, if not watched, All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), based on the novel of the same title by German veteran Erich Maria Remarque. It is just a movie, maybe a touch too exaggerating and maybe overdone for some, but it tells the story of men who lived through World War I, an overdone war after all,  if it is not too much to say. The film emphasizes this very idea more explicitly and deliberately than most of the others about the war that you would come across.

The film talks about sending the youth to the front lines for glory and their subsequent discovery of what war really is. The film was banned in the Nazi Germany for its anti-war content, which for no surprise was taken to be an attack on German nationalism. Rats were used to disperse audiences during the initial screening of the film in theaters. But let’s not take any sides here. To my mind, the American filmmakers have emphasized the human side of the war by choosing to tell the story of a non-allied nation.

How many politically motivated artists talk about the human side of the enemy soldier? Most of the war movies even have no faces for them, just silhouettes. The silhouette of the enemy.  There is no enemy soldier, just humans who agree to kill each other over something they are not even aware of. The film applies as much to France as it does to Germany. It applies as much to Britain, or any other allied nation. It applies to each and every nation of the world. It applies to humanity. The blood-thirsty humanity.

A Few Important Excerpts 

(Note: Right now, the complete movie is available on YouTube. However, I have only posted the excerpts in context of the post. It may or may not be accessible from different parts of the world.)

For those familiar with the history of World War I and Trench Warfare in the Western Front, are also familiar with the toll it took on men.  This film, also the novel, is about how a war changes a man, how a war destroys a man and how they are sent by civilization to die to lift their spirits. A remarkable motion picture for its time, it effectively portrays what a soldier goes through before, during and after war, whether an exaggerated portrayal or not. I think it really is a lot worse than this.

What I learned from this film and what shook me the most is this.

There are no Lies in the Battlefield.

But have we learned the lesson?

That’s why we are an intelligent species.