World War I, 100 years ago


This 2011 video from Britain is called Conscientious Objectors in World War One.

By John Ellison in Britain:

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

A look back 100 years to WWI

IN EARLY March 1918 literary historian Lytton Strachey was close to publishing his soon to be famous book of essays Eminent Victorians, which treated his highly respectable subjects with a near scandalous degree of irreverence and wit.

He had recently attended the trial of anti-war philosopher Bertrand Russell, when the latter had been sentenced to six months in prison for inciting disaffection in a January article in the No Conscription Fellowship’s weekly Tribunal.

His sympathies were entirely with Russell. He wrote in a letter to a Bloomsbury circle fellow member: “It was really infamous … The spectacle of a louse like Sir John Dickinson rating Bertie for immorality and sending him to prison!”

Russell now belonged to the determined few sentenced to jail for peace agitation.

Another was Edmund Morel, serial exposer of Britain’s imperialist motives in the war, lately released from Pentonville Prison.

He had been given a six-month sentence late the previous summer for sending a Union of Democratic Control pamphlet to a friend in Switzerland (technically contravening the Defence of the Realm Act). His freedom was celebrated at a public meeting in Leicester.

The treatment of “absolutist” conscientious objectors to the war — who had refused military (and, when prescribed, non-combatant service) — had been severe. For them repeated sentences with hard labour was the preferred punishment.

On March 7 Clarence Norman, imprisoned since summer 1916, and now charged with refusing to don a military uniform, defended himself on the basis that he should only be judged by a civil court. For him another hard labour sentence followed.

The playwright George Bernard Shaw in a letter printed in the Manchester Guardian on March 15 described Norman as
“a very obstreperous martyr … Mr Clarence Norman … may be depended on not to suffer in dignified and melancholy silence.”

Another CO died in Hull Prison early in March following a hunger strike. It was later confirmed that his death was due to pneumonia accelerated by forcible feeding. Had a longer tube been inserted, a doctor stated, he would not have choked to death.

The Lloyd George-led government was not much bothered by the fate of war resisters. On March 1 war cabinet discussion was focused on a proposed landing of a small party of British soldiers at Murmansk in northern Russia’s Kola Inlet, and then on what looked like the approach of the anticipated German offensive on the Western Front.

On March 6 a company of British marines — 130 men — disembarked at Murmansk from a warship and marched into local barracks.

No fighting took place, but this was the moment of the first direct British military action against the Lenin government of Russia. It was not publicised.

But government support for a landing by Japanese forces in the far east of Russia, at Vladivostok, was quickly known.

In late February a secret message had gone to Washington inviting the US to approve a Japanese landing on the basis that a Japanese force would move westwards across Siberia as far as the railway centre of Chelyabinsk, just east of the Urals.

The notion was that credibility could thereby be lent to the argument that Japanese intervention would be as an ally against Germany more than as an ally against Bolshevism.

There was a fall-back inference that the Bolsheviks, having declined to continue to fight Germany, were more or less its agents anyway.

The independent-minded weekly The Nation on March 9 was critical of approval for a Japanese landing.

“The case publicly advanced for this intervention is that the Germans, after extorting from Russia her consent to a peace which she regards only as a truce, are now in a position to threaten Japan, 5,000 miles away at Vladivostok. This pretext … is manifestly remote from any reason which could sway responsible statesmen.”

The British Socialist Party’s The Call drove deeper, classing the adventure with that of Britain in 1882 when, on the pretext of restoring public order and the authority of Egypt’s Khedive, British troops had landed in Egypt in order to put it under British control.

It stated flatly: “Japan and Germany, formally belonging to two opposite camps, are acting as the joint executors of the capitalist world.”

From Petrograd, however, British agent Bruce Lockhart was cabling his Whitehall masters anxiously and vainly opposing support for Japan, as he considered it made less likely Russia’s return to war against Germany.

Lockhart had a revealing meeting with Lenin on March 1, when told he would have facilities to work in Russia and would be free to leave when he wished.

In his 1932 book Memoirs of a British Agent, Lockhart recounted that Lenin told him: “So long … as the German danger exists, I am prepared to risk a co-operation with the allies … In the event of German aggression, I am even willing to accept military support. At the same time I am quite convinced that your government will never see things in this light … It will co-operate with the Russian reactionaries.”

Indeed, it was already financing them. Before the end of January the war cabinet had decided to send a gift of £20,000 to anti-Bolshevik forces in eastern Siberia.

Lockhart’s London counterpart, Maxim Litvinov, Russia’s “ambassador” since early January, was now enjoying less freedom of action.

Notice to quit his office rooms at 82 Victoria Street had been followed at the end of February by his landlord’s agent’s refusal of access.

Granted an injunction, Litvinov was able to return, but on March 8 Mr Justice Neville at the Royal Courts of Justice brushed away any thought of political neutrality.

The regime Litvinov represented earned only judicial contempt: “I know of no such government.”

Litvinov’s claim to remain at Victoria Street was dismissed with costs on the grounds that he had not come to court “with clean hands”, having been apparently in breach of Defence of the Realm Regulations by making a statement to trade unions “likely to cause disaffection.” He was compelled to work from home again.

He was now subjected to a new The Defence of the Realm Act regulation — in force from March 5 — prohibiting an alien from addressing meetings and engaging in propaganda.

In mid-March The Call commented tolerantly on the demonisation of Litvinov and socialism: “There has always existed a curious notion among our bourgeoisie that socialism, and all other ‘subversive’ ideas are foreign importations, principally advocated in this country by uncouth individuals in wide-awake hats and mysterious trousers.”

The government continued to pursue the cancellation of exemptions from conscription in the Manpower (“Manslaughter”) Bill, though its intentions had been confronted by a substantial vote of the engineers’ union against the “comb-out”, and now by a smaller majority vote against by the miners.

On March 8 the Daily Mirror guessed where the German army would strike on the Western Front. It would be “at the extreme British right-wing, with a view to breaking its contact with the French left-wing.”

The Mirror routinely recorded that day the latest Roll of Honour casualty list, which included 17 officers and 326 NCOs and men dead, and many more wounded and missing.

The much larger casualties necessarily resulting from another offensive were not the subject of mainstream press consideration.

If the German armies, strengthened by the end of the war in the east, were to win in the west, they needed to do so before the mass of US forces arrived.

The offensive began on the 21st, following a massive artillery bombardment, and, as the Mirror had predicted, just above the join with the French army, and on a 50-mile front.

By the 28th, to Field Marshal Haig’s bewilderment, a 40-mile British retreat had taken place. Once again the generals underestimated enemy strength, reflected this time by putting far too many defending troops in the most forward trenches.

By evening on the 26th, a general noted that British casualties were up to 80,000.

A new “Manslaughter” Bill was now hastily planned to conscript not only men in Britain aged up to 50, but the men of Ireland too — while Irish nationalist feeling was growing ever stronger, inspired by the Easter Rising’s bloody suppression almost two years before.

Advertisements

Stop British chemical weapons tests on animals


This video about Syria says about itself:

FSA

the Free Syrian army, now allies of the Turkish Erdogan regime in attacking Afrin

Test Chemical Weapons On Rabbits & Request Gas With 1km Radius

30 August 2013

This video shows the FSA testing chemical weapons (specifically sarin gas) on rabbits as well as footage of FSA fighters posing with dozens of containers full of nitric acid and Tekkim. Towards the end of the video there is a recorded phone call of a FSA fighter requesting a chemical weapon with a radius of 1km.

By Ceren Sagir in Britain:

Friday, March 23, 2018

Animal Welfare: Government called on to end inhumane chemical weapons tests on animals

CAMPAIGNERS called on the government today to end painful and inhumane chemical weapons tests on animals.

The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) has hit out at painful inhalation tests on animals in its Chemical Weapons Defence Centre at Porton Down.

NAVS is calling for the new, publicly funded facility to use advanced human-relevant methods instead as thousands of animals suffer each year during experiments by the Ministry of Defence.

Society president Jan Creamer said using animals in chemical weapons tests was “ethically and scientifically wrong.”

She said: “Unlike advanced alternatives, the results simply cannot provide reliable predictions of how humans will react to harmful substances, hindering medical progress and costing animals’ lives.”

Monkeypox tests, a similar virus to smallpox, have been conducted on animals despite vaccinations for smallpox on humans already found to be “safe and well tolerated” in the majority of people.

Relatively uncommon diseases such as the Western equine encephalitis virus, which is contracted through mosquito bites or proximity to infected horses, are also tested.

All the animals who were exposed to the virus died, but in natural human exposure the mortality rate was only 3-4 per cent.

Once experiments are over and after suffering various symptoms, animals are killed and have their organs removed for further testing.

Campaigners have suggested using human-relevant experiments instead, such as the human lung-on-a-chip device.

This is made using lung and blood vessel cells that reproduce the “structural, functional and mechanical” properties of the human lung and has been used to model respiratory infections, including tuberculosis.

Animals in circuses ban in Britain


This video says about itself:

25 April 2016

When circuses are touring, animals are forced to live in collapsible, temporary accommodation, and welfare is inevitably compromised. Our investigation of Peter Jolly’s Circus winter quarters reveals that life is just as miserable for circus animals when they are not touring. Find out more and how you can help here.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Actors welcome plans to ban wild animals in circuses

BRITISH actors have welcomed plans to ban wild animal circuses in England within two years.

Brian Blessed, a long-standing supporter of Animal Defenders International (ADI) and its campaign to stop circus suffering, said he was “absolutely delighted” that a wild animal circus ban is in sight.

“It cannot come soon enough for the animals, who must endure an utterly unnatural and miserable life in the circus,” he said.

ADI said circuses could not provide animals with adequate facilities to keep them physically or psychologically healthy as they are frequently on the move.

Joanna Lumley, another staunch supporter of the campaign, said: “Forced to perform, caged and confined — it is haunting and horrifying to see animals being used in circuses and I’m thrilled that action will finally be taken.”

She also called for an end to the “pitiful acts” across Britain and urged the public to join her in backing ADI’s campaign.

ADI president Jan Creamer said: “Circuses cannot meet the needs of animals in small, mobile accommodation and Animal Defenders International has repeatedly documented suffering and abuse.”

An increase in awareness of circus animals’ suffering has led to a decline in the number of acts in Britain, with only two performing in England using wild animals.

Suffering caused to wild animals by constant travel, severe restrictions on movement and an unnatural lifestyle has prompted authorities and governments around the world to end their use in circuses.

National restrictions on performing animals in travelling shows have now been enacted in 43 countries.

Pond wildlife discovered by British children


This video from Britain says about itself:

Explore a watery world with pond dipping

23 February 2018

Summer is a great time to go exploring, and whether you’re by the sea, a pond or any other water, it’s also a great time to learn more about underwater nature first hand.

Make sure you stay safe however you choose to explore.

The video features frogs, newts and insects.

Peace and disarmament video


This video says about itself:

VOICES OF International Peace BureauLisa Clark

13 February 2018

Disarmament means peace. IPB stands for disarmament!!”

Britain: Sixty years on: why we need CND more than ever: here.