Harry Patch Rip

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

'The boys who were kind and keen and gay.' (In the old sense)

The loss of that generation was a loss of our national innocence. RIP

yep

remind me again just who benefits from wars

is it the bankers who often finance both sides

is it the weapons manfuacturers

is it the politicians who like causing distractions from their own behaviour

or is it the ordinary guy

[robo1968]

The simple fact is that this fellow ( and I have watched all the wonderful programs with him and his colleagues in) represented a generation who went through experiences we will never comprehend

To be in a trench alone would've been bad enough, to experience the rest would break most of us used to our pampered modern lifestyles....

To give you some idea, during artillery shelling, when the trenches were relatively close, severed parts of German soldiers bodies rained down on Allied troops in the own trenches, we will never have any idea what it was like and hats off to all troops who fought enemies during these wars

It puts all the rest of this modern day stuff in perspective, shame it isn't something we are more proud of in the U.K

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

The simple fact is that this fellow ( and I have watched all the wonderful programs with him and his colleagues in) represented a generation who went through experiences we will never comprehend

To be in a trench alone would've been bad enough, to experience the rest would break most of us used to our pampered modern lifestyles....

To give you some idea, during artillery shelling, when the trenches were relatively close, severed parts of German soldiers bodies rained down on Allied troops in the own trenches, we will never have any idea what it was like and hats off to all troops who fought enemies during these wars

It puts all the rest of this modern day stuff in perspective, shame it isn't something we are more proud of in the U.K

oh yes sacrifices were made

but i think they should have just refused to fight and let those in charge do their own dirty work

[geezer466]

The old gentlemen refused the offer of a state funeral not wanting a fuss made. He fully appreciated he was only an ambassador for the loss of all those killed on service in WW1 and never invited the fame which only came to him after he passed 100 years of age.

As far as the funeral arrangements go I hope his own wishes are fully respected.

Not wanting to put a political slant on today's sad news but it was Tony Blair who first mooted the idea that the last of the Tommies should be afforded a State Funeral, the last few were asked and as far as I know all declined the offer. It was discussed widely over on ARRSE at the time. It was felt Blair was looking for some of the credibility of organising a state funeral to honour all those that served and died in WW1 would rub off on him and New Labour.

Anyway Harry RIP job done, stand down. Tell all your mates up there that we will never forget what they have done..

A Poem for Remembrance Day

"The inquisitive mind of a child"

Why are they selling poppies, Mummy?

Selling poppies in town today.

The poppies, child, are flowers of love.

For the men who marched away.

But why have they chosen a poppy, Mummy?

Why not a beautiful rose?

Because my child, men fought and died

In the fields where the poppies grow.

But why are the poppies so red, Mummy?

Why are the poppies so red?

Red is the colour of blood, my child.

The blood that our soldiers shed.

The heart of the poppy is black, Mummy.

Why does it have to be black?

Black, my child, is the symbol of grief.

For the men who never came back.

But why, Mummy are you crying so?

Your tears are giving you pain.

My tears are my fears for you my child.

For the world is forgetting again

[Byron]

Looking at Harry's medals, some seem to be Second World War ones. Did he serve in both wars?

Talking about grieving over him, I feel a sense of loss. I knew dozens of WW1 survivors, my teachers etc. Most would never talk about it to us youngsters which was in great contrast to the WW11 survivors who were always harking back to 'When I was in the desert' etc.

Today, I told my 97 year old father that Harry had gone. My father who served in the Navy and gained medals and wounds considers that the First war experience was by far the worse from what he had heard of it. A friend of mine who was on an LCT on D Day and thought that he had had a hairy time of it came back to reality when his father a First War veteran told him that they had endured far worse shelling every day on the Western Front.

No tears Harry, no false sentiment from me.

I simply salute you and those who went before you.

[thecrashingisles]

And I can't help but wonder, no Willie McBride

Do all those who lie here know why they died?

Did you really believe them when they told you The Cause?

Did you really believe that this war would end wars?

Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame

The killing, the dying it was all done in vain,

For Willie McBride it's all happened again,

And again, and again, and again, and again...

[hev]

Harry was a character, he will be missed, I dont cry, but I think there has been enough fighting, RIP Harry, you have my respect along with your comrades including my Gt grandfather- RIP

[Elizabeth]

oh yes sacrifices were made

but i think they should have just refused to fight and let those in charge do their own dirty work

It was a very different age, and I would say even in the current it is very much easier to say than do. It also relies on your knowledge, and knowledge is less of a boon in retrospect. It wasn't till after the war that the real questions started to be asked about the motivations of the ruling class.

The guys that went didn't neccessarily want to, but they were told they were doing it to protect their friends and family and everyone else in their country. Would you stand up to do what was right to protect your friends and family and the people that lived in England if there was a genuine threat? I hope I would, but nobody can ever be sure until it happens. In this case (and whatever the later analysis) they did.

I have come a cropper myself in terms of judging something then thinking about my own experience and how I would have dealt with a situation and whether in the same circumstances, I would have been 'the hero' who caught the ball and didn't do as I (and the rest of Britain) sneered at. I could give you an example, but this thread is not about me, so I will restrain.

All I can say is 'there it is lies they who judged what less they know'.

Lest we forget.

[manterik]

oh yes sacrifices were made

but i think they should have just refused to fight and let those in charge do their own dirty work

The pressure to join up was intense and once in the army refusal could see you shot. It really was a no win situation for them.

The memories of Harry and others so well captured by Richard Van Emden in a couple of books shows how horrible and brutal this conflict was.

[manterik]

It is only the miserable who are suggesting some sort of Princess DI like type grieving.

I agree with you the death of Harry Patch symbolises the end of a generation, from this country anyway, that fought a brutal war and who fought it without question.

Imagine the outcry today if the same numbers of our young men were lost in Iraq or Afghanistan.Would they have even bothered to inlist in the first place ?

This bears no resemblance to the Diana like outpouring of grief and for some to suggest it does is rather churlish.

Harry was the last living link with the trenches. 3 left from the conflict now and it will soon be beyond living memory, it certainly will be in terms of participants. The thing about Harry, and why I called him legendary, is that he only spoke about it at the age of 100 and for the last 11 years of his life became public property. He spoke out against war and for reconciliation, he met the last German survivor and he regularly spoke to children about the evils of war. He did all this tirelessly and without complaint and certainly not for the fame and for the money. That is admirable.

Still in 10 years we will be in the same position for the Great Depression, in 30 years the second world war and so on.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6727433.ece

HARRY PATCH, the last surviving soldier to have experienced the horror of the first world war trenches, has died aged 111.

Patch, who fought at the battle of Passchendaele in 1917, when 70,000 British troops were killed, died yesterday at his care home in Wells, Somerset. The Queen led the tributes last night, saying she was “saddened to hear of his deathâ€.

Patch’s death came a week after his predecessor as the oldest British veteran, Henry Allingham, died at the age of 113.

The only living British man who served in the first world war is Claude Choules, 108. He served in the Royal Navy and lives in Perth, Western Australia. He is among only three acknowledged surviving veterans of the conflict.

Patch was staunchly anti-war and said he tried not to kill his German counterparts, attempting only to wound them in the legs.

He was born on June 17, 1898, in Combe Down, Somerset. He was conscripted into the army at 18, serving as a machinegunner in the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry.

In September 1917 during the fight for the village of Passchendaele, near Ypres in Belgium, a shell exploded above his head killing three soldiers who were with him. He was wounded in the groin.

While he was recovering in Britain Patch met his first wife Ada. They were married for 58 years and had two sons, Dennis and Roy, both of whom Patch outlived. Too old to fight in the second world war, Patch became a maintenance manager at a US army camp in Somerset and joined the Auxiliary Fire Service in Bath. After the war he went back to plumbing and retired in 1963.

Following Ada’s death in 1976, Patch married his second wife Jean at the age of 81. She died five years ago. His third partner, Doris, lived in the same retirement home. She died last year.

His final years were characterised by a rising profile. His autobiography, The Last Fighting Tommy, was published in 2007 and last year the poet laureate Andrew Motion wrote a poem The Five Acts of Harry Patch.

In 1999 Patch received the Legion D’Honneur medal awarded by the French to 350 surviving first world war veterans who fought on the western front, dedicating it to his three fallen comrades.

Will future generations believe the horror of the first world war?

A war of total carnage and now there is no one left in the UK who witnessed the first world war.

[Guest Barebear]

Theres a four page thread on this from yesterday but I'll answer your question.

Mankind in the long term learns nothing from history, each new generation thinks they are different, thinks what they do is a new concept when infact it's just a rehash.

IMHO the horrors will be repeated sometime in the future albeit on a different stage.

[Elizabeth]

You're behind the times mate. We have had a very lively RIP to Harry on this one:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=120849

Maybe you would like to add something there.

[Patfig]

What will it take to rekindle Harry's way of life, his humility, his basic decency? Maybe it's gone forever. It's just sad. Maybe the country deserves to sink.

Another war??

They were made of iron

forged by sufferance

Of a different era

with understated bravery

I could never be so courageous

Lest we forget, ............ but we will

[Guest anorthosite]

Is it just me or did he have the same "old man cool" look that Sean Connery or Clint Eastwood have (albeit a little bit older)?

[Garry AKA Pod]

Yes to Eastwood, No to the miserable old Bond.

[Leroast]

This is completely different to grieving for the like of Princess Diana or a musician.

Its worse; its utterly inane: mourning murderers who died trying to kill other murderers.

We shouldnt be encouraging people to think that murder is ok because someone further up the human hierachy says its ok. Simply because the reality is that a majority of people will behave like idiots in group situations doesnt mean that examples of such behaviours should be celebrated/honoured.

Other opposition came from conscientious objectors - some socialist, some religious - who refused to fight in the war. In Britain 16,000 people asked for conscientious objector status, and many suffered years of prison, including solitary confinement and bread and water diets, to oppose the war.

Even after the war in Britain, many job offers were marked "No conscientious objectors need apply".

Link

Those are the true heros of WWI.

[Leroast]

They made me do it

As aniconic image of human rights abuse, it is hard to equal: a hooded man with electrodes attached to his fingers stands precariously on a small box. One slip and he risks a numbing electric shock. In April 2004 this picture and others showing American soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad cast a pall over the US military's conduct in Iraq that has never lifted. The electrode stunt was dreamed up by a group of US army reservists working as military policemen at the prison. Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick was one of them. It was not the only abuse he perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. Among other things, he admitted making three prisoners masturbate while his colleagues looked on, and thumping another so hard in the chest that he had to be resuscitated. Most people would label Frederick as morally corrupt, a classic "bad apple". The judge at his trial certainly did. He sentenced him to eight years in jail, handed down a dishonourable discharge, and removed his salary and pension. Frederick deserved severe punishment, the judge argued, because he was exercising free will when he committed the acts. But was he?

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo from Stanford University in California thinks not. He believes the judge was guilty of the "fundamental attribution error" - overestimating the effects of someone's temperament on their behaviour and underestimating the effects of the environment in which they were acting. Zimbardo was an expert witness on Frederick's defence team. He interviewed him at length before the trial and carried out extensive psychological tests. He found no hint of mental illness or sadistic tendencies in Frederick. "In many ways this soldier was an American icon: a good husband, father and worker, patriotic, religious, with many friends and a history of having lived a most normal, moral small town life," says Zimbardo. Then he went to Abu Ghraib and turned into a monster.

This may be an extreme case, but such transformations are surprisingly common. You find them in just about any environment in which an individual is subsumed into a group or is reacting to what others are doing: rioting mobs, football crowds, committees, social networks, even panels of judges. In such situations a group mentality can easily take over, leading people to act out of character or adopt extreme or risky positions. In an analysis that considered 25,000 social psychology studies, published a few months after the Abu Ghraib abuses emerged, Susan Fiske at Princeton University concluded that almost everyone is capable of torture and other evil acts if placed in the wrong social context (Science, vol 306, p 1482). "Our society tends to focus on individual psychology," says Zimbardo. "All our institutions - in war, law, religion, medicine - are based on this concept." Yet if we don't understand the power of group psychology we can never hope to combat evils such as torture, suicide bombings and genocide, or indeed avoid making bad decisions or committing despicable acts of our own.

Almost everyone is capable of evil acts if placed in the wrong social context

Zimbardo has famously shown how easy it is to turn peaceful people abusive and hostile. In an experiment at Stanford University in 1971, he recruited students to imitate prison guards and inmates. After six days the experiment had to be stopped because the guards - ordinary summer-school students selected for their healthy psychological state - had pushed many of the prisoners to the point of emotional breakdown. In a similar experiment published in 1974, Stanley Milgram from Yale University persuaded ordinary people to administer electric shocks to a "victim" sitting behind a screen. Without much trouble Milgram had all of them increasing the voltage until the victim was screaming (it was an act but they didn't know that). Two-thirds of them carried on until the victim was apparently unconscious.

"If you can diffuse responsibility so people don't feel accountable, they will probably do things they normally never would," says Zimbardo. Milgram did this by telling the participants that he was in charge, and that he himself would take responsibility for anything that happened. Zimbardo gave his "prison guards" all the symbols of power of real guards - uniforms, whistles, handcuffs, sunglasses - effectively giving the volunteers permission to behave like them. He also ensured that prisoners were known only by numbers, not by their names. Many studies have found such anonymity to be an effective tool for changing the way someone is treated, or how they treat others. You find the same effect outside the lab. In 1971, anthropologist John Watson from Harvard University found that tribal cultures renowned for their barbaric treatment of enemies usually wear masks or paint their faces when going into battle, while those who go to war unadorned tend to be far less brutal. Likewise, many commentators have observed that people perpetrating crimes such as torture and genocide often dehumanise their victims by thinking of them as animals. Following on from Milgram's experiment, Albert Bandura from Stanford University found that people would administer more severe electric shocks if he told them that the recipients (whom they could not see) seemed "like animals".

Personal allegiance

Groups can create environments that diminish individual responsibility, but they can also exert their hold in another way. "There is a significant difference between mob behaviour, in which anonymity and imitation are the important factors, and the direct influence of a group, which involves personal allegiance to leaders and comrades," says Ariel Merari, a psychologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel and an expert on Middle Eastern terrorism. Groups that recruit suicide bombers are among those that use the latter approach, building a sense of community and encouraging feelings of responsibility towards other group members: the "brotherhood mentality". Here, individuals take responsibility for their own actions within a culture where suicide bombing is seen as glorious. Then, by recording farewell messages to family and friends either on videotape or in writing, they make a commitment to their own martyrdom that they cannot renege on without losing face (New Scientist, 15 May 2004, p 34).

All of this is a long way from the situations that most of us face. Yet many of the decisions we make every day are heavily influenced by what others are doing. In a study published last year, for example, Duncan Watts and colleagues at Columbia University in New York showed that the reason chart-topping pop songs are so much more popular than average is not because they are significantly better but because consumers are influenced by the buying habits of others (Science, vol 311, p 854). This is known as the social cascade effect, a phenomenon in which large numbers of people end up doing or thinking something on the basis of what others have done.

There are two mechanisms at work here, says Watts. "The first is social learning. The world is too complicated for each individual to solve problems on their own, so we rely on the information that is encoded in our social environment - we assume other people know things we don't." Then there is social coordination, where you want to do the same thing as other people not because you think it is better but because what matters is doing things together. "Liking the same song, movies, sports and books not only gives us something to talk about, but makes us feel like we're part of something larger than ourselves." As well as directing consumers' buying habits, these two forces can influence financial markets, protest movements, and even - through opinion polls - how we vote.

It is not surprising that people should be so susceptible to the dynamics of their social environment. After all, we evolved as social animals in environments where cooperation and group cohesion were key survival tools. Our reasons for being influenced by others are often valid, but if we are not careful this tendency can get us into trouble. In a classic study carried out in the 1950s, for example, social psychologist Solomon Asch revealed how the peer pressure associated with being part of a group can lead people to deny the evidence of their own senses. When asked simply to match the length of a line on a card with one of three reference lines, 70 per cent of his subjects ignored their own judgement and sided with the rest of their group who, unbeknown to them, had been primed to make a blatantly wrong choice.

When any group of like-minded people get together, the result can be equally alarming. One common effect is that the group ends up taking a more extreme position than the one its members started with - it becomes polarised. For example, a group of people who begin a discussion believing George Bush's policies on Iraq are merely ill-advised may finish convinced that his policies are insane. Cass Sunstein, professor of law and political science at the University of Chicago has identified two reasons. First, in like-minded groups you tend to hear only arguments that support your own viewpoint, which is bound to reinforce it. In addition, people are always comparing themselves with others and will shift their position so as not to appear out of line. The same kind of thinking is behind the phenomenon known as "risky shift" in which adolescents, already prone to risky behaviour, are even more inclined to throw caution to the wind when they are with their peers.

Polarisation is related to another form of group psychology known as groupthink, where members strive for cohesion at the expense of all else. Maintaining cohesion can give a group a sense of power and bolster the self-esteem of its members, but it can also lead them to make bad and dangerous decisions. "When group cohesion is based on congeniality, criticising ideas means attacking the source of group cohesion," says Clark McCauley, director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. As with social cascades and polarisation, problems often arise when people rely on what they think others know and fail to share useful information they might have. This mistake can be compounded by the influence of a manipulative leader. Groupthink has been blamed for the CIA's flawed plan to invade Cuba in 1961 - the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle - and also for NASA's failure in 2003 to recognise that the damage done to the wing of the space shuttle Columbia by a piece of foam during take-off was potentially fatal. Irving Janis, the psychologist who coined the term groupthink in 1972, believed no one was immune. "Probably every member of every policy-making group is susceptible," he wrote in a landmark paper.

Another situation in which we are all prone to assuming a strong group mentality is at times of crisis. This explains why support for national leaders increases in wartime - and why George Bush achieved almost unanimous backing for his "war on terror" after 9/11. It is understandable that people look to their own group when they feel threatened, but the result can be an escalation of tension. In a study published last year, for example, a team led by Tom Pyszczynski from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, found that Iranian college students who were prompted to think about their own death showed greater support for suicide attacks against the US than they would have otherwise (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1).

Knowing what we do about group psychology, what are the lessons to be learned? For a start, we should discourage isolated cliques of like-minded people and encourage people with opposing views to speak out - and that applies whether you are trying to prevent terrorism or elect a new school head. The flip side of this is that we should recognise that extremist groups are usually remarkably homogenous in terms of the interests, political affiliations, age and socioeconomic status of their members. "If I were an intelligence agent trying to break a terrorist cell, if I caught one member I'd find out what food he eats and what clothing he wears," says Scott Atran at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The chances are his fellow terrorists would have very similar preferences. Accordingly, Atran and forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman are building a database of members of jihadi terrorist networks in Europe and Asia, recording information such as family background and friends.

Another lesson is that the wider social environment influences the decisions made by groups. Pyszczynski found that he could change the attitudes of his Iranian students by convincing them that public opinion in their country was opposed to suicide attacks. What's more, in similar studies with US students he first increased their appetite for conflict with Arabs by getting them to think of their own death, and then found he could reduce it simply by showing them photos of family life from many different cultures or reminding them of their own group values, such as compassion, and of what they have in common with others. "This is particularly encouraging as it shows a way of reversing a process that otherwise can increase public support for terrorism," he says.

The behaviour of football hooligans can also be influenced by their social environment, according to Clifford Stott, a social psychologist at the University of Liverpool, UK. Working as a consultant to the police for the European championships in Portugal in 2004, he found that the aggressiveness of football crowds is heavily influenced by how the police treat them. Although violence has been part of the group identity of a significant section of England fans, low-profile policing at certain matches during Euro2004 encouraged them to adopt an uncharacteristically orderly attitude which they then maintained through self-policing (European Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.338).

The idea of group psychology is rather unsettling. We like to think that we are in control of our own decisions and behaviour, not at the mercy of our social environment. It is also deeply disturbing to contemplate that any of us might have done what Frederick and the other Abu Ghraib reservists did. Yet Zimbardo also points to a positive side. His latest research looks at what makes a hero, and he has found that our universal capacity to perform evil acts under the influence of the group is matched by a universal capacity to resist peer pressure and do the right thing. "There is nothing special in the backgrounds of heroes - they choose to act on the moment. There are no predictive psychological factors," says Zimbardo. Ordinary heroes, like ordinary monsters, are everywhere.

Joseph Darby is a perfect example. He was an army reservist in the same company as Frederick, and the person responsible for stopping the torture and human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib. Darby passed a CD of the photographs to his superior officer. He did this despite the severe potential costs to himself and his family, who are now in hiding for fear of retaliation from members of his unit. Zimbardo looked into Darby's background. "Ordinary," he says. "He never did anything like it before."

Link

"Bert Brocklesby" ...... 2780 results

"Joseph Darby" .... 16,900 results

"Harry Patch" ......971,000 results

[Guest X-QUORK]

Its worse; its utterly inane: mourning murderers who died trying to kill other murderers.

We shouldnt be encouraging people to think that murder is ok because someone further up the human hierachy says its ok. Simply because the reality is that a majority of people will behave like idiots in group situations doesnt mean that examples of such behaviours should be celebrated/honoured.

You should direct your misplaced anger at government level, not the poor sods who died in the trenches.

What is it with some people?

[Jadoube]

I think it's more a case of grieving for a generation. Harry just happens to be one of the last few. My great grandad died in the trenches, so my dad never met him. I imagine there are a few on here that are of my dad's generation, in their 60's and also never got to meet their grandparents.

This is completely different to grieving for the like of Princess Diana or a musician.

Just a thought.

Yes I agree. Its a generation that, mostly, passed some while ago.

These old chaps were modest, and emphatic that it wasn't about them. They seemed to very much remember those who fought, and died, beside them. In our respect for the last few we should share their respect for the ones who died young.

[Leroast]

You should direct your misplaced anger at government level, not the poor sods who died in the trenches.

What is it with some people?

Its not misplaced. You have completely missed the point vis a vis the individual and society at large. At what point are people responsible for their actions Quork?

Another lesson is that the wider social environment influences the decisions made by groups. Pyszczynski found that he could change the attitudes of his Iranian students by convincing them that public opinion in their country was opposed to suicide attacks.

The fact that the majority of individuals involved in wwI made the decision to march into certain death rather then face being ostracized and condemned as a coward by their society demonstrates to me the power of the group over the individual. It is society; public opinion and public participation in rituals like Remembrance Sunday that perpetuates the acceptability of "organised murder" (as Harry Patch himself described it) and absolves the participants of personal responsibility. Something which, in as far as I've read, Harry never acknowledged.

[Garry AKA Pod]

Its worse; its utterly inane: mourning murderers who died trying to kill other murderers.

We shouldnt be encouraging people to think that murder is ok because someone further up the human hierachy says its ok. Simply because the reality is that a majority of people will behave like idiots in group situations doesnt mean that examples of such behaviours should be celebrated/honoured.

Those are the true heros of WWI.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that murder is being encouraged by mourning those that fought in the World Wars?

I don't think I've ever met anyone that hasn't uttered the words "What a horrendous waste of life" on Remembrance day. My own grandparents rarely ever spoke about WW2, but when they did it was with true sadness and what I perceived as guilt.

I'm not looking upon Harry as being a Hero. Just a link to a terrible part of modern history. A part of history that our parents, grandparents and great grandparents were possibly involved in. As I mentioned earlier, my Greatgrandad died in the trenches. (Don't know where yet, but my dad is researching it). I look upon Harry and think, what if? What if there hadn't been a WW1 or a WW2 for that matter? Might he have lived to be over 100? Might I have met him?

I'd love to hear a conscientious objectors view on the Holocaust.

[Leroast]

Gandhi recommended collective suicide. I'd have taken the surprisingly generous offer made by the Gestapo in both 1941 and 1942.