Beyond Comfort: German and English Military Chaplains and the Memory of the Great War, 1919–1929

How did German and English military chaplains commemorate the Great War? The established historiography broadly interprets war commemoration in the post‐war period in two ways. One approach presents commemoration as a ritual of healing that soothed the bereft. The other emphasizes the political function of commemoration, interpreting it as a way of reshaping the war in collective memory to legitimize the status quo — by venerating sacrifices made for the nation, it put the nation beyond question to strengthen allegiance to the established order. Both interpretations treat the language of war commemoration as one of consolation and comfort. Military chaplains, however, espoused a more ambitious mission. For them, the purpose of war commemoration was to inculcate dissatisfaction, guilt, and discomfort. This was because they remembered the war as a contest of ideas embodied in the clash of nations, a contest that was still unsettled. Their purpose was therefore the antithesis to consolation and conventional patriotism: to mobilize the living to honour their “blood debt” to the dead through the language of agitation. They themselves had participated in a war regarded by the churches as a campaign of regeneration through blood, in which sacrifice and suffering would revitalize their nations by bringing them to repentance, piety, and social cohesion. Because they were implicated personally in that incomplete crusade, they were especially anxious to realize the mission and complete the sacrifices of the dead. Anglican ex‐chaplains predominantly implored their congregations to ensure a permanent peace that had been purchased by blood, whereas German Protestants invoked a resurrected Volk reclaiming its status as a chosen people. Each articulated a politics of remembrance, one formed on the vision of a war to end all wars, the other on a vision of a war to resurrect the Reich as the Kingdom of God. While the political content of their memories was different, they shared an attitude to the function of remembrance, as a ritual to mobilize and arouse rather than console. Both groups preached that the peace was a continuation of an unfinished moral and spiritual struggle. Furthermore, while always honouring the dead, they stressed that the worth of their sacrifices was no longer guaranteed but contingent upon the conduct of living and future generations. Despite the divergences that emerged from their different confessional and national traditions, and from their respective circumstances, they shared a common moral language.     

Source water protection in a landscape of 'New Era' deregulation

The concept of source water protection (SWP) has gained prominence in the water resource literature. SWP consists of watershed and groundwater management for the protection of drinking water supplies. The logic behind SWP is that it is easier, cheaper and safer to protect a drinking water source from contamination than it is to remediate after contamination. SWP is largely a regulatory activity, requiring provincial government policy commitments. This research investigates the degree to which recent provincial deregulation plays a role in constraining SWP implementation at the local water utility level. The research was undertaken in British Columbia (BC) where, after 2001, the provincial government advanced widespread 'New Era' deregulation of social and environmental legislation. The apparent contradiction between government deregulation and government commitment to safe drinking water is interrogated. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and document review in the Okanagan Basin. This article reveals that New Era deregulation initiatives have constrained local efforts to implement SWP on the ground. This article recommends that a single provincial agency should oversee drinking water in BC and that greater attention be given to regional governance for drinking water management in the Okanagan Basin.