“Men who left corpses behind are commemorated side by side with men who were shattered into invisibility.”
This week, we discussed memorials. More specifically, the symbolism and purpose behind them. Although all fallen soldiers should be memorialized, I find myself thinking about circumstances. Should soldiers who left corpses behind be commemorated in the same fashion as those who were abandoned?
My answer to this is no. Before you think I'm insensitive, hear me out. If you had somehow died at war and a fellow soldier left your body behind, knowing that the armed forces share the motto “leave no man behind”, wouldn’t you be a little bit upset about it? I mean, I know you’re dead and all but still. Not only would your family receive the earth-shattering news of your passing, but there would be no corpse to give them closure. The soldier who passed did not choose to die, but in a way, the fellow soldier chose to leave them behind.
Personally, I would memorialize the missing fallen soldiers in the same way they are memorialized now. I think The Cenotaph of Whitehall, London is a great example of this. For the soldiers who left men behind, however, I would do something radically different. I believe that if a soldier left another man behind, he should not be commemorated equally with the men who lost their lives out of sacrifice. Don’t get me wrong, these soldiers should still be celebrated, but not memorialized. The circumstances of a soldier’s demise should alter the way they are commemorated.
