If people say that a statement is true, they suppose
that there is a situation that really exists and that it is correctly described
by the statement. As philosophers say: There is a correspondence between the
statement and the fact or event. That’s why they call it the correspondence
theory of truth. This theory has especially been developed by the Polish
philosopher Alfred Tarski and it made him famous. As he said it “ ‘Snow is
white’ is true if and only if snow is white.” There seems to be nothing as true
as that, but is it?
Take for example the question, who was the first
soldier fallen for France in the First World War. Actually it is so that I had
to think of this correspondence theory of truth when I read a book by the Dutch
author Theo Toebosch about the first fallen French and German soldiers in this
war. Let me concentrate on the question of the first fallen French soldier. Generally
it is recognized that the unlucky man was the French teacher André Peugeot, who
was then a corporal in the French army. The event took place in Jonchery in the
French department of Haute-Marne, near Switzerland. When on August 2, 1914,
Peugeot tried to stop a German reconnaissance patrol on French territory, he
was killed in action. It is remarkable that in this action probably Peugeot
killed also the first German soldier fallen in this war, namely sublieutenant
Alfred Mayer, and that it was Mayer who had killed Peugeot. But that’s another
story.
It seems clear what happened, but there is a problem. Peugeot
was killed when France was not yet officially at war with Germany. Germany
declared war on France only on August 3, although the German patrol was already
one day before on French territory. That’s why Peugeot has the “honour” to be
the first killed soldier. But then there must be another soldier who was the
first one killed when the war “really” had begun. It was Fortuné Emile Pouget,
killed by a bullet in the back of his head near Pont-à-Mousson north of Nancy
on August 4, at 11.50 a.m. Since France always has stressed that it was only
from August 3 on at war with Germany, it should be obvious that Pouget was actually
the first Frenchmen killed in World War One. But on the other hand, the
fighting near Jonchery was a real war action related to the whole range of
events that we call the First World War. Should it have played a part when
calling Peugeot the first French soldier killed that he was actively fighting
when shot while Pouget was a passive victim, so that it was easier to make Peugeot
a hero rather than Pouget?
And there is more, for some sources say that Peugeot
was killed by mistake by his own men. Probably it is not what happened, but it’s
a real possibility. And what to think of Mimoun Benichou and his comrades? As
Toebosch tells us, he was one of the seventeen Zouaves killed in Philippeville
in Algeria on August 4 at five o’clock in the morning, when the canons of the
German cruiser Goeben bombarded the town. So, it happened before Pouget was
killed. Note that there is a monument on the place where Pouget was hit that calls
him the first French soldier killed in the war 1914-1918. Why is Benichou not
honoured as such? Because he was from Algeria, and although Algeria was a part
of France these days, was it really France ... ? It has the air of a political
choice not to call him the first fallen.
But this blog is not about political choices. It is not about the problem who was the “real”
first French soldier killed in World War One. I leave this question to be
answered by others. Moreover, also whether Alfred Mayer was the first German
soldier killed in this war is a matter of interpretation. And that’s what this
blog about: About interpretation – and also about choices – and the relation
with truth. What this instance illustrates is that there are no simple truths;
there is no simple correspondence with reality. What is true is always a matter
of interpretation. War is not just a matter of declaring war (even less so
today), so whether Peugeot or Pouget (or Mimoun) was the first French soldier
killed in WW 1 will always be controversial. Truth is a matter of
interpretation and by that also a matter of choices (which may be political choices). What’s more, even if snow is white, there are always shades of white. Snow looks
different in the shadow and in the sun and isn’t it so that on a photo snow
sometimes looks blue?
No comments:
Post a Comment