The Remembrance Day thread

[amateur51]

Only a tiny minority (comprising those purely politically-motivated or sincerely and mistakenly considering the event simply 'glorifies war') could possibly describe it as 'contentious'. People who died in these horrible wars were of all races, political viewpoints and religions (or none). That's what it's supposed to be all about and how it is viewed by most people I've ever come across.

Oh, I know, I know, I've only ever come across right-wing loonies and Daily Mail readers, I suppose ...

Members can huff & puff all they like about Remembrance Sunday being uncontentious; it is contentious and always has been.

[amateur51]

Now that a sensible, reasoned discussion is being had, could we please avoid needless posts like this? - it only serves to distract.

Post #58 demonstrates that the contributions of certain posters are neither sensible nor reasoned.

[amateur51]

Ah, now we are talking about "heroes"! Those 16,000 undoubtedly acted courageously by deciding to do what they did, under the guidance of their own consciences and regardless of what some of their fellows might have thought about their having done that.

Here are some statistics published at http://www.statisticbrain.com/world-war-i-statistics/ :

Statistic Verification Source: History Learnings, World War Three
Research Date: 3.20.2014

World War I Statistics (Stats are for all countries involved)
Total number of men mobilized to fight in World War I 65m
Percentage of men mobilized in World War I who died 57
Total number killed in World War I 8.5m
Total number of casualities in World War I 37m
Number of missing POW’s from WWI 7.7m
Number of wounded soldiers in WWI 19.7m
Number of years of fighting that took place during WWI 4
Number of allied countris military casualities in WWI 5.7m
Number of allied country civilian casualties from WWI 3.67m
Number of allied countries wounded in WWI 12.8m
Number of WWI Military casualities 9,720,450
Number of Civilian casualties in WWI 8,865,650
Total Cost of WWI $186.3bn

It's a pity that a mere 16,000 chose prison in preference to fighting in the British army; I do not know the figures of those in other participating countries who did likewise but it's pretty obvious that, if you add all such people together, the total will still be vanishingly small compared to any of the various figures above.

"Lest we forget"? No, Brits should not "forget" but, in "remembrance", they should remember what it is that they're supposedly commemorating and absolutely not "glorifying" and, were they to do that, they'd all be hanging their heads in shame given the widespread military actions in which their fellow countrymen and women have participated since 1918; no lessons learned there, then...

$186.3bn is hardly pocket change today, even for senior bankers or charime/CEOs of international corporations; just imagine what it was 96 years ago!

Sobering statistics, ahinton - many thanks.

[Beef Oven!]

Whilst "contentious" isn't quite the first word that springs to my mind here, there are aspects of "Remembrance Sunday" that might be argued to be far from all-embracing.

First of all, there's the term "Festival of Remembrance" often associated with it that might be read as suggesting a celebration, which is about as inappropriate as it could get in the circumstances.

Then there's the fact that Armistice as it is widely understood (but see below) was famously on "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918, so why mark it in subsequent years on a Sunday, which is the eleventh day of november only every now and then?

The fact of it being marked on a Sunday is too suggestive of it being an item on the Christian calendar, which is less than reasonable since those who lost their lives in WWI and those left by them were by no means all Christians and WWI was not in any case a war predicated upon Christianity.

While 11.11.1918 may offically mark the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front, they continued elsewhere for some time, especially in parts of the former Russian and Ottoman Empires, so one might question the extent to which 11.11.1918 marks the close of what has, after all, for most of the 96 years since then, been widely described as "the First World War".

Wiki tells us (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_Day)
"In Britain, beginning in 1939, the two-minute silence was moved to the Sunday nearest to 11 November in order not to interfere with wartime production should 11 November fall on a weekday. After the end of World War II, most Armistice Day events were moved to the nearest Sunday and began to commemorate both World Wars."
It provides no reason or explanation for this and it is far from clear what is supposedly meant by "interference with wartime (i.e. WWII) production"; in any case, "should" 11 November fall on a weekday is surely daft, since it almost always does!

On top of all of these, "Remembrance Sunday" has continued to be marked annually in Britain throughout our present century despite Britain's involvement in various wars ever since that century began - so much, then, for WWI as "the war to end all wars"; one would have hoped the very fact of such commemoration to give off warning signals to discourage such continued military activity lest it be undermined by that ongoing activity, but not a bit of it - it could therefore be argued by some to appear to be two-faced, given that the lessons of WWI seem not to have been learned at all.

So, for all that all this might add up to something short of "contentiousness", it does nevertheless appear to add up to something that is by no means unquestionable.

I agree, it is not unquestionable. But I never said it wasn't. Anything is open to question. What I said, and you seem to agree, is that it is certainly not contentious. People have attempted to hijack parts of it, for example when homosexualists wanted to commemorate soldiers according to sexuality, rather than purely as soldiers that bravely fought and lost their lives. You'll always have this of type narrow-minded self-seeking elements in society.

The events over the last week or so have demonstrated that the event is highly popular and has consnsus. There will always be a tiny minority of people who don't see it that way, that's their right, but no-one seems to care about their view. Given that they seem to be of the older generation (I am surprised with the level of youth buy-in), so perhaps in the not too distant future this minority will have faded away.

[Richard Barrett]

(not the ones who thought they'd dodge death)

I would say that it's quite admirable to dodge being sent to your death by a bunch of jingoistic toffs whose reasons for "going to war" (=sending others to war) look ever more tenuous with the passage of time, but were pretty obscure even then.

[Richard Barrett]

There will always be a tiny minority of people who don't see it that way, that's their right, but no-one seems to care about their view. Given that they seem to be of the older generation (I am surprised with the level of youth buy-in), so perhaps in the not too distant future this minority will have faded away.

That would be tragic indeed, if it's true, which I doubt.

[Beef Oven!]

I would say that it's quite admirable to dodge being sent to your death by a bunch of jingoistic toffs whose reasons for "going to war" (=sending others to war) look ever more tenuous with the passage of time, but were pretty obscure even then.

There aren't good or bad reasons for dodging death. It makes sense, to dodge death. So admirable doesn't really apply here.

But anyway, you were talking about them being heroic, and that's nonsense, on all levels.

[amateur51]

I agree, it is not unquestionable. But I never said it wasn't. Anything is open to question. What I said, and you seem to agree, is that it is certainly not contentious. People have attempted to hijack parts of it, for example when homosexualists wanted to commemorate soldiers according to sexuality, rather than purely as soldiers that bravely fought and lost their lives. You'll always have this of type narrow-minded self-seeking elements in society.

You know for certain that none of the pink triangle protesters were thinking about their gay relatives or friends, do you?

I'm surprised to see you referring to the RBL as narrow-minded self-seeking elements but I guess it does fit. It was the RLB's heterosexist attitude to those who died in the wars that led to Dudley & chums having to make their protest in the first place. I wonder what Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and others would have thought of RBL's attitude.

Around what values do you see this concensus coalescing? How do you know? I was at the Tower on Friday evening and there was certainly an element of bread & circuses about it. The number of selfies being taken was extraordinary. Possibly the most poignant element of the whole exhibition was the way in which the grass area had been turned to mud by the volunteers removing the poppies ready for delivery to their purchasers.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Remembrance Sunday is certainly not contentious, what on earth are you on about?

It's one of a number of things in current British life that has consensus and is unbelievably popular.

Whether or not it is popular is not the only issue. I do think we should remember the dead (of all nationalities) but there remain concerns of an underlining glorification of war enmeshed in the hype.

[ahinton]

I agree, it is not unquestionable. But I never said it wasn't. Anything is open to question. What I said, and you seem to agree, is that it is certainly not contentious.

I know that anything is open to question but, in saying that "contentious" is not a word that would occur to me, I was certainly not denying that some will have reason to see it that way; I gave six reasons (and I'm sure that there are more) why "Remembrance Sunday" should not be taken for granted as though it's some kind of "British tradition". You used the word "popular", which I have to admit I found strange in the circumstances, suggestive as it could be of "celebration", "festivity" and the like.

People have attempted to hijack parts of it, for example when homosexualists wanted to commemorate soldiers according to sexuality, rather than purely as soldiers that bravely fought and lost their lives. You'll always have this of type narrow-minded self-seeking elements in society.

Leaving that aside, the fact that soldiers (and other armed forces personnel) "fought bravely and lost their lives" doesn't make them "heroes", however "brave" they may well have been; they were coerced into doing it as though not to do it would be immoral and unpatriotic. Given that Britain still involves itself in wars despite having had so very many of its citizens lose their lives fighting them, "Remembrance Sunday" - which should only be on a Sunday when 11 November falls on one - ought to be an opportunity for those participating in that commemoration to hold their heads in shame for all of that wastage of humanity, which is rather difficult to do without hypocrisy when it's still going on as it is today.

[Richard Barrett]

you were talking about them being heroic, and that's nonsense, on all levels.

Not in the First World War it wasn't. I don't believe it was at all an easy option to refuse military service.

[amateur51]

Thanks to EA & ahinton for the last two messages, with which I heartily agree..

[Richard Barrett]

And if people who object to the jingoism of Remembrance Sunday are in such a tiny minority I wonder why there are proportionately so many of them on this forum today - unless it's as PG Tipps says and the shared interest in certain musics means that there's a "higher level of intelligence" among members.

[Beef Oven!]

That would be tragic indeed, if it's true, which I doubt.

Well, I don't know if it's true either, but you may be underestimating how popular this whole things is. I am surprised about the number of young people who are interested in it, especially the enamel poppy thing at the tower.

Yesterday I dropped into a boxing gym to see a friend. While I was there I went to get a bottle of water from the fridge and a young lad (20?) took the last one just before me. But, he insisted that I should have it, which I thought was very nice of him. Anyway, he started talking to a white kid and a black kid (he's mixed raced) and I can't believe what they were saying. They were trying to get to see the poppies before they were taken down. I said I'd thought they'd gone already. They put me right and said they were still there and wanted to buy some, "but you're only allowed one per person". £20 each they said. It was surreal. Three racially diverse youngsters in a boxing gym, wanting to buy enamel poppies saying that everyone who's been said it's really emotional and not to be missed.

You may question the sociological and psychological underpinnings of all this, but this remembrance and poppy phenomenon has really captured the imagination, and they are oblivious to all the stuff Guardian readers (for example) are concerned about. funny, heart-warming and surreal, I thought.

[amateur51]

Not in the First World War it wasn't. I don't believe it was at all an easy option to refuse military service.

It most certainly wasn't. It takes guts to adopt a moral stance against going to war and to act on that stance, come what may.