Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.

I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?

There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.

You are dismissing a lot of Britains role in starting the war. Germany was trying to create an empire just like britains really. So in effect what germany was doing, was exactly what britain had already done. Thats why the naval race was happening simply because germany was aspiring to be like her rivals France and britain. To put it very simply. It was a power struggle is another way to say it. No heroes and villains, not right and wrong. Just an empire or 2 clinging to its power against an ambitious empire.

But ww2 is more complicated and you will have a lot more disagreements about when it started, how it started and why. There are far more political and emotional issues in regards to the second world war at play. But there are many differences between the two (in respects to how and why they started). I find it annoying to discuss in text so I wont go there.

Ah, I'm not trying to absolve Britain of blame on the imperialistic front, simply to point out that, regardless of later discoveries (The nature and extent of the holocaust was not fully realised until the allies started advancing across Europe) the final spark for both wars was a powerful nation (Germany) attacking without provocation a smaller and weaker nation (Belgium/Poland).

Of course, the alliance system didn't help, and I concede that there were tensions before both wars that made a conflict inevitable. I'm not trying to say it was cut-and-dried Good vs Evil (it wasn't), but for Britain both times the direct involvement in the war came about as a result of defending a nation that couldn't defend itself. In any war, it's hard to place a greater blame on the defender than the aggressor.

More of a WWII enthusiast, myself.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.

I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?

There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.

You are dismissing a lot of Britains role in starting the war. Germany was trying to create an empire just like britains really. So in effect what germany was doing, was exactly what britain had already done. Thats why the naval race was happening simply because germany was aspiring to be like her rivals France and britain. To put it very simply. It was a power struggle is another way to say it. No heroes and villains, not right and wrong. Just an empire or 2 clinging to its power against an ambitious empire.

But ww2 is more complicated and you will have a lot more disagreements about when it started, how it started and why. There are far more political and emotional issues in regards to the second world war at play. But there are many differences between the two (in respects to how and why they started). I find it annoying to discuss in text so I wont go there.

Ah, I'm not trying to absolve Britain of blame on the imperialistic front, simply to point out that, regardless of later discoveries (The nature and extent of the holocaust was not fully realised until the allies started advancing across Europe) the final spark for both wars was a powerful nation (Germany) attacking without provocation a smaller and weaker nation (Belgium/Poland).

Of course, the alliance system didn't help, and I concede that there were tensions before both wars that made a conflict inevitable. I'm not trying to say it was cut-and-dried Good vs Evil (it wasn't), but for Britain both times the direct involvement in the war came about as a result of defending a nation that couldn't defend itself. In any war, it's hard to place a greater blame on the defender than the aggressor.

Yea sounds about right then. In the end it boils down to being the one to declare war with a good excuse. Defending a small nation from a large one looks better than declaring war to protect your small nations you conquered. So with that in mind it makes more sense to look at the intent over the action. But then thats where its complicated and for many its easier to just look at the action. Which you are right, paints the allies in a better light.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
As a Canadian, my fist reaction would be option A. Our motivations for going to war were "Britain told us to" and many Canadians died for politics we were not involved in. Just look up "the Blue Puttees".

But there are some things to celebrated about WW1 as a Canadian. The war helped forge much of Canada's identity and gave us both reputation and individuality. Before the war, Canada was just another colony. It was also during the war that the imagery of the maple leaf gained popularity, being carved into bunkers, trenches and buildings as Canadian regiments moved around.

So I'm not sure what section it should be in, we mostly just celebrate by building a bunch of statues of soldiers.

This is quite interesting. Having seen and read quite a bit about the role the Canadians played in the war, I can certainly see where you're coming from with regards to it being a part of the nation's identity. I have a huge deal or respect for the commonwealth troops that fought and died, given that they had no choice in joining the conflict and yet still served with great distinction, often bearing higher casualties and harsher conditions than many British troops. The fact that the Canadian, ANZAC, Indian and other Commonwealth troops gave so much even without a choice in their participation is truly remarkable.

What we need to remember is that millions of people died in the war. Many of them conscripts, people who had no choice but to be there. And let us not forget the Christmas truce and how it showed that the people on either side really had no malice between them and didn't really want to kill each other. Regardless of why the war started and what was being fought for, people who didn't want to kill each other killed each other. That is nothing to celebrate, and call it unpatriotic, my loyalty is to my fellow humans before my country.

Another great book on the outbreak of the war is "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchmann, probably my favorite history author honestly.

And to say Britain got involved to "protect Belgium" is sheer revisionism. The British govt wanted a fight, the populace wanted a fight, and this mentality was echoed across Europe. Hence there being a war. This wasn't like the recent Iraq War where the majority of the people were screaming "No!", they were screaming "Let's go get the Boche!"

Things had been more or less quiet on the Continent since the Franco-Prussian conflict of 1870, technology had vastly increased, and the people in charge were excited to see the new gizmos of war in action. They had no idea of the war it would become, they thought it would be over in months. The fact that the British govt didn't commit with a full army campaign till the summer of 1916, yet was adamant about boxing in German Imperialist naval action makes the "Belgian Protector" angle kinda thin.

It was a war of national egos, not a war of ideals.

Though the world fethed up by bending to France and passing the Versailles Treaty. It's hard to blame the poilus after losing so much, and the Siege of Paris and final reparations in 1871 were none too nice, but the rest of the world (America) should have stood firmer against it.

C'est la vie.

WWI was an important nation building war for Canada. It was a "good war" for Canada in many ways and I think it's just important to learn about it and remember it. Most Canadians have next to no knowledge of our military history.

Mix of B and C for me. Although Canada definitely developed as a nation through the war it still doesn't change the fact that it was a ridiculously needless slaughterfest that lead to the death of millions of people. It stays as a reminder of the foolishness of human nature and how power-mongering continues to cause suffering.

That aside, it does always give me a bit of pride to hear how fierce our soldiers were against the Germans, hell we even got the moniker of "storm troopers". I guess that if a Galactic Empire is ever established, Canadians will be the first ones in line to enforce it

We had a chemist who new how to neutralize chlorine gas too, but that's beside the point.

Wow, that's interesting - I just read that 50% of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was British-born, and that Canadian conscription didn't start til 1918.

 Albatross wrote:
Wow, that's interesting - I just read that 50% of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was British-born, and that Canadian conscription didn't start til 1918.

Mate, half the world was British Born at that time. And that's kinda the point. Canada went in in many ways a British Colony (Foreign Policy was controlled by Britain, for example), but ended up emerging with a much stronger "Canadian" identity.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of them have their merits, but I personally find myself seeing the Great War in the context of option C. I had relatives that fought in the War, and at least one that didn't come home, so it is an important part of history to me. It also saddens me that my country has no national memorial for men that gave their lives. I have visited the District of Columbia War Memorial (a memorial to the residents of DC that gave their lives during the war) and it was in a sad state is disrepair; luckily, it was restored in 2011.

What about this one:

http://theworldwar.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Memorial

I haven't been there, but it sounds interesting. You'd think there would be something in DC though...

 LordofHats wrote:

"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"

Those last two were from my old high school history class...

You just want to make me cry, don't you?

Of course, America really didn't play much of a role in WWI. Compared to the second World War that followed, WWI was completely overshadowed. Far more men fought and died for us in that war, and the war was much more personal. In the 1920's and 1930's, WWI probably meant more to Americans. Today though it's completely overshadowed.

Surely you jest. America was pivotal in the final stages of WWI. Germany had decisively defeated Russia in the east and launched an (admittedly indecisive) offensive in the west, driving deep into France. The United States was key in the Hundred Days offensive, providing 4 million men in manpower and large supply shipments.

In addition, you can hardly say that WWII "completely overshadows" WWI. Sure, 3 times as many people were killed and the scope was significantly larger, but the two conflicts are deeply linked and both of massive scale.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:


Surely you jest. America was pivotal in the final stages of WWI.

I don't. We played a big role in the outcome of several battles (Second Battle of the Marne) but in retrospect, by the time we arrived in 1918, the war was won. The Second Battle of the Marne has a lot of parallels to the Battle of the Buldge. It was the last offensive, ostensibly doomed to fail in the long run. Germany had already lost (arguably they lost the moment Austria-Hungry ceased to function as a state).

In addition, you can hardly say that WWII "completely overshadows" WWI.

You'd have a hard time arguing it doesn't, at least here in the US. Just compare the number of movies about WWII to the ones about WWI. The scales swing decisively one direction. Most Americans have an awareness of the events of WWII, but I think most wouldn't be able to name more than 1 or 2 battles from WWI.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm with Albatross when he says a little from all three.

In essence all war is tragic, but to act like its a waste of time is unrealistic and disrespectful. The war certainly mattered a lot and was not a waste of time for the people who had to live through it. Given that it set the stage and shaped the 20th century and its ramifications are still very much alive today. The B point of view strikes me as markedly inhuman.

There's nothing wrong with celebrating heroism and sacrifice, but overcelebrating it what gets us into conflicts like WWI/II in the first place. Reactions should be tempered with understanding of why it happened and what it meant to those who were there as well as appreciation for those who fought in a conflict they had no say in starting.

It is out of respect for those who fought and died that I believe viewing WW1 as the monstrous and pointless slaughter in service of decrepit imperialism that it was is the only proper thing to do. "Celebrating" war is sickening, a tool used by "patriots" and governments to promote a simplistic and xenophobic national self-image in which we, the "goodies", went "over there" and showed those damn dirty fur'nurs who's boss dontcha know old boy. Much is made of "heroism" and "brave Tommies" etc etc, but everyone is so concerned with not appearing to "disrespect their sacrifice" that those stories completely overshadow the things about that war -and others, but that one especially- which we SHOULD be remembering; millions of working class young men with no democratic voice(they had no vote, remember) packed off to fight "for King & country", and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and countless more maimed for life or driven mad by the horror of it. That isn't something to be celebrated, it's something to be solemnly observed and carefully learned from so we never repeat those events - THAT's how you "honour their sacrifice", not by marching military bands through the streets and having insincere politicians who've never known anything but safety and privilege spanking away on TV about how inspiring and noble the whole affair was.

The fact that this whole "celebration" is being used by the current government as an excuse for naked and cynical politicking by taking the opportunity to plaster the Butcher's Apron all over Glasgow right before the Independence referendum is just the twisted Tory icing on the despicable jingoistic cake.

 Albatross wrote:
A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.

Hilarious. "Not perfect", well yes, if "not perfect" means tramping across the world enslaving and pillaging, engaging in the genocidal massacre of native populations, and building concentration camps for women and children in South Africa. The idea that the British Empire was somehow superior to its contemporaries of the Imperialist era is revisionism on a spectacular scale. Hells bells, at least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed of the worst excesses of their history, instead of glorifying and justifying their atrocities like some Brits do.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I quite enjoyed the BBC documentaries that Paxman has been presenting recently, apparently based around the format of the book that he has written.

In the final episode he put forward the opinion that the typically mocked upper classes, or landed gentry suffered the worst in the war. Many historic families ending due to their heirs dying in the conflict as they would most commonly be officers, which had significantly higher mortality rates.

I do enjoy a bit of Paxo and it's interesting to hear him not verbally bludgeoning a moronic MP.

Oh my yes, those poor poor upper classes, such a shame that their own archaic system of inheritance worked against them for a change. All those brave Noble Scions, what scant comfort must their families have had mourning their passing in massive luxury. Tell me, did Paxo manage to spare a few lines in his Lament for the Landed to mention the towns and villages of ordinary people where entire generations were wiped out, the working-class couples who lost every single one of their children and not only had to live with that sorrow but did so destitute in their old age because they didn't have an estate's worth of servants to care for them? Christ I didn't think Paxman could crawl any further up his own arsehole than was already the case, but evidently I was wrong.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.

Hilarious. "Not perfect", well yes, if "not perfect" means tramping across the world enslaving and pillaging, engaging in the genocidal massacre of native populations, and building concentration camps for women and children in South Africa. The idea that the British Empire was somehow superior to its contemporaries of the Imperialist era is revisionism on a spectacular scale. Hells bells, at least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed of the worst excesses of their history, instead of glorifying and justifying their atrocities like some Brits do.

I'm glad self loathing of your own nation isn't uniquely an American thing.

 djones520 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.

Hilarious. "Not perfect", well yes, if "not perfect" means tramping across the world enslaving and pillaging, engaging in the genocidal massacre of native populations, and building concentration camps for women and children in South Africa. The idea that the British Empire was somehow superior to its contemporaries of the Imperialist era is revisionism on a spectacular scale. Hells bells, at least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed of the worst excesses of their history, instead of glorifying and justifying their atrocities like some Brits do.

I'm glad self loathing of your own nation isn't uniquely an American thing.

Acknowledging your mistakes isn't "self-loathing", last time I looked. And my nation is not Britain.

 Yodhrin wrote:


It is out of respect for those who fought and died that I believe viewing WW1 as the monstrous and pointless slaughter in service of decrepit imperialism that it was is the only proper thing to do. "Celebrating" war is sickening, a tool used by "patriots" and governments to promote a simplistic and xenophobic national self-image in which we, the "goodies", went "over there" and showed those damn dirty fur'nurs who's boss dontcha know old boy. Much is made of "heroism" and "brave Tommies" etc etc, but everyone is so concerned with not appearing to "disrespect their sacrifice" that those stories completely overshadow the things about that war -and others, but that one especially- which we SHOULD be remembering; millions of working class young men with no democratic voice(they had no vote, remember) packed off to fight "for King & country", and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and countless more maimed for life or driven mad by the horror of it. That isn't something to be celebrated, it's something to be solemnly observed and carefully learned from so we never repeat those events - THAT's how you "honour their sacrifice", not by marching military bands through the streets and having insincere politicians who've never known anything but safety and privilege spanking away on TV about how inspiring and noble the whole affair was.

And this is what I mean when I say that B is dehumanizing. Its hard to catch because its hiding behind an illusion of clarity, but all you've really done is exactly what you're protesting. You've stripped everyone involved of their humanity and turned the experiences of politicians and soldiers into a talking point for you to rail about.

One of the most straight forward ways to deal with trauma is to celebrate it. To appreciate whatever little good things you can find in it to move past the horror. Perverse celebrating of war happens a lot, especially in the US I feel because we never really saw it like the rest of the world did, and its something to be upset about, but people aren't just celebrating the violence in itself. They're celebrating the man who threw himself onto a grenade to protect his friends and the man who dares incoming bullets to pull the injured to safety. Men who were treated as less than human by their own country who went into battle for it anyway. All the little moments between the battles where it's just a bunch of people getting by with very little.

Denying that and focusing only on the actions of a few men at the top is inhuman.

DutchWinsAll wrote:


Does the average American even know we were in WW1?

Do those that do know, know that we were there earlier than 1917?? We were one of the key components of the "battle" of Fismet, or rather the Tragedy of Fismet.

We also sent some lads over a bit early for flying lessons.

From the choices presented, I'd go with B). None of the nations involved was in it for "democracy", "ending suppression of minorities" or any other justifiable reason. One has to remember that the war didn't start with the July Crisis - at that point, it was merely a forgeone conclusion.

I also do not understand the "saying the war was futile and monstrous disrespects the men who fought it" part that is brought up often in Anglo-Saxon countries. Heroism, or at least honourable behaviour in war, is an entirely individual trait that has nothing to do with the reasons the war is fought for.

Finally, I was convinced that the European consensus was that this war was a tragedy that left only losers. I'm kind of sad to see that the UK has apparently not come around to that consensus and its PM is instead suggesting to celebrate it in the streets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, I want to add something to what I just said:

 Paradigm wrote:

Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded?

No, of course you should have. But how I see it, this facet of the alliance system does not somehow give reason to a conflict that should not have begun in the first place and was "caused" by most involved parties, to a smaller or larger degree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to answer the question in the OP:

 Paradigm wrote:
If not British, then how is your nation commemorating/remembering the war?

Like always:

1) What, we were involved? Nooo, that wasn't really us, it was the Habsburgs / the Evil Germans / Space Invaders from Mars.

2) Even if we had been involved (which isn't the case), we were totally not to blame.

3) Because of 1) and 2), there's nothing to commemorate. Here, have a 20 square meter exhibition in the city hall, that should suffice. (<- True story)

 d-usa wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of them have their merits, but I personally find myself seeing the Great War in the context of option C. I had relatives that fought in the War, and at least one that didn't come home, so it is an important part of history to me. It also saddens me that my country has no national memorial for men that gave their lives. I have visited the District of Columbia War Memorial (a memorial to the residents of DC that gave their lives during the war) and it was in a sad state is disrepair; luckily, it was restored in 2011.

What about this one:

http://theworldwar.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Memorial

I haven't been there, but it sounds interesting. You'd think there would be something in DC though...

The Liberty Memorial, though spectacular, is not a national memorial to World War I; it is a National Historic Landmark, which is nice. The museum there is the official national museum dedicated to WWI, but when it comes to national memorials for WWI, there should be one along the lines of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (the wall, which is breathtakingly somber), the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and National World War II Memorial.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


It is out of respect for those who fought and died that I believe viewing WW1 as the monstrous and pointless slaughter in service of decrepit imperialism that it was is the only proper thing to do. "Celebrating" war is sickening, a tool used by "patriots" and governments to promote a simplistic and xenophobic national self-image in which we, the "goodies", went "over there" and showed those damn dirty fur'nurs who's boss dontcha know old boy. Much is made of "heroism" and "brave Tommies" etc etc, but everyone is so concerned with not appearing to "disrespect their sacrifice" that those stories completely overshadow the things about that war -and others, but that one especially- which we SHOULD be remembering; millions of working class young men with no democratic voice(they had no vote, remember) packed off to fight "for King & country", and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and countless more maimed for life or driven mad by the horror of it. That isn't something to be celebrated, it's something to be solemnly observed and carefully learned from so we never repeat those events - THAT's how you "honour their sacrifice", not by marching military bands through the streets and having insincere politicians who've never known anything but safety and privilege spanking away on TV about how inspiring and noble the whole affair was.

And this is what I mean when I say that B is dehumanizing. Its hard to catch because its hiding behind an illusion of clarity, but all you've really done is exactly what you're protesting. You've stripped everyone involved of their humanity and turned the experiences of politicians and soldiers into a talking point for you to rail about.

One of the most straight forward ways to deal with trauma is to celebrate it. To appreciate whatever little good things you can find in it to move past the horror. Perverse celebrating of war happens a lot, especially in the US I feel because we never really saw it like the rest of the world did, and its something to be upset about, but people aren't just celebrating the violence in itself. They're celebrating the man who threw himself onto a grenade to protect his friends and the man who dares incoming bullets to pull the injured to safety. Men who were treated as less than human by their own country who went into battle for it anyway. All the little moments between the battles where it's just a bunch of people getting by with very little.

Denying that and focusing only on the actions of a few men at the top is inhuman.

Inhuman? Ludicrous. War is inhuman, celebrating the death of a generation with military pomp is inhuman, politicians using one of the world's greatest human tragedies to try and restore some vague sham of national pride(which their own self-serving troughing destroyed in the first place) based on hollow jingoism is inhuman. Believing that said tragedy should be marked with solemn respect and contemplation rather than a ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.

When WW1 began my great-grandfather had seven brothers, by the time it finished he was an only child, so don't tell me I'm ing "inhuman" because I don't think that's a reason to throw a bloody party.

Acting like you were even remotely affected by that makes you look a bit silly, Yodhrin...

Wars should never be celebrated. Celebrating the deaths of millions of people is absolutely sick.
But it is good to remember them and honour those who died in the first World War. Just do not turn it into a party. I would support option C.

I however strongly disagree with what the OP says about the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires.
I would say that they were less opressive than the massive British Empire with its colonies. WW1 was the result of decades of imperialist struggle. There were no 'good' and 'bad' sides in it, all sides were equally bad.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Inhuman? Ludicrous. War is inhuman, celebrating the death of a generation with military pomp is inhuman, politicians using one of the world's greatest human tragedies to try and restore some vague sham of national pride(which their own self-serving troughing destroyed in the first place) based on hollow jingoism is inhuman. Believing that said tragedy should be marked with solemn respect and contemplation rather than a ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.

War brings out the best and worst in people. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the best, while remembering the worst.

Although I think we might be on the way to recreating the first world war, starting with the Crimea...

 Albatross wrote:
Acting like you were even remotely affected by that makes you look a bit silly, Yodhrin...

Not at all.

Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.

 Paradigm wrote:
If not British, then how is your nation commemorating/remembering the war?

There will be several commemorative actions, but the main ones are a parade with 72 heads of states on July the 14th, making it the first truly international National Day. I'm fine with that.

There will also be a celebration on August the 3rd. Which sucks.

 Paradigm wrote:
So, with that in mind, my question is this: what's your view on the subject?

Why would someone want to celebrate the beginning of a war?
Would you ever celebrate september 1939?

Politics want to celebrate in 2014 because they may get fired before 2018. That's all. And that's sickening.

Even in 2018, there won't be much to celebrate, apart from the pointless sacrifice of so many people, and the treaty that paved the way to WWII.

WW1 was horrible. WW2 was horrible. All war is horrible.

There was nothing glorious about WW1, not even Belleau Wood and Smedley Butler or Dan Daly. It was an unnecessary war. It was a wonderful foothold into the world stage of globalization and provided a great outlet to try all the horrible weapons we had been diligently acquiring, but not wholly necessary at all.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Acting like you were even remotely affected by that makes you look a bit silly, Yodhrin...

Not at all.

Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.

Yeah, it wasn't like when slavery ended that it was like one big gak you didn't have to wipe afterwards, there was still gakky things happening to black people.

Yodhrin, it's ok to play working class hero every now and again but I don't think you actually have watched what I was talking about.

Paxman hardly put the landed gentry on a pedestal over everybody else. He merely suggested that they shouldn't be mocked in such venomous ways when they sacrificed just as much as anybody else.