REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY.....

[ProfessorDavey]

Unbelievable! Fortunately it isn't going to happen.

Why is it unbelievable - all I am arguing for is that Remembrance day returns to what it used to be - which was firstly remembrance of world war 1 and later of both world wars.

I am not asking you to agree with me (I doubt that you will) but hope that you will at least listen to my view and respect my right to hold such a view (as indeed plenty of people do).

[floo]

Why is it unbelievable - all I am arguing for is that Remembrance day returns to what it used to be - which was firstly remembrance of world war 1 and later of both world wars.

I am not asking you to agree with me (I doubt that you will) but hope that you will at least listen to my view and respect my right to hold such a view (as indeed plenty of people do).

You are entitled to your view, but surely every death in all the wars since WW1 are just as tragic as those in that useless conflict, which propelled Hitler to power.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say the conflicts are equivalent. So why argue against a point that wasn't  made?

Fair enough.

My point remains though whether or not you disagree - namely that the 2 world wars are so massively different in terms of the laughter and suffering that has occurred in any conflict since 1914 that Remembrance day (which was established to remember the dead of WW1) should focus on those 2 conflicts alone, rather than every conflict. That was the original intention (obviously just WW1) and was revised officially after WW2 to also include that world war (but not the various other conflicts and deaths between 1918 and 1939). It is my personal opinion that the original approach was correct and I'm not sure when the 'all other conflicts' addition appeared (certainly the focus on other conflicts is very recent) and I don't agree with it.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are entitled to your view, but surely every death in all the wars since WW1 are just as tragic as those in that useless conflict, which propelled Hitler to power.

But we don't remember every death in every war do we - Remembrance is restricted to the deaths of British (and commonwealth) service personnel.

if we are too increase scope I would prefer it to be all deaths - civilian or service and not just on 'our side' - as the death of a German conscript who had no choice in 1916 is also tragic regardless of our view on which side was 'right' - and certainly in the case of WW1 it is hard to argue that either was clearly on the right side.

And in a way you are right - we do need remember specifically the needlessness of the slaughter of WW1 and its role in the cause of WW2 - if we start to de-emphasis those world wars from Remembrance commemorations we are another step on the way to forgetting the lessons that we must learn from history.

[Gordon]

I'd have thought if the primary aim is to remember those who lost their lives (or were severely injured) whilst on active service representing the UK and its allies (Commonwealth etc) then surely all the various conflicts are relevant in relation to this aim even if the scale of each conflict (and associated losses) and historical circumstances surrounding them do vary.

[floo]

I'd have thought if the primary aim is to remember those who lost their lives (or were severely injured) whilst on active service representing the UK and its allies (Commonwealth etc) then surely all the various conflicts are relevant in relation to this aim even if the scale of each conflict (and associated losses) and historical circumstances surrounding them do vary.

Hear! Hear!

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd have thought if the primary aim is to remember those who lost their lives (or were severely injured) whilst on active service representing the UK and its allies (Commonwealth etc) then surely all the various conflicts are relevant in relation to this aim even if the scale of each conflict (and associated losses) and historical circumstances surrounding them do vary.

But the primary aim has changed over the decades.

It was established to remember those who died in WW1 and no other conflicts. That remained the case all the way through until 1947, when the aim was revised to cover both world wars, but again no other conflicts. At some point since then the notion of 'all other conflicts' came in, but this was never the original aim. I'm not sure when this happened - certainly when I was growing up (1970s and 80s) it was still only about the world wars as far as I recall. I haven't been able to find anything definitive, but I think there was some re-evaluation in the 1990s and the 'all other conflicts' part was added around then.

So I guess the debate is about what should be the primary aim - in my view it should be focussed only on the world wars as was originally intended. Others obviously differ in their views.

[Nearly Sane]

But we don't remember every death in every war do we - Remembrance is restricted to the deaths of British (and commonwealth) service personnel.

if we are too increase scope I would prefer it to be all deaths - civilian or service and not just on 'our side' - as the death of a German conscript who had no choice in 1916 is also tragic regardless of our view on which side was 'right' - and certainly in the case of WW1 it is hard to argue that either was clearly on the right side.

And in a way you are right - we do need remember specifically the needlessness of the slaughter of WW1 and its role in the cause of WW2 - if we start to de-emphasis those world wars from Remembrance commemorations we are another step on the way to forgetting the lessons that we must learn from history.

Yeah because the people that were killed in the Falklands needed to be killed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hear! Hear!

But that is a relatively recent revision of the aims of Remembrance Day - that was never the original aim in 1919, nor the revised aim in 1947.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is a relatively recent revision of the aims of Remembrance Day - that was never the original aim in 1919, nor the revised aim in 1947.

Stop women voting now, it's relatively recent!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

Yeah because the people that were killed in the Falklands needed to be killed.

Let me rephrase - needless slaughter on a massive scale.

Also don't forget that every one of the service personnel that died in the Falklands was a profession who had chosen the armed forces as their career, obviously knowing full well that their primary role is to be in a conflict situation if required.

And again (whether you are implying this or not) one cannot claim some kind of equivalence between a conflict in which 256 service personnel died and one in which 885,000 died. The very fact that the latter is rounded to the nearest 1000 makes that point very clearly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Stop women voting now, it's relatively recent!!!

I am simply pointing out (because it is quite possible that some people don't recognise this) that is was never the original intention, nor its revised intention following WW2 that remembrance commemorations should include conflicts other than the two world wars.

Clearly we disagree on whether that much later change was positive or negative but the comparison with votes for women is rather bizarre as I never claimed that all changes are negative - but it is my view that the change in focus of remembrance commemorations is.

[Gordon]

But the primary aim has changed over the decades.

It was established to remember those who died in WW1 and no other conflicts. That remained the case all the way through until 1947, when the aim was revised to cover both world wars, but again no other conflicts. At some point since then the notion of 'all other conflicts' came in, but this was never the original aim. I'm not sure when this happened - certainly when I was growing up (1970s and 80s) it was still only about the world wars as far as I recall. I haven't been able to find anything definitive, but I think there was some re-evaluation in the 1990s and the 'all other conflicts' part was added around then.

So I guess the debate is about what should be the primary aim - in my view it should be focussed only on the world wars as was originally intended. Others obviously differ in their views.

So what?

History moves on and someone killed on active service in the Falklands is no less dead that than someone killed on active service in Flanders.

If we are to stop to remember any of them then we should remember them all.

[floo]

But that is a relatively recent revision of the aims of Remembrance Day - that was never the original aim in 1919, nor the revised aim in 1947.

Throughout my childhood the memory of WW2 was very much to the forefront as my home island had been invaded by the Germans. Mines were constantly being exploded on the beaches, and even to this day one will be discovered occasionally. Even though I lived with the aftermath of that conflict, and the people directly affected by it, I am still of the opinion all those who lost their lives and were maimed in subsequent wars should be included in Remembrance Sunday.

[ProfessorDavey]

History moves on ...

Except that the whole point about Remembrance is not to move history on in a kind of 'well that was 100 years ago, history has moved on' way, but to remember and to continue to remember the slaughter on an unimaginable scale that occurred in the two world wars, and has not happened (thankfully) since.

and someone killed on active service in the Falklands is no less dead that than someone killed on active service in Flanders.

Except that of course for each tragic service personnel death in the Falklands there were 5000 tragic deaths in the two world wars and 3,500 in the first world war alone. The two are simply not comparable.

If we are to stop to remember any of them then we should remember them all.

But we don't - as even now we time out moving backwards at 1914 (or it may even be 1945 except for the world wars - I'm not clear) - why is a death in the Boer war somehow less worthy of our remembrance than a death in the 1920 Iraq conflict or one in Indonesia in 1948. So if we are to remember all, that that should be all, not all since 1914 (or is it 1945).

If we are not to remember all deaths of British service personnel during the November commemorations (which is already the case and always has been) then we need a need a way to decide which conflicts are part of the commemorations and which aren't - and in my view the two world wars are so different in their significance and the scale of the tragedy that it is quite right that we have a particular commemoration that focused on those conflicts alone, just as was originally intended.

[Nearly Sane]

I am simply pointing out (because it is quite possible that some people don't recognise this) that is was never the original intention, nor its revised intention following WW2 that remembrance commemorations should include conflicts other than the two world wars.

Clearly we disagree on whether that much later change was positive or negative but the comparison with votes for women is rather bizarre as I never claimed that all changes are negative - but it is my view that the change in focus of remembrance commemorations is.

except you used it being relatively recent as an argumemt. I simply pointed out that it's a fallacious argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

Throughout my childhood the memory of WW2 was very much to the forefront as my home island had been invaded by the Germans. Mines were constantly being exploded on the beaches, and even to this day one will be discovered occasionally. Even though I lived with the aftermath of that conflict, and the people directly affected by it, I am still of the opinion all those who lost their lives and were maimed in subsequent wars should be included in Remembrance Sunday.

Why not also those who died between 1918 and 1939, or before 1914?

[ProfessorDavey]

except you used it being relatively recent as an argumemt. I simply pointed out that it's a fallacious argument.

I am simply pointing out fact - that when officially set up in 1919 the commemoration was for WW1 only, when revised in 1947 it was extended to WW1 and 2 only. Relatively recently (I think the 1990s) it was changed again to include both world wars and I think (although this isn't exactly clear) other conflicts since 1945.

To point out this timeline is simply stating fact, to indicate that what we have now is not what was originally intended is also merely stating fact. To indicate that I think the approach post-1947 is the correct one is an opinion (which clearly other here disagree with) - there is no fallacious argument.

[Nearly Sane]

I am simply pointing out fact - that when officially set up in 1919 the commemoration was for WW1 only, when revised in 1947 it was extended to WW1 and 2 only. Relatively recently (I think the 1990s) it was changed again to include both world wars and I think (although this isn't exactly clear) other conflicts since 1945.

To point out this timeline is simply stating fact, to indicate that what we have now is not what was originally intended is also merely stating fact. To indicate that I think the approach post-1947 is the correct one is an opinion (which clearly other here disagree with) - there is no fallacious argument.

Then that it is relatively recent cannot be a relevant point in your position. So why mention it since you have just agreed it is irrelevant?

[Gordon]

Except that of course for each tragic service personnel death in the Falklands there were 5000 tragic deaths in the two world wars and 3,500 in the first world war alone. The two are simply not comparable.

You seem to be equating the scale of the conflict with the importance of individual deaths: I don't get that I'm afraid, and I suspect the loved ones of those lost in the Falklands felt no less bereaved that the loved ones did for those lost in WW2.

If the aim is to remember the fallen I can't understand we shouldn't remember all who fell.

[Nearly Sane]

Let me rephrase - needless slaughter on a massive scale.

Also don't forget that every one of the service personnel that died in the Falklands was a profession who had chosen the armed forces as their career, obviously knowing full well that their primary role is to be in a conflict situation if required.

And again (whether you are implying this or not) one cannot claim some kind of equivalence between a conflict in which 256 service personnel died and one in which 885,000 died. The very fact that the latter is rounded to the nearest 1000 makes that point very clearly.

Is there a reason why you gaving used a strawman about equivalence in conflicts in response to a post of mine which was specifically not saying that, have again used the same strawman in reply to the post pointing out your original use of straw?

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be equating the scale of the conflict with the importance of individual deaths: I don't get that I'm afraid, and I suspect the loved ones of those lost in the Falklands felt no less bereaved that the loved ones did for those lost in WW2.

But the scale is important because you magnify that individual tragedy and feeling of loss 5000 times.

And there is another factor, which was discussed earlier in the thread - when numbers of deaths are small it is possible for every one to be remembered and commemorated individually. The example I used upthread was Afghanistan where, I think, pretty well every death was reported on the news, each dead soldier named individually in the media, every one with a ceremony at Wooton Basset (again often commemorated on the news). You can go to a page and read each of their names and their stories - go to another and each one has a photograph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan_since_2001

http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/26/victims-of-afghanistan-roll-call-of-the-british-soldiers-and-staff-who-died-for-their-country-4922099/

But as the numbers get bigger and bigger that becomes simply impossible as the scale becomes so overwhelming that it becomes impossible to commemorated each one individually, which is why there is the need for the commemoration en masse for the dead of the world wars. The shear scale of the deaths from the world wars means that they cannot be commemorated individually in the manner that is possible, and is done, for much smaller conflicts.

Think about it this way - were we to wish to commemorate the Falklands dead and wanted to read out every name of a soldier who had died, it might take us about 12 minutes from start to end - completely doable - to do the same for the dead of the 2 world wars (to individual recognise them by name) would take one and a half months. It isn't possible to give each individual the respect they deserve, in the manner that is possible where deaths are in the 100s - that's why they should be the focus of the mass commemoration that is the November remembrance event in my opinion.

If the aim is to remember the fallen I can't understand we shouldn't remember all who fell.

Including those before 1945 who didn't die in the world wars? They are currently not part of the commemorations - so the event already restricts and limits - it does not cover all who have died in conflicts, only some. So the discussion in a way is how we limit - we might differ in our opinion on that, but both my preferred approach and the current approach do limit those who are remembered. And to try to remember every single person who died in conflict ever would create something so nebulous as to be rather meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

No the individual tragedy is not magnified. It is repeated and each one is worth remembering.

[ProfessorDavey]

No the individual tragedy is not magnified. It is repeated and each one is worth remembering.

But the scale means that the way in which you can commemorate necessarily has to change - see my post above.

[Gordon]

But the scale is important because you magnify that individual tragedy and feeling of loss 5000 times.

I think you are overthinking it: people will pause to remember those who fell, and in most cases those doing the remembering will have no personal connection to the fallen and nor will they be processing the numbers killed in each separate conflict - but nevertheless they will pause and reflect, and that is surely the whole point.