Cambridge students vote against Remembrance Sunday

Original post by the bear

they shall not pass

Quite! But the strategy is that by seeking to progressively dilute or extend commemoration, they normalise non-commemoration, and eventually end up with a service of condemnation. They would like this to be the case now but are taking a long view.

Reply 62

Original post by Ni_gg_a

except her.

Nobody.

Reply 63

Original post by Good bloke

I'm sure you will be uniquely blessed with a facility to go through your life without making any mistakes, and you will never tasked with taking difficult decisions in order to rectify them.

A war which kills millions of young men isn't a mistake.That's an entirely predictable outcome when you decide to go to war with another major Power.It was also entirely predictable that forcing germany to take the entire blame for the war and causing massive economic harm wasn't going to do anything good.In truth these wars could have been avoided if we had sensible rulers who actually thought through the consequences of their actions.Unfortunately we don't.Which is exactly why we shouldn't be glorifying war.And yes parading around in military uniform is the very definition of glorifying war and probably the last thing the victims of war would actually want.Calling it a mistake is a cop out.

Reply 64

Original post by RS564

1 parading around in military uniform is the very definition of glorifying war and 2 probably the last thing the victims of war would actually want.

1. No it isn't
2. Except it was exactly the veterans and victims of the war who began commemorating said war in 1919...

Reply 65

Original post by RS564

these wars could have been avoided if we had sensible rulers who actually thought through the consequences of their actions.

I'm sure, if you can only learn how to punctuate properly, you will make an excellent national leader and will avoid any catastrophes.

As for the consequences of actions, you have not yet told us whether the most likely consequence in inaction in 1939, Nazi governments across Europe, would be entirely acceptable to you.

Reply 66

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Drewski

1. No it isn't
2. Except it was exactly the veterans and victims of the war who began commemorating said war in 1919...

What we need is a rememberance that remembers the grevious loss of life and limb in the world wars, the suffering and heroism of both servicepeople and civilians - and also the imperialism, nationalist delusion and deranged competing for power and colonies that motivated the European powers, including (sometimes) Britain. Otherwise it's a shallow and clueless mourning of loss without understanding. The First World War did not serve the interests of the people of Europe, but certain aristocracies and manufacturing magnates in the war industries and some bankers and financiers.

Reply 67

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You are free to start one.

There are already numerous days commemorating many different aspects of war, it's victims, and the suffering created by it.

In the same way that you are free to remember any particular aspect of a person's character when you attend their funeral, so you can choose to remember any particular aspect of war during the Remembrance Day activities. But your method of remembering is no more - and no less - important than anybody else's. If someone else chooses to do it differently, that is up to them.

Reply 68

Original post by Fullofsurprises

and also the imperialism, nationalist delusion and deranged competing for power and colonies that motivated the European powers

As I said earlier, this is an attempt to evolve the commemoration gradually over time until, one day, it become just this critical anti-colonial diatribe.

Reply 69

akbar0123

Bit ridiculous, those who fought in the World Wars on the British side fought for a good reason imo, imagine what would have happened if fascists were allowed to win and expand to other continents. It is a good idea to remember them.

Reply 70

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Good bloke

As I said earlier, this is an attempt to evolve the commemoration gradually over time until, one day, it become just this critical anti-colonial diatribe.

I don't think most people who read or watch any serious material about the world wars would come away from that with simplistic views dismissive of the extraordinary sacrifices people made. I think that's actually a bit of a modern new-right fantasy to think that. It's a shame, because some of the writers who have most seriously critiqued the beginnings, causes and progress of the wars have been broadly on the right. The modern critique of the imperialist and colonialist origins of the First World War in particular has been a project across political views. It's important that Rememberance Day not simply degenerate into a confused pantomime for the new alt-Right to flex their pseudo-jingoism, which is more of a risk than the one you mention, especially as parts of the current political landscape like the Kippers and the EDL types and the Tory Right definitely want to obscure and bury our imperialistic past. That is why Gove and Farage amongst others have tried to remove parts of history from the schools.

Reply 71

Original post by Fullofsurprises

...which is more of a risk than the one you mention...

To you.

Political fads come and go. They have a limited lifespan. They're too small and insignificant to really affect something like this, something that occurs at a national level and will do whether they're involved or not, and has done for a century.

Reply 72

Original post by Fullofsurprises

It's important that Rememberance Day not simply degenerate into a confused pantomime

I agree. So tell your friends on the left to stop trying to hijack it. They will only alienate ordinary members of the public - we can see through their attempt to gradually move the goalposts as I have demonstrated - and we can deal with those wowsers of the extreme right if they cause trouble.

Reply 73

Talon

Cambridge University’s student union can do what they want, it isn't like it has any meaning in the real world.

Reply 74

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by Drewski

1. No it isn't
2. Except it was exactly the veterans and victims of the war who began commemorating said war in 1919...

Yes it does. That is exactly what it does.You could quite easily have a service which remembers the victims of war without parading around in military clothes.You could even have one which remembers the other victims of war not just the British.Such as all those many german soldiers who got conscripted into the war effort.If they were conscripted then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be remembered.Lots of them were just kids.It wasn't their fault their Government was stupid.

And yeah some of them did but they survived.I wonder what those who didn't would have thought about it.

Reply 75

Andrew97

Original post by RS564

Why do you have such an issue with soldiers wearing their military uniform during remembrance?

yeah, funny that how we don’t tend to put the country that we were at war with high up on the rememberence...

Reply 76

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by Andrew97

Well there is a difference between hating a countries government and hating the civilians of that country.The German government was terrible for instance but did that mean that the people of Dresden deserved to be burned alive? Call me controversial but I'd say no.Not anymore than the people in london did.

We seem to have this notion in this country that we were the good guys and they were the bad guys.Not really.Yes hitler was a terrible guy who did terrible things.Churchill also did terrible things.Yet he is lauded as a hero.Hitler killed 6 million jews. Churchill had a part in killing millions of indians. Stalin was our ally yet he killed even more people than hitler did.America used nukes which nobody-else did.Who you regard as having the moral high ground is really a matter of perspective.Nothing is black and white.Its all shades of grey.

Reply 77

Andrew97

Original post by RS564

Stalin was an ally due to circumstance, not choice. Stalin also had more time to kill people than Hitler did. So a comparison is not fair.

Dropping the nuclear weapons saved lives in the long run, the Japanese were fanatical and would defend the frontier of the empire (mainland Japan) at all costs.

What you you say about Churchill is also rubbish.

Reply 78

Original post by Andrew97

No its not.4 million indians starved to death due to the policies of the British empire which he was in charge of.He was just as much a racist as Hitler was.Some people think that the japanese were ready to give up and that America had an ulterior motive with the nuclear weapons to show Stalin their power.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html

Reply 79