Languish.org

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-29935592 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-29935592)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78805000%2Fjpg%2F_78805599_untitled-1.jpg&hash=1400cae6deebd5f90271ab8d08ad293a275c7a10)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78802000%2Fjpg%2F_78802268_0a04d995-ba35-4bbe-ac37-57a5c5ada008.jpg&hash=4e95abca41436dfca62d591c7f56a6718af62822)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78805000%2Fjpg%2F_78805603_bacb2350-e6b4-4cff-8607-fc3561bfa441.jpg&hash=4a7f56bf2ca89dfb68b14224ac593c7fb642b4fd)

The last one looks unfortunately like The Ascent of Man...

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3images.coroflot.com%2Fuser_files%2Findividual_files%2F191315_xMPuIMZCKlC1uGHIh91Gfwu8g.jpg&hash=5d31656a503a5fafacd8eebe58de3032de24a84e)

As we grow taller, so do our hats?  :hmm:

Great head of hair!

I see a lot of extra square footage that could be used for affordable housing.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2014, 12:30:52 PM
I see a lot of extra square footage that could be used for affordable housing.

Talk about seeing the moat in the neighbor's eye.

I just learned that the McRae wrote "In Flanders Field" the day after the death of his friend Lt. Alexis Helmer, and that Lt. Helmer was an alumnus of my high school.

On a semi-related subject, I've seen people sporting the poppies, but I haven't come across a single veteran or cadet soliciting for the poppy fund yet. It's kind of weird.

Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 05:18:01 PM
I just learned that the McRae wrote "In Flanders Field" the day after the death of his friend Lt. Alexis Helmer, and that Lt. Helmer was an alumnus of my high school.

On a semi-related subject, I've seen people sporting the poppies, but I haven't come across a single veteran or cadet soliciting for the poppy fund yet. It's kind of weird.

Nice historical link.  :)

I often search out the war memorial in a village that's new to me.

There's a very small village* up the way from here and it has a wooden memorial board denoting all those that served and those that died in World War One.
There's enough names on it, that the majority, if not most men from the village served in the war, I wonder what it was like for the women and families left behind?

You also see something of the relationships, be there family or class, as it seems everyone from the sons of the Lord of the manor**, to the farm hands volunteered to go to war.


*So small I could mentally tick off from memory all the houses there.

** A very fine and imposing house, manor is the wrong term, it's a grand Elizabethan country-pile, I think the family currently there bought it at the turn on the 20th century, so they were rather wealthy, but still served their country in war.   

I always find the little village war memorials very moving. As you'll know you go through villages which are places in Hardy's Wessex, with barely 500 people, and they'll have a full plaque of names.

And as you say it was all sorts of people. I believe the largest casualty group, proportionally, were the junior officers.

Planning to visit the Tower this week to see this. When it started I thought it just looked a bit gauche, but it's grown on me as the poppies have been added.

QuoteOn a semi-related subject, I've seen people sporting the poppies, but I haven't come across a single veteran or cadet soliciting for the poppy fund yet. It's kind of weird.

Strange. I've seen a fair few cadets/soldiers out selling them.

How common is wearing them in Canada?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2014, 06:22:03 PM
I always find the little village war memorials very moving. As you'll know you go through villages which are places in Hardy's Wessex, with barely 500 people, and they'll have a full plaque of names.

And as you say it was all sorts of people. I believe the largest casualty group, proportionally, were the junior officers.

Yeah it's definitely sobering to think about.

QuotePlanning to visit the Tower this week to see this. When it started I thought it just looked a bit gauche, but it's grown on me as the poppies have been added.

I can see that on both counts.

QuoteStrange. I've seen a fair few cadets/soldiers out selling them.

How common is wearing them in Canada?

Very common.

The strange part is not that the people aren't out there collecting for the poppy fund, it's that I've managed not to see any of them.

Though I was chatting to someone who said that most of the poppy/ donation spots he'd seen are actually at cash registers at various stores.

And of course there's a poppy for each British and colonial casualty - so more than 800 000 - but Canada' included :)

On the war memorial front I remember seeing the one in the village my mum and dad live in, which has about 500 people in it. There were over 20 names and at least 2 from the same family. When you remember that area of the country's Hardy's Wessex there's something almost indecent about it.

I just finished reading Battle Tactics of The Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack 1916-1918.


http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tactics-Western-Front-British/dp/0300066635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415403650&sr=8-1&keywords=battle+tactics+of+the+western+front (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tactics-Western-Front-British/dp/0300066635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415403650&sr=8-1&keywords=battle+tactics+of+the+western+front)

Incredibly dry, and incredibly awesome. Goes into ridiculous detail about things that I am sure the vast, vast majority of people could not care less about, yet I find sacinating and largely missing from most military history.

WW1 in so many ways was mentally and psychologically over-shadowed by WW2, and yet was probably the vastly more significant war...

That is really, really fucking cool. By the way.

I wish I could have bought one of them...

In 1911 Desborough, my home town, had about 4000 people living in it.

At least 85 people resident or born in the town died. That's a pretty horrific percentage of the relevant male age group.

http://www.afamilystory.co.uk/desborough/armed-forces/world-war-1.aspx

They haven't got his service number there for me to be certain but since he's buried in Desborough I assume that the "Ward, William" listed is my Great-Grandfather.* :(


--------

And yes, I thought the poppies might be tacky/gauche as well but now, seeing them all...the whole thing is quite moving.

Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2014, 06:42:43 PM
I just finished reading Battle Tactics of The Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack 1916-1918.


http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tactics-Western-Front-British/dp/0300066635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415403650&sr=8-1&keywords=battle+tactics+of+the+western+front (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tactics-Western-Front-British/dp/0300066635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415403650&sr=8-1&keywords=battle+tactics+of+the+western+front)

Incredibly dry, and incredibly awesome. Goes into ridiculous detail about things that I am sure the vast, vast majority of people could not care less about, yet I find sacinating and largely missing from most military history.

WW1 in so many ways was mentally and psychologically over-shadowed by WW2, and yet was probably the vastly more significant war...

Thanks for bringing this up Berkut; I've just impulse bought it on your recommendation. It should make a nice adjunct to the more general texts I own.

Hopefully the Chinese will not take offense.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 06:51:46 PM
Hopefully the Chinese will not take offense.

Are you specifically referring to an incident involving David Cameron from four years ago here or just in general?

It's only been four years since the wars?

Oh, in general then.

I thought you might have been referring to this -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/nov/10/david-cameron-poppy-china-michael-white

Quote from: Agelastus on November 07, 2014, 07:08:35 PM
Oh, in general then.

I thought you might have been referring to this -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/nov/10/david-cameron-poppy-china-michael-white

Pretty sure that's exactly what he was referring to.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2014, 07:42:50 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on November 07, 2014, 07:08:35 PM
Oh, in general then.

I thought you might have been referring to this -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/nov/10/david-cameron-poppy-china-michael-white

Pretty sure that's exactly what he was referring to.

Ah, frak it...I need to go to bed.

---------

---------

Sorry Brain, I didn't even register that it was Yi and not you who made the original post.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2014, 12:30:52 PM
I see a lot of extra square footage that could be used for affordable housing.

Guy Fawkes thought it was affordable.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2014, 12:30:52 PM
I see a lot of extra square footage that could be used for affordable housing.

Housing in the moat of the Tower of London?  Nothing affordable about that.

(https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p403x403/10552446_720062761410870_3909355063761636190_n.jpg?oh=87606a6e01b477438741222e110da8ba&oe=54EE78FD)

I really like the Animals in War memorial in Hyde Park:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6f%2FAnimals_in_War_Memorial%252C_London.jpg%2F800px-Animals_in_War_Memorial%252C_London.jpg&hash=2786ee88a5d87fe5aba89bf04ef00cb6d6d5ad34)

Shelf, yours looks like a memorial to the slaves who built the pyramids.  Those mules don't look at all psyched.

Ain't that the nature of memorials?

I have never seen a war memorial with humans depicted hating what they are doing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2014, 02:03:58 PM
I have never seen a war memorial with humans depicted hating what they are doing.

Show me what you mean because what your type of memorial suggests sounds rather Soviet to me.

I've never seen a war memorial with anyone looking psyched. It's a mournful style. It acknowledges the suffering, struggle and death because that's what we remember. So with the Animals in War.

I think that's a mule's normal expression.  :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2014, 02:08:49 PM
Show me what you mean because what your type of memorial suggests sounds rather Soviet to me.

I've never seen a war memorial with anyone looking psyched. It's a mournful style. It acknowledges the suffering, struggle and death because that's what we remember. So with the Animals in War.

By not psyched I meant bummed out.  War memorials typically depict heroism, or more recently, grim determination.  Take the 54th Massachusetts ("Glory") memorial as an example.

http://www.masshist.org/online/54thregiment/essay.php?entry_id=528

They don't look as if they're thinking "this fucking sucks and the only reason I'm marching behind the cracker on the horse is because I will get a beating if I don't."

I don't think those have been the tone of many British war memorials since WW1 to be honest. That seems very 19th century. I mean look at the Royal Artillery Memorial which has a soldier almost looking crucified:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FArts%2FArts_%2FPictures%2F2011%2F11%2F7%2F1320669199674%2FRoyal-Artillery-Memorial--007.jpg&hash=9d7ed458e1413793889964d34d2c1fc4b5bcf2d3)

Or this which is a typical image:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warmemorials.org%2Fgraphics%2Fhomeimage.jpg&hash=5e6b3cef191172e558ce106f94a78a79e665fa0a)
Similar from Lanarkshire:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8294%2F7755395906_357683c712.jpg&hash=90fd2ba4ef72d53042459ac3dd7594ffdf21beb8)

Or the Liverpool cenotaph:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb1%2FLiverpool_Cenotaph_3.jpg%2F791px-Liverpool_Cenotaph_3.jpg&hash=655ae5f1c587d637d6ed084b36d41ad5456c5142)

Not to mention of course the many memorials that aren't figurative at all. The Cenotaph, the Vietnam memorial or the RAF memorial at Runnymede where they leave a landing light on every night for all British and Commonwealth pilots who've not returned to base.

The middle two look very much like grim determination to me.  The last one is obviously mournful tribute.

I have no clue what they were thinking with the first one.  :wacko:

Americans are weird.

The Korean war memorial in DC didn't strike me as particularly heroic or grimly determined.


edit: and the Afghanistan memorial in Kiev:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2068/2170649607_091d4e8f4f_z.jpg?zz=1)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2014, 02:39:04 PM
I have no clue what they were thinking with the first one.  :wacko:

British memory of WW1:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-War-Modern-Memory-Twenty-Fifth/dp/0195133315/ref=la_B000AQ6OIQ_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415561857&sr=1-2

QuoteDULCE ET DECORUM EST

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Probably the one poem everyone educated in the UK has read. And if that's how we remember the men, how the animals? They've no choice whatsoever, but many times showed the sort of bravery and loyalty that only an animal could.

Of course it's wrong, or incomplete at least. Wilfred Owen's a pretty suspect poet whose less famous (and less good) work is heavily influenced by the Decadents and are poems that are alarmingly sensuous and sibillant about the corpses of young men. He was also someone who enjoyed war, liked killing Germans and could never wait to get back to his troops. But I suppose memory's a complicated thing.

Edit: I think basically since WW1 most British war memorials have been mournful tributes rather than monuments to victories. The few counter-examples like the Battle of Britain memorial look weird and inappropriate because of it. The reason is that in that period that's exactly what they were and it subsequently became our sort of national vernacular of war memorial: sorrowful and mournful, for remembrance of the dead and injured not the war.

But on that first one there are other statues which are more 'grim determination' but they're bookended not just by a Christ but by a corpse and then an empty uniform folded up. I think it's probably my favourite war memorial in London.

Edit: And of course the Ode of Remembrance which is the on read everywhere on Remembrance Sunday, again from WW1:

QuoteThey shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

War art approved of by Americans:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fwarart_zpsa53ad82b.jpg&hash=ef7f696ee640f88bf2ae973baa3aa54673848301)

Good one Brain.  :)

That is one limber soldier.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2014, 02:03:58 PM
I have never seen a war memorial with humans depicted hating what they are doing.

These guys look psyched to you?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foutreachmilitary.org%2Fkorean_war_memorial_files%2Fimage001.jpg&hash=a3678efd26c7b012dcec29d8f2b020b6729e5073)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vfwofwa.org%2Fimages%2Fkorean_memorial.jpg&hash=af89a65049831011a47aaeb1d99222a1dd2d18b1)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.travel.usnews.com%2Fimages%2Fdestinations%2F49%2Fnew_jersey_korean_war_memorial.jpg&hash=1a78b237ea0c2b8ba988c3f08431b1e835a402ac)

Like all Belgians & French I'll be at home tomorrow. Remembering the fallen.

Going to try a quick dash to the Tower at lunchtime.

Quote from: Brazen on November 10, 2014, 07:14:52 AM
Going to try a quick dash to the Tower at lunchtime.

:lol: That was a big nope. Thought I knew the back ways round, but Babylon has the place on lockdown.

It's now buggering up getting around London - my bus this morning was diverted too. They have my permission to begin dismantling.

After much debate, Austria now has a memorial commemorating deserters of the Wehrmacht. It's inscribed "all alone."

Though it might also be X-Files fan art. Trust no one!

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dw.de%2Fimage%2F0%2C%2C18019092_303%2C00.jpg&hash=a53f028d12bc55671089f26570b03d68416ac728)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.br.de%2Fstudio-wien%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F10%2FFoto-3-fertig.jpg%3Fw%3D368%26amp%3Bh%3D271&hash=d6dba80ae431a670594394252e9b82b0226d90a2)

Why the fuck would they use English on a Wehrmacht deserters memorial? Is German someone not appropriate?

And so comes my annual reminder to the board of the existence of the excellent video featuring the Dropkick Murphys performing "The Green Fields of France:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrQnnZJ68Xo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrQnnZJ68Xo)  There are lots of inferior versions of the same idea; that one is the best.

Quote from: Zanza on November 10, 2014, 12:46:39 PM
Why the fuck would they use English on a Wehrmacht deserters memorial? Is German someone not appropriate?

Beats me.

It's a bit surprising they made one, anyways, because conservatives and right wingers complained that it was a memorial not only to resisters (that some deserters were) but also to traitors who betrayed their comrades (that other deserters were).

It's still better than what's going on in a small village. A bunch of deserters (soldiers recruited from the area) had hidden there. The SS found them and had them shot. There was to be a memorial plaque, but there was strong local resistance by roughly half the village: among the people shot were also non-deserters suspected of aiding the runaways. The naysayers blame those deaths on the deserters, and therefore remembering them would be disrespectful of the innocent victims.

"all alone" reminds me of the opening narration of Babylon 5, though.

Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2014, 12:51:15 PM
And so comes my annual reminder to the board of the existence of the excellent video featuring the Dropkick Murphys performing "The Green Fields of France:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrQnnZJ68Xo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrQnnZJ68Xo)  There are lots of inferior versions of the same idea; that one is the best.

:thumbsup:

Alone alone, all all alone, alone on a wide wide sea?

This is awesome but can you Brits get over it already? Everyone who fought in this war is already dead (in fact except for a handful of people, everyone who lived when this war started is already dead). Yes, people died. It was a war. We get it.

Lord Feet demands you peons get over it. chop chop.

Maybe if we're lucky we'll get a full-on rant about loser soldiers.

Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 03:22:26 PM
This is awesome but can you Brits get over it already? Everyone who fought in this war is already dead (in fact except for a handful of people, everyone who lived when this war started is already dead). Yes, people died. It was a war. We get it.

I think you're missing the political, cultural and economic shadows that war still casts.

Or perhaps it should be regarded as a watershed moment in British history?

Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2014, 03:29:02 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 03:22:26 PM
This is awesome but can you Brits get over it already? Everyone who fought in this war is already dead (in fact except for a handful of people, everyone who lived when this war started is already dead). Yes, people died. It was a war. We get it.

I think you're missing the political, cultural and economic shadows that war still casts.

Or perhaps it should be regarded as a watershed moment in British history?

It's not like Poland didn't have its share of traumatic events (in fact, some of them, especially WW2, make the British experience of WW1 seem rather feeble in comparison). And that was within the living memory. So I get the need to honor those who had to go through. But once everybody involved is dead, it does seem rather self-indulgent.

Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 03:32:41 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2014, 03:29:02 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 03:22:26 PM
This is awesome but can you Brits get over it already? Everyone who fought in this war is already dead (in fact except for a handful of people, everyone who lived when this war started is already dead). Yes, people died. It was a war. We get it.

I think you're missing the political, cultural and economic shadows that war still casts.

Or perhaps it should be regarded as a watershed moment in British history?

It's not like Poland didn't have its share of traumatic events (in fact, some of them, especially WW2, make the British experience of WW1 seem rather feeble in comparison). And that was within the living memory. So I get the need to honor those who had to go through. But once everybody involved is dead, it does seem rather self-indulgent.

I don't think that's especially important, it should be an occasion to reflect on matters of current political and social concern.

Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2014, 03:29:02 PM
I think you're missing the political, cultural and economic shadows that war still casts.

Such as the collapse of Sykes-Picot?

QuoteIt's not like Poland didn't have its share of traumatic events (in fact, some of them, especially WW2, make the British experience of WW1 seem rather feeble in comparison). And that was within the living memory. So I get the need to honor those who had to go through. But once everybody involved is dead, it does seem rather self-indulgent.

Most other combatants' experience of WW1 makes the British seem rather feeble. That's not the point. And sure if your history is a litany of misery then it makes other remembrance seem a bit trite. But isn't that the thing about memory, it's always personal? So the fact that other countries suffered more in WW1 or history in general doesn't matter to the British memory which is what Remembrance Day in Britain is about.

What's interesting to me is that about WW1 it's not necessarily about honouring what they went through in the normal sense. Our memory is wrong factually about WW1. It's seen as a uniquely pointless war, full of futile battles led by buffoonish generals in mud, mire and the trenches. It's not heroic, or a needed sacrifice but a generation of innocents sent to die for no good reason. I think if this tradition had emerged after WW2 for example it would've ended up far less enduring because it would be far less ambiguous in tone. Perhaps that's why it opens itself to Mongers' view with veterans of more difficult modern wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of the parade.

And of course it's not just about WW1 it's remembrance for all our fallen in all our wars, though there's going to be a pretty heavy WW1 focus in the next few years I think. The days of Tommies leading the parade (which I remember) are over. It's normally WW2 veterans now.

But I don't entirely disagree with you. It's pretty striking that the popularity of Remembrance Day has increased (perhaps because of our modern wars) when everyone thought it was going to die out with the last of the Tommies. Maybe that's a consequence of recent wars. But I also feel it's linked to a sort of kitsch infantilisation of the past - for example the generation of WW1 being seen purely as victims, or the hip 1950s style cafes you find with old portraits of the Queen and the Union Jack. And the current British love of mass emotionalism whether it's grief after Diana died or rage as it is at the minute. I'm not entirely sure it's not self indulgent as you say.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2014, 04:10:42 PM
....

But I don't entirely disagree with you. It's pretty striking that the popularity of Remembrance Day has increased (perhaps because of our modern wars) when everyone thought it was going to die out with the last of the Tommies. Maybe that's a consequence of recent wars. But I also feel it's linked to a sort of kitsch infantilisation of the past - for example the generation of WW1 being seen purely as victims, or the hip 1950s style cafes you find with old portraits of the Queen and the Union Jack. And the current British love of mass emotionalism whether it's grief after Diana died or rage as it is at the minute. I'm not entirely sure it's not self indulgent as you say.

Oh I don't disagree on this, but I'd say the 'over-emotionalism' regarding WW1 and remembrance is at least a healthy one in that I think it partially grows out of a need to find belonging/shared experiences in an otherwise heavily atomised society.

And yes the mass emotionalism over events like Diana's death and it's flip-side the rage political of the now are deeply worrying in their unreasoned nature.

It seems to me that the Brits (and maybe the Belgians, as well as former CW countries, like Canada and Australia) are the only ones of the participants that still care so much about WWI, the French used to care a big deal too but they seem to not be that much into it anymore. I'd say that everybody else moved on to devote most of their historical grief to WWII to the point of eclipsing everything else.

Quote from: The Larch on November 11, 2014, 04:58:09 PM
It seems to me that the Brits (and maybe the Belgians, as well as former CW countries, like Canada and Australia) are the only ones of the participants that still care so much about WWI, the French used to care a big deal too but they seem to not be that much into it anymore. I'd say that everybody else moved on to devote most of their historical grief to WWII to the point of eclipsing everything else.

I find it interesting that lots of countries still mark 11/11 - like the US for example do, I think Veterans' Day is around about now. It's odd.

But it'd be interesting to know about how other countries are marking the centenary, especially France, Germany and Russia.

I suppose it makes sense though. For the Commonwealth the traumatic war was WW1. WW2 was a great, eventual triumph and vindication. Ultimately it was the 'finest hour', while for most other combatants that trauma rather eclipsed the Great War.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
I find it interesting that lots of countries still mark 11/11 - like the US for example do, I think Veterans' Day is around about now. It's odd.

It is Veterans' Day.  :P

QuoteI suppose it makes sense though. For the Commonwealth the traumatic war was WW1. WW2 was a great, eventual triumph and vindication. Ultimately it was the 'finest hour', while for most other combatants that trauma rather eclipsed the Great War.

This.  Yeah, the Blitz was bad and you had Monty fucking shit up with his Montyness but compared to its continental counterparts, England came out relatively intact.  WW1 was a far different experience.  Kitchener destroyed entire communities.

Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 03:32:41 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2014, 03:29:02 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 03:22:26 PM
This is awesome but can you Brits get over it already? Everyone who fought in this war is already dead (in fact except for a handful of people, everyone who lived when this war started is already dead). Yes, people died. It was a war. We get it.

I think you're missing the political, cultural and economic shadows that war still casts.

Or perhaps it should be regarded as a watershed moment in British history?

It's not like Poland didn't have its share of traumatic events (in fact, some of them, especially WW2, make the British experience of WW1 seem rather feeble in comparison). And that was within the living memory. So I get the need to honor those who had to go through. But once everybody involved is dead, it does seem rather self-indulgent.

That's like the opposite of self-indulgent. :huh:  They aren't honoring themselves, they are honoring the dead.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
This.  Yeah, the Blitz was bad and you had Monty fucking shit up with his Montyness but compared to its continental counterparts, England came out relatively intact.  WW1 was a far different experience.  Kitchener destroyed entire communities.

Not just intact but immensely proud. Awful as the Blitz was it was for a good cause. It's the same with losing an Empire, if you've got to there's not much better way to do it than exhaustion fighting Nazis :lol:

I imagine it's similar for Commonwealth countries and from what I've read it actually mattered a great deal to British people at the time that Australia and Canada were with them. The WW1 experience was different I think for all of them - among the countries that don't mark 11/11 include New Zealand and Australia because Anzac Day is on the anniversary of Gallipoli.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2014, 04:10:42 PMAnd of course it's not just about WW1 it's remembrance for all our fallen in all our wars, though there's going to be a pretty heavy WW1 focus in the next few years I think. The days of Tommies leading the parade (which I remember) are over. It's normally WW2 veterans now.

Yeah, in Canada while Remembrance Day was initially about WWI - and in many ways a mark of Canada becoming a nation - it is about all the wars and all the soldiers. There's some kitsch and some trite sentimentalism involved, sure, but mostly it seems to me to be a fairly solemn affair remembering the costs of war.

Here's a pretty good article in the National Post, from a WWII veteran:

QuoteIt is the strangest thing, Frank Johnson tells me, a memory he can't shake because he can't make sense of it, can't understand why what happened to him on that long ago day in wartime Germany happened the way it did.

Here he was, you see, old Frankie Johnson — Johnny to his fighter pilot pals — shot to bits after being shot down over Germany on March 30, 1945. His back was busted, there was shrapnel in his right shin, a bullet in his left hip and he was bleeding from his forehead and covered in mud and blood and aircraft oil.

He was a "goddamn mess," he says, and he didn't really care whether he lived or died since he felt like he was already dying anyway. But a German farmer's wife, some middle-aged lady, she cared whether he lived or died and she took a shot-up enemy fighter pilot who was dumped on her doorstep by two German soldiers and cleaned his wounds.

Washed his entire body like she was washing her own "goddamn son," Mr. Johnson says, like it didn't matter one slice that old Johnny boy had spent the war taking out "German targets" and killing God knows how many Germans along the way with his Hawker Typhoon fighter plane.

The complete article can be found here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/why-the-hell-would-i-kill-this-kid-one-canadian-veteran-remembers-the-horrors-of-war/

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2014, 05:08:12 PM

Quote from: The Larch on November 11, 2014, 04:58:09 PM
It seems to me that the Brits (and maybe the Belgians, as well as former CW countries, like Canada and Australia) are the only ones of the participants that still care so much about WWI, the French used to care a big deal too but they seem to not be that much into it anymore. I'd say that everybody else moved on to devote most of their historical grief to WWII to the point of eclipsing everything else.

I find it interesting that lots of countries still mark 11/11 - like the US for example do, I think Veterans' Day is around about now. It's odd.

But it'd be interesting to know about how other countries are marking the centenary, especially France, Germany and Russia.

Huge deal in France this year with 100th anniversary. On the other hand, people's attention was taken already by the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landing.
Since 2012 (one of Sarko's last measures), November 11th, a bank holiday, is also some kind of a Remembrance day.

November 11th, 11:11am is start of the carnival season in Germany and Austria. Also, ball season in Austria (ball as in posh dance event).

Not much remembering about WW1 going on, except for the occasional news editorial from what I can see.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
This.  Yeah, the Blitz was bad and you had Monty fucking shit up with his Montyness but compared to its continental counterparts, England came out relatively intact.  WW1 was a far different experience.  Kitchener destroyed entire communities.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. But if this is the reason for remembrance, then after 100 years it is probably a time to move on. If the point instead is to honour one's veterans of all wars, then it is fine but then stop making most of it singularly about WW1.  If the point is to make a post-modern statement about pointlessness of all wars - as mongers seems to think it is - then don't do it with the prime minister and top brass of the military that even now are keeping soldiers fighting wars of dubious sense or necessity across the globe.

Sheilbh is right with his point about infantilisation - I think it tries to create a myth of unity and belonging for a deeply atomised nation that Britain is, by idealising the WW1 experience. Unlike mongers I don't find it to be a good thing, because trying to change reality based on a myth is rarely a good thing.

What's it to you how the Brits manage their national mythology?

Also, isn't the 11th Nationalist Riot Day Independence Day in Poland?

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 03:05:19 AM
Also, isn't the 11th Nationalist Riot Day Independence Day in Poland?

Yep.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30012830 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30012830)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78922000%2Fjpg%2F_78922864_024691852-1.jpg&hash=c797e2722706282b915a204819f62df4af888335)

Can't you Poles get over it already?

This seems like an extremely silly retort.

Even if I were some huge enthusiast of patriotic flag waving and celebrating the Polish independence day (which I don't think I have ever given any indication of), "independence day" style celebrations are something slightly different than remembering a historical event (again, I would be pretty happy if there were't any, just as well, but these riots and competing celebrations are about modern politics, not about events that happened when noone involved was alive - so to be honest I think they are still more relevant).

I also thought that "you can't criticise my country, as your country is stoooooopeeeeed" stopped being considered a valid argument around the time one graduates from primary school, but apparently I was wrong.

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 05:53:34 AM
I also thought that "you can't criticise my country, as your country is stoooooopeeeeed" stopped being considered a valid argument around the time one graduates from primary school, but apparently I was wrong.

Well, the "why can't you be more like me" argument isn't considered a valid argument by anyone but you, so there's that.

Martinus is a fucking idiot, news at 11.

Quote from: Fireblade on November 12, 2014, 06:00:52 AM
Martinus is a fucking idiot, news at 11.

:lol:

But more to the point: Remembrance Day in the UK is not (solely) about remembering the end of WW1, it's about remembering the fallen British/Commonwealth soldiers of wars in general.

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 06:14:40 AM
But more to the point: Remembrance Day in the UK is not (solely) about remembering the end of WW1, it's about remembering the fallen British/Commonwealth soldiers of wars in general.

:yes:

QuoteSince last year's Armistice Day, another seven members of the British armed forces have died in service - including five who died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan in April.

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 06:14:40 AM
But more to the point: Remembrance Day in the UK is not (solely) about remembering the end of WW1, it's about remembering the fallen British/Commonwealth soldiers of wars in general.

Then why make a memorial that commemorates specifically the number of dead in WW1?

Why the fuck do you care?

The only relevant question is why in 2014 and not in 2018?

Remembrance Day is on that day because it's Armistice Day. Which was WWI. In which more British, Australia and the Commonwealth soldiers died than any other war before or since*. Which is symbolised by poppies because of Flanders.

Would you prefer there to be a separate section of 453 opium poppies to represent Afghanistan?

Not only do we commemorate the British dead since then, we also include foreign troops who fought both on our side and against us.

* A greater proportion of the British population dies during the English Civil War.

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 01:38:30 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
This.  Yeah, the Blitz was bad and you had Monty fucking shit up with his Montyness but compared to its continental counterparts, England came out relatively intact.  WW1 was a far different experience.  Kitchener destroyed entire communities.

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

That's because nobody is disputing that, counselor.

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 06:27:48 AM
Why the fuck do you care?

Why the fuck do you care that I care? :D

The art critic of The Guardian didn't like the installation either :

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/oct/28/tower-of-london-poppies-ukip-remembrance-day

Historic Royal Palaces, a charity, commissioned the installation. All the poppies have been sold and the profits (some £15m or so) will be given to relevant charities. It appears that the work was popular, with some 4m or so people viewing it. I'm not sure how we could legally have stopped them doing all this, perhaps legislation is required.........The Offensive Art (Undue Sentimentality) Act 2015 maybe  :D

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 06:22:56 AM

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 06:14:40 AM
But more to the point: Remembrance Day in the UK is not (solely) about remembering the end of WW1, it's about remembering the fallen British/Commonwealth soldiers of wars in general.

Then why make a memorial that commemorates specifically the number of dead in WW1?

It was made after WW1. Then after WW2 people who felt mourning was probably not appropriate on VE or VJ day also remembered their dead (and the wounded marched) on Remembrance Day.

Should each conflict have its own specific remembrance day? You'd have a rolling popularity contest of veterans as fewer people turned up for the Suez Remembrance Day than the Falklands Remembrance Day which would be something.

QuoteI don't think anyone is disputing that. But if this is the reason for remembrance, then after 100 years it is probably a time to move on. If the point instead is to honour one's veterans of all wars, then it is fine but then stop making most of it singularly about WW1.  If the point is to make a post-modern statement about pointlessness of all wars - as mongers seems to think it is - then don't do it with the prime minister and top brass of the military that even now are keeping soldiers fighting wars of dubious sense or necessity across the globe.

Can't you do all of those things simultaneously, on one day? :mellow:

Also does that 100 year expiry date go for all things? The Yanks should stop celebrating 4th of July or the French Bastille Day? I mean right now we're planning a (largely American funded) set of events for the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta :lol:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2014, 09:44:51 AM
The art critic of The Guardian didn't like the installation either :

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/oct/28/tower-of-london-poppies-ukip-remembrance-day

Historic Royal Palaces, a charity, commissioned the installation. All the poppies have been sold and the profits (some £15m or so) will be given to relevant charities. It appears that the work was popular, with some 4m or so people viewing it. I'm not sure how we could legally have stopped them doing all this, perhaps legislation is required.........The Offensive Art (Undue Sentimentality) Act 2015 maybe  :D

Because there is noone more qualified to talk about the horror of war than the Guardian art critic :lol:

But that's the other point the sale of poppies is for the British Legion who support veterans and current service families.

I enjoy Jonathan Jones' writing, it is a treat to have someone I disagree with so reliably  :cool:

Lola has a cute dress that has a pattern of a bunch of poppies all over it, but it was too big for her to wear this year.  I'll have her wear it next year :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 12, 2014, 09:54:17 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 06:22:56 AM

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 06:14:40 AM
But more to the point: Remembrance Day in the UK is not (solely) about remembering the end of WW1, it's about remembering the fallen British/Commonwealth soldiers of wars in general.

Then why make a memorial that commemorates specifically the number of dead in WW1?

It was made after WW1. Then after WW2 people who felt mourning was probably not appropriate on VE or VJ day also remembered their dead (and the wounded marched) on Remembrance Day.

Should each conflict have its own specific remembrance day? You'd have a rolling popularity contest of veterans as fewer people turned up for the Suez Remembrance Day than the Falklands Remembrance Day which would be something.

QuoteI don't think anyone is disputing that. But if this is the reason for remembrance, then after 100 years it is probably a time to move on. If the point instead is to honour one's veterans of all wars, then it is fine but then stop making most of it singularly about WW1.  If the point is to make a post-modern statement about pointlessness of all wars - as mongers seems to think it is - then don't do it with the prime minister and top brass of the military that even now are keeping soldiers fighting wars of dubious sense or necessity across the globe.

Can't you do all of those things simultaneously, on one day? :mellow:

Also does that 100 year expiry date go for all things? The Yanks should stop celebrating 4th of July or the French Bastille Day? I mean right now we're planning a (largely American funded) set of events for the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta :lol:

Oh well, I guess you have a point. I guess I'm a bit annoyed by the faux martyrology, though. When people celebrate the Bastille Day or 4th of July and Magna Carta anniversary, they are celebrating the concept, not go about "now let us consider how horrible life was under John the Lackland and all those poor souls that died in the war with Philip Augustus". I'm fine with either celebrating some completely cartoonish, cheery version of "ancient" history - or with making it about modern events - but the middle ground of faux sentimental realism is a bit grating.

P.S. Poles do it too. And it is equally grating.

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 12:25:12 PM- but the middle ground of faux sentimental realism is a bit grating.

Poor diddums :console:

http://photos.al.com/alphotos/2014/11/veterans_day_parade_2014_18.html

I is interweb famous!

Well,  maybe not.

Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2014, 12:26:20 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 12:25:12 PM- but the middle ground of faux sentimental realism is a bit grating.

Poor diddums :console:

We need more Martinus Memorial threads, with giant concrete wine glasses.

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 12:25:12 PMI'm fine with either celebrating some completely cartoonish, cheery version of "ancient" history

Then you'd love Magna Carta - 'Commemorating 800 Years of Democracy' :blink:

http://magnacarta800th.com/

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 12, 2014, 01:08:51 PM
Then you'd love Magna Carta - 'Commemorating 800 Years of Democracy' :blink:

http://magnacarta800th.com/

:lol:  :cry:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 12, 2014, 01:08:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 12:25:12 PMI'm fine with either celebrating some completely cartoonish, cheery version of "ancient" history

Then you'd love Magna Carta - 'Commemorating 800 Years of Democracy' :blink:

http://magnacarta800th.com/

:yeah:

"Arguably, history's most important document"  :D

I'm not sure I understand the objections to the art installation. It does a pretty good job of conveying the scale of the loss. I tell you 800,000 soldiers died. How do you even grasp what 800,000 people really means? It's several scales of magnitude larger than the total number of people with whom you will have a meaningful interaction with in your entire life. So I would think a generation born in a time of European peace need reminding from time to time that the continent wasn't always such a boring, post-modern paradise.

As for the Remembrance Day ritual itself, it still serves a real purpose. There are a lot of dead soldiers from the twenty years of operations, drawn from across society. There are also a lot of mentally and physically injured soldiers. If you look at the servicemen and women lining up along Whitehall each Armistice Day, the remembrance is very real.

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 12, 2014, 12:49:57 PM
http://photos.al.com/alphotos/2014/11/veterans_day_parade_2014_18.html

I is interweb famous!

Well,  maybe not.

Is that you with your mouth open?  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2014, 07:31:15 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 12, 2014, 12:49:57 PM
http://photos.al.com/alphotos/2014/11/veterans_day_parade_2014_18.html

I is interweb famous!

Well,  maybe not.

Is that you with your mouth open?  :lol:

Uh, no, guess again. Cant really see much of my face. Left side of pic, mucho gold on sleeve.

Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2014, 07:17:59 PM
I'm not sure I understand the objections to the art installation.

It's Marty making a scene. That's all.

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 12, 2014, 07:43:48 PM
Uh, no, guess again. Cant really see much of my face. Left side of pic, mucho gold on sleeve.

Roger that.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fventurebeat.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F11%2Fcallofdutyadvancedwarfare.jpg%3Fw%3D780&hash=881d01e8f741dfae699b7c26439bfd7ae891adb8)

 :lol:

In Hong Kong, we have both eastern and western versions of 11 Nov.  I see a lot of westerners wearing red poppy flowers.  But 11 Nov is also the "singles" day in China, as 11 Nov is written as four single vertical strokes.  It is considered a "day of remembrance" for those who cannot find a life partner.  For some reason the day is now considered a major festival for shopping and offering retail discounts.   

Quote from: Monoriu on November 13, 2014, 01:28:41 AM
In Hong Kong, we have both eastern and western versions of 11 Nov.  I see a lot of westerners wearing red poppy flowers.  But 11 Nov is also the "singles" day in China, as 11 Nov is written as four single vertical strokes.  It is considered a "day of remembrance" for those who cannot find a life partner.  For some reason the day is now considered a major festival for shopping and offering retail discounts.

Why not combine the two?

"They died so that you could save!"

Quote from: Warspite on November 13, 2014, 02:37:15 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on November 13, 2014, 01:28:41 AM
In Hong Kong, we have both eastern and western versions of 11 Nov.  I see a lot of westerners wearing red poppy flowers.  But 11 Nov is also the "singles" day in China, as 11 Nov is written as four single vertical strokes.  It is considered a "day of remembrance" for those who cannot find a life partner.  For some reason the day is now considered a major festival for shopping and offering retail discounts.

Why not combine the two?

"They died so that you could save!"

:lol:

Joking aside, it is a very youthful and fun festival in China.  It was started by some university students as a way to self-mock, I think.  Most aren't aware of the western or historical meaning of the day. 

Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM)

Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2014, 05:51:31 AM
Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM)

Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

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

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 06:38:44 AM
Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

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

:rolleyes: The bloodiest European-centric war up to that point in history then. Are you going to comment on the advert or argue the toss? No need to answer. 

Can we ban Mart again?

Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2014, 06:48:06 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 06:38:44 AM
Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

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

:rolleyes: The bloodiest European-centric war up to that point in history then. Are you going to comment on the advert or argue the toss? No need to answer. 

Can we ban Mart again?

Why so much hostility? The advert is ok. Would be better as a comedy.

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 06:38:44 AM

Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2014, 05:51:31 AM
Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM)

Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll)

That list is very problematic.

Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2014, 06:48:06 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 06:38:44 AM
Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

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

:rolleyes: The bloodiest European-centric war up to that point in history then. Are you going to comment on the advert or argue the toss? No need to answer. 

Can we ban Mart again?

Just because Mart thinks Wikipedia is an authoritative source that can be cited in an argument is no reason to ban him.  Laugh at him, sure, but banning is going too far.  If he pays attention to how professionals, like most of the lawyers here, handle citations, he may learn something.

To take one example, the wiki list says it includes: "the wartime/war-related deaths of civilians, which are the results of war induced epidemics, diseases, famines, atrocities, genocide etc" which is both debatable and makes the measurement far more difficult and imprecise, especially for the earlier conflicts.  However, despite this policy, the WWI numbers *exclude* the related influenza deaths.  If those were added, WWI would probably rise close to #1.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
But it'd be interesting to know about how other countries are marking the centenary, especially France, Germany and Russia.

No official remembrance in Germany, especially as this isn't the centenary, but just the 96th anniversary, right? There was a bit back in August.

November 9th is a much more important date here (Proclamation of the Republic, Reichskristallnacht, Fall of the Wall).

A date for Germans to feel even more neurotic than normal.

Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2014, 10:54:15 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
But it'd be interesting to know about how other countries are marking the centenary, especially France, Germany and Russia.

No official remembrance in Germany, especially as this isn't the centenary, but just the 96th anniversary, right? There was a bit back in August.

November 9th is a much more important date here (Proclamation of the Republic, Reichskristallnacht, Fall of the Wall).

And Hitler Putsch!

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 12, 2014, 09:54:17 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2014, 06:22:56 AM

Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2014, 06:14:40 AM
But more to the point: Remembrance Day in the UK is not (solely) about remembering the end of WW1, it's about remembering the fallen British/Commonwealth soldiers of wars in general.

Then why make a memorial that commemorates specifically the number of dead in WW1?

It was made after WW1. Then after WW2 people who felt mourning was probably not appropriate on VE or VJ day also remembered their dead (and the wounded marched) on Remembrance Day.

Should each conflict have its own specific remembrance day? You'd have a rolling popularity contest of veterans as fewer people turned up for the Suez Remembrance Day than the Falklands Remembrance Day which would be something.

QuoteI don't think anyone is disputing that. But if this is the reason for remembrance, then after 100 years it is probably a time to move on. If the point instead is to honour one's veterans of all wars, then it is fine but then stop making most of it singularly about WW1.  If the point is to make a post-modern statement about pointlessness of all wars - as mongers seems to think it is - then don't do it with the prime minister and top brass of the military that even now are keeping soldiers fighting wars of dubious sense or necessity across the globe.

Can't you do all of those things simultaneously, on one day? :mellow:

Also does that 100 year expiry date go for all things? The Yanks should stop celebrating 4th of July or the French Bastille Day? I mean right now we're planning a (largely American funded) set of events for the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta :lol:

Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2014, 12:48:46 PM
Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

For the UK and Canada, WW1 looms larger in terms of sorrow as shared memory considers it a largely pointless sacrifice.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

The main difference, however, is the perception that the dead in WW1 largely died for no good reason, while the dead in WW2 died in a good cause. Also, WW1 was the first real experience Canadians had of the horrors of modern warfare - the romantic mythology of war was largely and traumatically shattered by this conflict; by WW2, few had such illusions.

Also, WW1 inspired a lot of mournful iconography and poetry, which shaped the tone of rememberance.

The endless poetry has indeed reinforced the perception of WW1 as the greatest pointless horror of human history.

Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2014, 05:05:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2014, 12:48:46 PM
Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

For the UK and Canada, WW1 looms larger in terms of sorrow as shared memory considers it a largely pointless sacrifice.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

The main difference, however, is the perception that the dead in WW1 largely died for no good reason, while the dead in WW2 died in a good cause. Also, WW1 was the first real experience Canadians had of the horrors of modern warfare - the romantic mythology of war was largely and traumatically shattered by this conflict; by WW2, few had such illusions.

Also, WW1 inspired a lot of mournful iconography and poetry, which shaped the tone of rememberance.

All that is accurate but I would also add that WWI changed everything and we remember it for that in addition to all the other reasons you listed. 

Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2014, 05:07:41 PM
The endless poetry has indeed reinforced the perception of WW1 as the greatest pointless horror of human history.

:lmfao: :lmfao:

WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

For Canada it did, at least. And Australia, and the UK.

Which are some of the primary WWI Remembrance countries.

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

It basically destroyed Western Imperialism. If not for WWI, Algeria would probably still be French.

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Yeah. It remade the world to an enormous degree (far more than WW2). The map of Europe and the Middle East change, the European system is changed forever and the way of war changes. I mean Fascism and Communism are a little exotic but they're recognisably modern in a way that the Ruritanian pre-WW1 world isn't.

In terms of the UK as well it's a huge catalyst for changes that we now can see were already underway. It marks the start of the end of the British Empire and that sort of settled late-Victorian Downton Abbey society. I think for the Commonwealth countries (certainly Australia, Canada and New Zealand - maybe South Africa too?) it seems to me it's a part of creating nations distinct from colonies. It's important in places like India too - the failure of the British to give concessions to India after so many had fought (like the failure to create 'homes fit for heroes' domestically) is an important moment in the radicalisation and growth of the independence movement, so was the abolition of the Caliphate.

Edit: Not to mention women working and the boost it gave to suffragettes in the UK and, I imagine, elsewhere.

QuoteIn numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

For the UK more Brits died in WW1 than any other war, around 2%, proportionally I think only the Civil War was worse.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2014, 10:12:15 PMI think for the Commonwealth countries (certainly Australia, Canada and New Zealand - maybe South Africa too?) it seems to me it's a part of creating nations distinct from colonies.

Yeah, Vimy Ridge is very much taught as the birth of the nation in Canada. From Veterans Affairs Canada:

Quote from: Veterans Affairs Canada website on Vimy Ridge[Vimy Ridge] also was a turning point in [Canadians'] self-image. Many Canadians had joined up to aid the mother country. But as the war went on, they became more and more conscious of being Canadian. This seemed to crystallize on Vimy Ridge. Brigadier-General Alexander Ross was a battalion commander at Vimy, and later recounted his feelings as he watched the Canadian troops advance that morning: "It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade. I thought then...that in those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation." Many others who were there would agree.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/canada/tomb-unknown-soldier/thetomb/vimyback

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2014, 11:02:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

Sort of.  We were handed the opportunity and retreated from it in a conservative 'return to normalcy'.  So it was a false start to what would become the norm during and after WWII.

Quote from: Jacob on November 15, 2014, 11:08:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2014, 11:02:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

The US was probably a top tier power before 1914, though few in Europe recognized it as such.  I'd say the US could properly be called a great power after destroying the Spanish empire.  However, like Valmy said,  the US largely retreated from the responsibility of being a great power till 1941.  Even after WWII many in the US wanted to go back to isolationism (which wasn't really isolationism it was simply ignoring Europe while ruling Latin America), but the Korean war essentially ended that.  I doubt that in the history of all the world has a country shuffled its feet so much on the way to hegemony.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2014, 12:20:57 AM
The US was probably a top tier power before 1914, though few in Europe recognized it as such.  I'd say the US could properly be called a great power after destroying the Spanish empire.  However, like Valmy said,  the US largely retreated from the responsibility of being a great power till 1941.

I disagree it retreated;  while it was tremendously interventionist up to and through WW1--particularly in former Spanish holdings and Latin America--the US, from Open Door with China to to the Washington Treaty to Good Neighbor in the early 1930s, was practicing a markedly more benevolent brand of big power across the globe.  "The responsibility of being a great power" doesn't always mean aggression.

Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2014, 05:07:41 PM
The endless poetry has indeed reinforced the perception of WW1 as the greatest pointless horror of human history.

:XD:  :lmfao:

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 06:38:44 AM

Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2014, 05:51:31 AM
Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM)

Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

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

Also, everyone killed back then would be dead now anyway. At least some of those killed in WWI might have died believing that they were dying for a greater cause. The rest of us endure each day just for the opportunity to endure the next, and will probably die of horrible diseases in the knowledge our lives amounted to nothing.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2014, 11:02:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

For Poland WWI was such an auspicious event, it is weird how it almost even did not register as a war at all in the popular consciousness despite us being essentially in the middle of it.

Obviously, the horrors of WWII eclisped it by far but even before that I think the war of 1920 was seen as more important/traumatic. It could be that the partition powers did not recruit that many soldiers here due to fears of a rebellion/mutiny. And of course, the war ended with an unlikely loss by all partition powers - despite them actually fighting each other.

Edit: actually, checking the stats, it seems half a million Poles died in armies of Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary during WWI. I don't know how this compares, percentage wise, with British losses but I suspect this is comparable. So no idea - except the euphoria of independence and then horror of WWII - why Poles barely remember WWI as a national trauma. Could be we are less histrionic than Brits. :P

Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2014, 02:07:34 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 06:38:44 AM

Quote from: Brazen on November 13, 2014, 05:51:31 AM
Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM)

Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

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

Also, everyone killed back then would be dead now anyway. At least some of those killed in WWI might have died believing that they were dying for a greater cause. The rest of us endure each day just for the opportunity to endure the next, and will probably die of horrible diseases in the knowledge our lives amounted to nothing.

Don't you mean WWII?

Quote from: Jacob on November 15, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

WW1 marked a huge change in the way government worked in the US; the consolidation of federal power in the name of waging a huge war, and the establishment of so many federal agencies to do so, created a new perception of what the federal government could and should do.  The end of the war saw the end of most of the agencies, but not the realization that so many problems could and should be solved by the federal government.  The post-WW1 government remained much larger than the pre-war government, and Roosevelt was able to do what he did because people were willing to let the government have that power again, when the problems of the Depression seemed to demand it.

WW2, and the lead-up to it, were probably more significant than WW1 in terms of the federalization of power in the US, but WW1 was very significant.

Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2014, 05:05:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2014, 12:48:46 PM
Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

For the UK and Canada, WW1 looms larger in terms of sorrow as shared memory considers it a largely pointless sacrifice.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

The main difference, however, is the perception that the dead in WW1 largely died for no good reason, while the dead in WW2 died in a good cause. Also, WW1 was the first real experience Canadians had of the horrors of modern warfare - the romantic mythology of war was largely and traumatically shattered by this conflict; by WW2, few had such illusions.

Also, WW1 inspired a lot of mournful iconography and poetry, which shaped the tone of rememberance.

There are currently a lot of people alive who remember people who fought in WWI - I remember my granddad even though I didn't find out about his role in the war until recently. Things might change in the next generation. He never talked about his experiences during his 12-year career as a soldier even to my dad.

There was a huge class aspect to both wars which might be missed by countries where class is defined by largely financial criteria. Generally upper class people ordered lower class people to their deaths. But the largest percentage loss of life was among the middle class NCOs who were required to lead their men form the front.

Quote from: Brazen on November 16, 2014, 10:00:15 AM

Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2014, 05:05:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2014, 12:48:46 PM
Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

For the UK and Canada, WW1 looms larger in terms of sorrow as shared memory considers it a largely pointless sacrifice.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

The main difference, however, is the perception that the dead in WW1 largely died for no good reason, while the dead in WW2 died in a good cause. Also, WW1 was the first real experience Canadians had of the horrors of modern warfare - the romantic mythology of war was largely and traumatically shattered by this conflict; by WW2, few had such illusions.

Also, WW1 inspired a lot of mournful iconography and poetry, which shaped the tone of rememberance.

There are currently a lot of people alive who remember people who fought in WWI - I remember my granddad even though I didn't find out about his role in the war until recently. Things might change in the next generation. He never talked about his experiences during his 12-year career as a soldier even to my dad.

There was a huge class aspect to both wars which might be missed by countries where class is defined by largely financial criteria. Generally upper class people ordered lower class people to their deaths. But the largest percentage loss of life was among the middle class NCOs who were required to lead their men form the front.

I don't think that's entirely correct. The officer class suffered disproportionately higher death rates than other ranks. Indeed officers seemed to have made up for a relative lack of tactical skill by tending to get killed in large numbers whilst leading from the front.

I don't know about NCO death rates in the WW1 British army, but many well trained or at least determined armies tend to suffer higher casualties among the NCOs, I believe US operations in Iraq is a good example of that.

Also not sure you'd find British NCOs of that period middle class.

Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2014, 06:20:05 AM

Quote from: Jacob on November 15, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

WW1 marked a huge change in the way government worked in the US; the consolidation of federal power in the name of waging a huge war, and the establishment of so many federal agencies to do so, created a new perception of what the federal government could and should do.  The end of the war saw the end of most of the agencies, but not the realization that so many problems could and should be solved by the federal government.  The post-WW1 government remained much larger than the pre-war government, and Roosevelt was able to do what he did because people were willing to let the government have that power again, when the problems of the Depression seemed to demand it.

WW2, and the lead-up to it, were probably more significant than WW1 in terms of the federalization of power in the US, but WW1 was very significant.

Interesting perspective - I really had no idea about that, but it makes sense.

Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2014, 06:42:43 PM
I just finished reading Battle Tactics of The Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack 1916-1918.

Incredibly dry, and incredibly awesome. Goes into ridiculous detail about things that I am sure the vast, vast majority of people could not care less about, yet I find sacinating and largely missing from most military history.

:yeah:

Told you you'd like it.

Quote from: Brazen on November 16, 2014, 10:00:15 AMThere was a huge class aspect to both wars which might be missed by countries where class is defined by largely financial criteria. Generally upper class people ordered lower class people to their deaths. But the largest percentage loss of life was among the middle class NCOs who were required to lead their men form the front.

Not so sure about that. Commissioned officers on the battlefield were required to lead from the front. The casualty rates for lieutenants, captains and majors are horrendous - and they were primarily from the upper and upper middle classes. The casualty rate for officers was proportionally higher than for ordinary soldiers.

The army of 1914 had an officer corps dominated by the upper classes but by 1916 the losses and the expansion of the British Army into an army of mass designed to fight a continental war meant that the social criteria had heavily loosened and the middle classes found a way in.

Quote from: Warspite on November 16, 2014, 07:18:06 PM

Quote from: Brazen on November 16, 2014, 10:00:15 AMThere was a huge class aspect to both wars which might be missed by countries where class is defined by largely financial criteria. Generally upper class people ordered lower class people to their deaths. But the largest percentage loss of life was among the middle class NCOs who were required to lead their men form the front.

Not so sure about that. Commissioned officers on the battlefield were required to lead from the front. The casualty rates for lieutenants, captains and majors are horrendous - and they were primarily from the upper and upper middle classes. The casualty rate for officers was proportionally higher than for ordinary soldiers.

The army of 1914 had an officer corps dominated by the upper classes but by 1916 the losses and the expansion of the British Army into an army of mass designed to fight a continental war meant that the social criteria had heavily loosened and the middle classes found a way in.

Yes, see my post above for less detail.  :P

I suspect the influence of Black Adder runs deeper than we think.

I wonder how widely held by the populous is the idea that British Army, far from being a machine dedicated solely for slaughter, was by 1918, along with it's Empire co-combatants, the most competent and combat ready army in Europe ? 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/11/16/wargaming-guilt/

QuoteHeavily Engaged: On Wargaming, Guilt And Remembrance

Every Sunday, we reach deep into Rock, Paper, Shotgun's 141-year history to pull out one of the best moments from the archive. This week, Tim Stone's piece on grognard guilt, originally published in 2011.

No battle reportage this week. Rather than confuse you with another tale of how Easy Company went east then north a bit then left a bit while Baker Company went west then south then right a bit, I thought I'd try to get to the bottom of a feeling that has gnawed at the edges of my wargaming pleasure for the best part of 30 years. That feeling could be described as unease, or perhaps, disquiet. At a stretch you might even call it guilt.

What on earth does a jaunty kitten-cuddling pragmatist like myself have to feel guilty about? Well, I guess you could start with:

Most of my favourite videogames simulate unspeakably ghastly events.

or

I get pleasure from re-enacting battles that were, for the vast majority of those involved, acutely miserable and disturbing affairs.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only wargamer that has ever slipped a bookmark into a moving combat memoir or watched the credits roll on a harrowing war documentary, and pondered whether an hour or two of Combat Mission or Close Combat is really an appropriate response to what they've just read or viewed.

And it's not just books and TV documentaries that can trigger uncomfortable introspection. I remember one occasion from a couple of years ago, particularly vividly. I was sitting at my PC engrossed in some WW2 diversion or another, when an unexpectedly loud and deep gun report echoed across the battlefield. It was few seconds before I realised that the sound hadn't actually emanated from my speakers. It had come from outside. Shotgun? Car crash? Terrorist bomb? My brain scurried through all the possibilities until it slammed full-tilt into the explanation. It was the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

Down at my local war memorial a cannon had been fired to mark the beginning of the Two Minute Silence. Embarrassed, I pressed pause.

If I thought there was an easy conscience-salving answer to the question: "Is it unseemly to use real suffering – real sacrifice – as the basis for breezy entertainment?" I wouldn't be writing this piece. Then again, if I felt that the genre was irredeemably sullied, I wouldn't be contemplating a contented afternoon with Combat Mission: Battle For Normandy. Like all thoughtful, practising grogs, I've mused on the question and found enough moral wriggle-room to justify continued pursuance of the pastime that I love.

If I ever found myself having to defend the morality of wargaming, I'd probably drag out the genetic argument at some point. I'd claim I was just doing what men have been doing for thousands of years: sitting in my cave/hut analysing old battles – old hunts. I'm hard-wired to wargame. Hard-wired to find tactical situations endlessly fascinating.

I'd probably also try to gloss over the wargame industry's frequent failure to acknowledge the dreadful emotional and physical consequences of war, by pointing-out that most grogs are well read, inquisitive people that gain such insights elsewhere. I'd hope my interlocutor didn't press too assiduously the point that ignoring war's least wholesome sights and sounds (while often obsessively modelling such tactical irrelevancies as flowers and birdsong) leads to representations of war that are grotesque in their lack of grotesqueness.

From Tank by Ken Tout (highly recommended)

We wargamers might be able to accept that our ludological heaven was some poor bastard's living hell, but when it comes to setting, we often draw complicated lines in the sand. For some, modern conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq are too fresh or ideologically charged. For others, WWI is too merciless, Vietnam too resonant. To claim, as I've seen done, that wargames exist in some sort of amoral bubble by dint of their tactical or strategic focus, is to ignore the evidence of myriad forum threads.

I confess my own qualms have rather selfish personal slants and rather illogical temporal ones. Knowing that my great-grandfather fell at Passchendaele means I couldn't throw myself into a wargame version of that battle with much enthusiasm. Not knowing whether my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc-grandfather fought at the Battle of Hastings means I can choreograph that scrap with a spring in my step and a song in my heart. I know others that are drawn to a particular theatre or battle precisely because a relative served there. As I said, the lines in the sand are complicated.

Will I ever play a wargame that doesn't make me feel like I'm picnicking on a war grave? I sincerely hope so, but looking around at the recent crop of groggy entertainments it's hard to imagine what that title will look like or who will fashion it. To have genuine power it would need to do a lot more than proffer the fig-leaf load screen aphorisms or cutscene Band of Brothers homages that pass for counterweights in other militarised genres. It would need to make me care more about men than materiel. Feel utterly wretched about casualties. Occasionally it would force me to put my reputation as a CO on the line and question my orders. At times it would probably need to be No Fun Whatsoever.

And there's the rub. All the Battlefronts and Matrix Games out there are trying to ensure I have a bally-good time, and I'm sitting here troubled by their success. Madness? I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear what you think.

Do you reckon the makers of wargames have any responsibility to the warriors they depict beyond ensuring uniforms, muzzle velocities and armour thicknesses are correct? Is there something morally dubious about finding relaxation and pleasure in simulations of situations in which relaxation and pleasure were impossible? Did the poor buggers whose names are engraved on our war memorials die so that we could re-enact the battles in which they perished over and over again?

Maybe I'll give it some thought as I play CM:BfN this afternoon.

Then again, maybe not.

Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2014, 03:47:11 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2014, 11:02:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
WWI changed everything? :unsure:

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

For Poland WWI was such an auspicious event, it is weird how it almost even did not register as a war at all in the popular consciousness despite us being essentially in the middle of it.

Obviously, the horrors of WWII eclisped it by far but even before that I think the war of 1920 was seen as more important/traumatic. It could be that the partition powers did not recruit that many soldiers here due to fears of a rebellion/mutiny. And of course, the war ended with an unlikely loss by all partition powers - despite them actually fighting each other.

Edit: actually, checking the stats, it seems half a million Poles died in armies of Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary during WWI. I don't know how this compares, percentage wise, with British losses but I suspect this is comparable. So no idea - except the euphoria of independence and then horror of WWII - why Poles barely remember WWI as a national trauma. Could be we are less histrionic than Brits. :P

Probably because Poland gain something very valuable from the war, self determination.  Britain gained very little of value, French gratitude and some mandates over unproductive territory filled with hostile natives.  All in all, the world wasn't any better off after the war from the British perspective.

Quote from: Syt on November 17, 2014, 02:23:49 AM
Do you reckon the makers of wargames have any responsibility to the warriors they depict beyond ensuring uniforms, muzzle velocities and armour thicknesses are correct? Is there something morally dubious about finding relaxation and pleasure in simulations of situations in which relaxation and pleasure were impossible? Did the poor buggers whose names are engraved on our war memorials die so that we could re-enact the battles in which they perished over and over again?

Every once in a while this question pops up over at BGG, and there is much moralizing and gnashing of teeth.

I remember as a little boy, I would always hide my army men and toy soldiers when my grandfather came over;  born in Germany and whose brother fought for the Wehrmacht, I sort of felt embarrassed to have German soldiers around in his presence. Once, I actually screwed up the courage to ask him about it, things about German toy soldiers, war movies and the like; he said he didn't like them either, and that's why he came to America.  Never bothered me after that.

Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2014, 06:20:05 AM

Quote from: Jacob on November 15, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

WW1 marked a huge change in the way government worked in the US; the consolidation of federal power in the name of waging a huge war, and the establishment of so many federal agencies to do so, created a new perception of what the federal government could and should do.  The end of the war saw the end of most of the agencies, but not the realization that so many problems could and should be solved by the federal government.  The post-WW1 government remained much larger than the pre-war government, and Roosevelt was able to do what he did because people were willing to let the government have that power again, when the problems of the Depression seemed to demand it.

WW2, and the lead-up to it, were probably more significant than WW1 in terms of the federalization of power in the US, but WW1 was very significant.

All true, but even before WWI, the trend was already to bolstering federal authority: the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and the Taft Budget Commission were all put in place in years just preceding the war.

Quote from: Brazen on November 16, 2014, 10:00:15 AM

There are currently a lot of people alive who remember people who fought in WWI - I remember my granddad even though I didn't find out about his role in the war until recently. Things might change in the next generation. He never talked about his experiences during his 12-year career as a soldier even to my dad.

Interesting point. My step-grandfather was in WW I. He was an Italian immigrant. I never really talked to him about it though, unfortunately, probably because I was still very young when I knew him, before he passed away. No idea on my actual grandfathers. Sadly I never knew them as they passed before I was born.

Quote from: Brazen on November 16, 2014, 10:00:15 AMThere are currently a lot of people alive who remember people who fought in WWI - I remember my granddad even though I didn't find out about his role in the war until recently. Things might change in the next generation. He never talked about his experiences during his 12-year career as a soldier even to my dad.

Yeah. I think I'm of the last generation who actually remember WW1 soldiers leading the parade. It was always very poignant seeing the numbers dwindle until it's just a couple of men in wheelchairs (but there's no way they'd miss it). There's certainly a sense of them starting to step out of memory and into history though.

It's something I've started to notice with the various WW2 associations now as well.

Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2014, 03:47:11 AM
And of course, the war ended with an unlikely loss by all partition powers - despite them actually fighting each other.

I know.  The only hope Poland had was for Russia, Germany, and Austria to all lose a war at the same time.  And amazingly it happened...or perhaps not so amazingly given the idiots running those countries at the time.

But in the event Austria basically offered Poland the same deal they gave Hungary if the Poles rose up against the Russians.  In the event the Austrians raised two divisions of Polish volunteers from the Russian sphere but I think they were more thugs, looters, and opportunists than patriots.