Lest We Forget

[Michael]

World War I officially ended on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918.

In honor of the memory of this occasion, here is Canada's most famous poem:

In Flanders Fields
by John McCrae, May 1915

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

[Michael]

And let me say that the one annual tradition on Remembrance Day that I really think we can do without is the one where some old rightwing conservative blowhard makes some speech about patriotism, nationalism and the importance of a strong military.

That is PRECISELY what caused WWI. And it is important to also remember that WW1 was the single greatest slaughter of human beings in the history of the world - for virtually no reason or purpose other than blind patriotism, nationalism and the imperialist egos of (what was thought to be) strong miliary forces.

The politicians and military leaders of every single nation western nation in July 1914 were absolutely convinced that they could beat the crap out of their opponents and be home in six months. Every single politician and military leader was quickly proven to be categorically and completely wrong - and millions upon millions of people died because of it. Just something to keep in mind on a day like today.

[Americano]

We learned our lesson didn't we? (Afghanistan war going on nine years, Iraq still in shambles)

[Donkey]

And let me say that the one annual tradition on Remembrance Day that I really think we can do without is the one where some old rightwing conservative blowhard makes some speech about patriotism, nationalism and the importance of a strong military.

That is PRECISELY what caused WWI. And it is important to also remember that WW1 was the single greatest slaughter of human beings in the history of the world - for virtually no reason or purpose other than blind patriotism, nationalism and the imperialist egos of (what was thought to be) strong miliary forces.

The politicians and military leaders of every single nation western nation in July 1914 were absolutely convinced that they could beat the crap out of their opponents and be home in six months. Every single politician and military leader was quickly proven to be categorically and completely wrong - and millions upon millions of people died because of it. Just something to keep in mind on a day like today.
Indeed. Veteran's day (which is what we call it here) should be used to soberly look at the brutality of war, and realize that we, as a people, make it possible.

Instead it is used to glorify violence.

[Michael]

Instead it is used to glorify violence.

Yes, this annoys the heck out of me. It is NEVER part of any official ceremony - it just comes from media talking heads.

And it really takes an ingnorant or sick fucker to use this day as the basis for making a pro-war speech!

When I hear such a speech, all I can think of is how many millions died in vain? If idiots are going to use this day for pro-war speeches, then all the millions that died in WW1 died for nothing.

I can't think of a greater insult to the many soldiers who died in WW1 than to use this day to praise patriotism, nationalism, sacrifice or the necessity of a strong military establishment.

[Americano]

Another forum had a thank the vets thread and I'm the only one who posted beyond the standard 'happy V-day to those who served our country'. My post was 'happy V-day to all who served after 1953'. What a horrible economic price we're paying for those who served recent past US geopolitical policy without question.

[Sucre]

We should forget, definitely.

Angela Merkel was in Paris to celebrate with the French together. Sarkozy wants the 11 November to become the Day of Reconciliation. I like the idea.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4881226,00.html

On a side note, this is possible because the last "poilu" died last year ... He was 111 years old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYOq9xmW97U

[Michael]

We should forget, definitely.
We should forget the misery, destruction and futility of war? :ummm:

I don't think so. Its bad enough the Americans use the day to celebrate militarism.

I'd like to see November 11th remembered until the end of time. There are some really, really important lessons there that are all too easy to forget.

Nothing is worse than letting those vets die in vain. We must never forget those thousands upon thousands of men who died for absolutely nothing but the vanity of their political leaders and general officers.

I will never forget.

And I will attack anyone or anything that ever tries to subvert the sacred meaning of November 11th. We must never forget.

[Sucre]

We should forget the misery, destruction and futility of war? :ummm:

I don't think so. Its bad enough the Americans use the day to celebrate militarism.

I'd like to see November 11th remembered until the end of time. There are some really, really important lessons there that are all too easy to forget.

Nothing is worse than letting those vets die in vain. We must never forget those thousands upon thousands of men who died for absolutely nothing but the vanity of their political leaders and general officers.

I will never forget.

And I will attack anyone or anything that ever tries to subvert the sacred meaning of November 11th. We must never forget.
You can "package" this in a positive way with no nationalistic touch. These days are the days of "victory", there is a very nationalistic approach to it. It is not the futile deads/ or the war/ or the absurdity of the war that are remembered but the victorious deaths and the victorious war.

This is the reason why neither the 11th of November nor the 8th of May are holidays in Germany or any of the losers of these wars.

The 8th of May has now become the "Day against all Fascisms" (since François Mitterrand) and the 11th of November should become - starting this year - the Day of the Reconciliation.

I like this approach better and the fact that the victors and the defeated stand side by side.

This is of course only possible after a few generations have gone by.

[Sucre]

And when I wrote "you", I did not mean you personally.

[Donkey]

I couldn't disagree more, Sucre. We should do our utmost to remember the brutality of war, lest we go back and repeat it.

[Michael]

I couldn't disagree more, Sucre. We should do our utmost to remember the brutality of war, lest we go back and repeat it.

Yes, this is my view as well. November 11th stands as a reminder of the brutality and insanity of war.

WW1 was fought for no good reasons. It was created by lies. And millions of human beings died because of it. And nothing was resolved. This is a terrible lesson that must NEVER BE FORGOTTEN.

The media and our nationalist governments may go out of their way to use November 11th to 'honor the memory' of those who served and try hard to keep it at that, but to the wider public, November 11th has always been about the brutality of war and that is the lesson that must never be forgotten.

It is good to remember the sacrifices of those who served, but that's not what November 11th is all about - that's what America's Veteran's Day is all about. November 11th is not about celebrating victory in war for the simple reason that there were no victors in WW1. Everybody lost.

This lesson is doubly important now that the all the vets from WW1 are pretty much gone now. Indeed, now that the vets have died off, the true meaning of November 11th is all the more important.

[Zarquon]

to the wider public, November 11th has always been about the brutality of war and that is the lesson that must never be forgotten.

not to the American one

[dilettante]

not to the American one

I agree. The American 'Veterans Day' is only tangentially connected to WWI in most people's mind. It is far less about remembering the horrors of war than it is about honoring and caring for [former] members of the military.

WWI evokes very little emotional sentiment from most Americans these days.

[Michael]

I agree. The American 'Veterans Day' is only tangentially connected to WWI in most people's mind. It is far less about remembering the horrors of war than it is about honoring and caring for [former] members of the military.

WWI evokes very little emotional sentiment from most Americans these days.
1954 was when US Armistice Day was changed to Veterans Day.

I suspect it was part and parcel of that general trend of the time when they inserted "under God" in the pledge to fight the commies and went on a binge of inserting religious symbols into state court houses and whatnot.

And I'm sure it was quite probably a conscious decision to get rid of the 'commie-peacenik-shit' associated with November 11th and turn it into a "show support for veterans" day (with a much more 'pro-war' feel about Veteran's Day than Armistice Day).

Indeed, Canada tries to play the same game - they've renamed Armistice Day as "Remembrance Day" and tried to make it just like the American "veteran's day".

It really is amazing the way our governments object to people expressing a dislike of war. :shrug:

Btw, what's the difference between Veteran's Day and Memorial Day? :ummm:

[Sucre]

The media and our nationalist governments may go out of their way to use November 11th to 'honor the memory' of those who served and try hard to keep it at that, but to the wider public, November 11th has always been about the brutality of war and that is the lesson that must never be forgotten.

It is good to remember the sacrifices of those who served, but that's not what November 11th is all about - that's what America's Veteran's Day is all about. November 11th is not about celebrating victory in war for the simple reason that there were no victors in WW1. Everybody lost.

This lesson is doubly important now that the all the vets from WW1 are pretty much gone now. Indeed, now that the vets have died off, the true meaning of November 11th is all the more important.
Hummm ...

The bold one, I will say "I am not sure ...."
In fact, I think exactly the contrary.
Or let's say : maybe in Canada (*), but certainly not in Europe.

For that matter the 11th of November is only a holiday in the countries that won the war. I think that it is a painful date for the countries that lost the war : so many deads ... and ... That hurts - There is no celebration.

As far as I am concerned, I hate the military parades of the 11th of November.

This brings me to the bold red one.
Let's put it this way : it is a very honourable but also intellectual way of seeing things. It may be possible to see things this way now, for these generations who have not experienced WWI, but certainly not just after the war. Not to say that this view did not exist in the 1920s, of course it did but only amongst intellectuals, poets, writers, a few politicians. Most people are not able to intellectualy overcome their suffering - there is a too much "Affect" - including Hate left.

That brings me to (*) - The war took place on European soils. It is probably easier to see things in an intellectual way when you are far from the events.

[Sucre]

I couldn't disagree more, Sucre. We should do our utmost to remember the brutality of war, lest we go back and repeat it.
I couldn't agree more. But I don't think that to honour the last day of a war, a day of victory for some but of defeat and humiliation for others, is the best way to remember the brutality of the war.

[Michael]

I couldn't agree more. But I don't think that to honour the last day of a war, a day of victory for some but of defeat and humiliation for others, is the best way to remember the brutality of the war.

WW1 was originally called "The Great War" or the "War to end all wars".

Ending that nightmare is a damn good thing to remember.

And as I noted before, there were no victors in WW1. Everyone lost. That's why that war is so important to remember. Massive amounts of brutal slaughter for no good reason or purpose other than the ego of politicians and patriotic nationalism.

I think Germany (now) could easily go along with November 11th as a memorial to the senseless brutal slaughter of war.

As a matter of fact, I believe ex-German servicement are always present at Canadian memorial services on November 11th. They often ceremoniously lay down a wreath in tandem with some Canadian vet. Canada has LOTS of former German WW2 servicemen who are now Canadian citizens. They all seem to take part in the ceremonies. :shrug:

[Americano]

I agree. The American 'Veterans Day' is only tangentially connected to WWI in most people's mind. It is far less about remembering the horrors of war than it is about honoring and caring for [former] members of the military.

WWI evokes very little emotional sentiment from most Americans these days.

Not much in the way of military actions that happened since ww2 evokes American sentiment. They've all been US disasters.

[dilettante]

Not much in the way of military actions that happened since ww2 evokes American sentiment. They've all been US disasters.

The First Gulf War generated a good bit of energy and a boost in respect for the military, at least in my circles. The only really unhappy people were those who though the US didn't "finish the job" and take out Hussein then.

Anyway, I think Americans remember both the Civil War and WWII with far more emotive force than they have for WWI. Heck, I'd hazard that those Americans who know much about it feel more emotion (e.g. disgust) over the Spanish-American War than they do wrt WWI. The First World War just feels very far away, very alien, very 'European', from an American perspective. Or, at least, from my perspective.

[Americano]

The First Gulf War generated a good bit of energy and a boost in respect for the military, at least in my circles. The only really unhappy people were those who though the US didn't "finish the job" and take out Hussein then.

That one didn't cost the US but $6B. Japan, Kuwait, the Sauds and others picked up the tab.

I was amused by those unhappy about the US not finishing the job. In his book Bush senior described what would of happened had the US occupied Iraq and lo and behold his son went for the disaster.

[Michael]

That one didn't cost the US but $6B. Japan, Kuwait, the Sauds and others picked up the tab.

I was amused by those unhappy about the US not finishing the job. In his book Bush senior described what would of happened had the US occupied Iraq and lo and behold his son went for the disaster.
Agreed. I'm no fan of GH Bush, but I wouldn't hold this one up as a error on his part.

Fact of the matter was that the US had no legal mandate (from either UN or Congress) to invade Iraq in 1993 even if GH Bush wanted to. That kind of fact carries a lot of weight with me.

[Americano]

Agreed. I'm no fan of GH Bush, but I wouldn't hold this one up as a error on his part.

Fact of the matter was that the US had no legal mandate (from either UN or Congress) to invade Iraq in 1993 even if GH Bush wanted to. That kind of fact carries a lot of weight with me.

It didn't bother junior or congress. You're not a fan of the 'coalition of the willing'?

[dilettante]

Agreed. I'm no fan of GH Bush, but I wouldn't hold this one up as a error on his part.

Fact of the matter was that the US had no legal mandate (from either UN or Congress) to invade Iraq in 1993 even if GH Bush wanted to. That kind of fact carries a lot of weight with me.

Wait, what? 1993?
Do you mean GH Bush in 1990 or G.W.Bush in 2003?

[Michael]

Wait, what? 1993?
Do you mean GH Bush in 1990 or G.W.Bush in 2003?
Sorry, GH Bush didn't have any Congressional or UN approval for an invasion of Iraq in 1991 (Gulf War).

GW Bush certainly had Congressional approval to invade Iraq in 2003.

[The Drunk Guy]

Sorry, GH Bush didn't have any Congressional or UN approval for an invasion of Iraq in 1991 (Gulf War).

GW Bush certainly had Congressional approval to invade Iraq in 2003.
We didn't invade Iraq. We liberated Kuwait and assaulted the Iraqi border to create a buffer zone between the two nations.

I'm not trying to nitpick...just pointing out that there is a difference between the two situations. Liberating an ally from an aggressor (and knowing when to not overthrow the aggressor) doesn't require international support. Invading a nation to establish a new government is serious meddling that would really stir some feathers. Totally different actions.

[The Drunk Guy]

It didn't bother junior or congress. You're not a fan of the 'coalition of the willing'?
Not Coalition of the Able. :lol:

[Sucre]

WW1 was originally called "The Great War" or the "War to end all wars".

Ending that nightmare is a damn good thing to remember.
No debate here.

What I am questionning is whether the 11th of November is about remembering the "nightmare" of the War in general or about military Victory.

- If it is about the horrors of the war, why are celebrations only taking place in those States which were on the victors side ?

And as I noted before, there were no victors in WW1. Everyone lost. That's why that war is so important to remember. Massive amounts of brutal slaughter for no good reason or purpose other than the ego of politicians and patriotic nationalism.
Debate here.

Politically speaking, the assertion that there were no victors in WW1 is clearly wrong. And to be on the victor or loser side had important concrete consequences, both for the States and for the people living in these States.

France regained some lost territories and got awarded large damages.

While loser Germany lost vital territories to France, but also Belgium, Denmark and Poland, Russia, and its oversease colonies on top ... It had to pay reparations to France and Belgium for the damage done to the infrastructure of both countries by the war, putting

Another big loser of WWI was Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary which an important European power before WWI totally disapeared after that date. Vienna has become the over-sized capital of a provincial State, Hungary lost lands and its soul to the neighbouring States.

Today in 2009, there is still a powerful pan-Hungarian movement mourning the nationalities lost to Austria, "Czechland", Transylvania in Romania.

As for the people, it did make a difference whether they lived in a victorious State or in a loser State ... There are numerous memoirs of the time, but my personal recommendations go to
Sebastian Haffner, Defying Hitler, http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/03/haffner/index.html
(The first part of the book describes his childhood in 1923 Germany, the memoirs are not just about the rise f Hitler)
and Hungarian author, Sandor Marai, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1ndor_M%C3%A1rai, some of his books - dispalying a certain nostalgia of Austria-Hungary - are avaiable in English.

As a matter of fact, I believe ex-German servicement are always present at Canadian memorial services on November 11th. They often ceremoniously lay down a wreath in tandem with some Canadian vet. Canada has LOTS of former German WW2 servicemen who are now Canadian citizens. They all seem to take part in the ceremonies. :shrug:
Interresting. But since when ? It takes approx. 40 years and two generations to heal the moral wounds of a war.

Certainly the wounds left in the USA or Canada were not the same as in Europe, so maybe 20 years were enough.

In France, it took until the death of the last soldier of WWI to make it a common remembrance day between France and Germany.

[Michael]

No debate here.

What I am questionning is whether the 11th of November is about remembering the "nightmare" of the War in general or about military Victory.

- If it is about the horrors of the war, why are celebrations only taking place in those States which were on the victors side ?
Armistice Day originates with Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and the advent of the League of Nations. It began as a real 'peacenik' thing. It was all about remembering the sacrifice of human beings and the futility of war.

I believe it was originally present in Germany and disappeared with the rise of Hitler/Nazis.

So I don't think it is fair to accuse the event of being a celebration of victory in war. November 11th has NEVER been that anywhere that I'm aware of. Certainly not in Britain or Canada. Canada is covered with WW1 memorials - none of which ever mention any victory at all. Canada paid a very steep price for WW1 (in per capita terms).

Indeed, the very 'peacenik' politics of November 11th is almost certainly the reason the US dropped it in 1954 and replaced with a general celebration of the service of all American veterans (much more 'pro-military' position that is).

So all these issues point to the fact that November 11th is all about remembering the horror and sacrifice of humanity and the brutality of war that must be avoided.

If anything, the living vets of WW1 were in many ways a barrier to treating November 11th for exactly the reason that it is meant for. They demanded that the day be dedicated to themselves. That's understandable, but not entirely appropriate. Now that they are all (mostly) died off, I think November 11th is quite likely to return to the original meaning as a symbol of the brutality and destruction of war as something that needs to be avoided.

Debate here.

Politically speaking, the assertion that there were no victors in WW1 is clearly wrong. And to be on the victor or loser side had important concrete consequences, both for the States and for the people living in these States.

France regained some lost territories and got awarded large damages.

While loser Germany lost vital territories to France, but also Belgium, Denmark and Poland, Russia, and its oversease colonies on top ... It had to pay reparations to France and Belgium for the damage done to the infrastructure of both countries by the war, putting

Another big loser of WWI was Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary which an important European power before WWI totally disapeared after that date. Vienna has become the over-sized capital of a provincial State, Hungary lost lands and its soul to the neighbouring States.

Today in 2009, there is still a powerful pan-Hungarian movement mourning the nationalities lost to Austria, "Czechland", Transylvania in Romania.

As for the people, it did make a difference whether they lived in a victorious State or in a loser State ... There are numerous memoirs of the time, but my personal recommendations go to
Sebastian Haffner, Defying Hitler, http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/03/haffner/index.html
(The first part of the book describes his childhood in 1923 Germany, the memoirs are not just about the rise f Hitler)
and Hungarian author, Sandor Marai, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1ndor_M%C3%A1rai, some of his books - dispalying a certain nostalgia of Austria-Hungary - are avaiable in English.

I don't see much to debate here. The 'victory' if you could call it that wasn't much of a victory - I'd call it a 'pyrrhic victory' (meaning the cost of fighting far exceeded the value of the victory).

As I've often argued, WW1 was not decisive. There wasn't any actual or real victory. Germany got defeated on the battlefield only because she made a huge strategic mistake in the 1918 breakout. In reality, Germany proved that she was militarily superior. That is the basis of the Germans believing that they were 'sold out' in 1918 and that they were going to win the next round. Hitler didn't invent that idea, he just used it.

WW1 resolved nothing. It showed only that the political systems in most nations were toast. The period from 1919 to 1939 is merely the period between two parts of the same war. 1918 didn't bring peace or resolve anything at all. A few corrupt and disfunctional states were gotten rid of (Ottoman Empire, Czarist Russia and the old Double Crown of Austro-Hungary), but the key ideas in play were never resolved. The reason Germany and France fought was still just as relevant after the war as before it. It took WW2 to settle that business.

That is to say, both France and Germany (and Britain and USA) believed in 1914 and still in 1939 that military conquest was a justifiable and noble enterprise in establishing national borders. By 1945, France and Germany (and Britain) have all finally accepted (after several centuries of trying) that one can't use military force to change their national borders.

That's why I say that 1918 didn't change nothing. The same mentality that was present in 1914 was still present in the late 1930's. It was mostly gone in 1946 (except in the USA where it still lives on).

Interresting. But since when ? It takes approx. 40 years and two generations to heal the moral wounds of a war.

Certainly the wounds left in the USA or Canada were not the same as in Europe, so maybe 20 years were enough.

In France, it took until the death of the last soldier of WWI to make it a common remembrance day between France and Germany.
Armistice Day or Remembrance Day on November 11th has always been about remembering those who died in WW1. That's it, that's all. Remembering the horror of it all. Ex-German soldiers are just as much a part of that as ex-Canadian soldiers.

Indeed, it is beginning to look like it is France that has been the one that has been using November 11th to celebrate victory in WW1 and that is why it looks that way to you. That's just ugly nationalism in my book - the same kind of ugly nationalism that caused WW1 in the first place.

November 11th is a very special day. I think the dying off the actual generation of veterans who fought it will now allow the date to resume its original meaning of horror at the brutality, death and uselessness of war.

As for the Turks, Russians and Austro-Hungarians who ended up with new governments in the process, well, that was long time coming to all three, regardless of WW1. Indeed, these old empires are good symbols of how and why WW1 came to be in the first place.

[Sucre]

I believe it was originally present in Germany and disappeared with the rise of Hitler/Nazis..
Source please.

[Sucre]

So I don't think it is fair to accuse the event of being a celebration of victory in war. November 11th has NEVER been that anywhere that I'm aware of. Certainly not in Britain or Canada. Canada is covered with WW1 memorials - none of which ever mention any victory at all.
Except that the 11th of November it is only celebrated in countries which won the war...

I will follow your argument when you will find me a plausible explanation of this simple fact.:)

EDIT : To avoid misunderstandings, I agree that our generations see 11 November as a "symbol" for the horrors of all the wars. What I am questionning is that the generations who experienced the war were that ... open-minded... and that ... generous at heart ...


As I've often argued, WW1 was not decisive. There wasn't any actual or real victory. .
Sure.

But again - and that is where we are not speaking the same language - this is an intellectual way of seeing things. The people who experienced the war first hand and went through its ordeal did make the difference between winning and losing. Besides the fact that it affected their daily life directly long after the war was over !

It is so obvious a fact that I don't understand that you don't get it.

I have no stake in the argument except that I find irritating that you can not see beyond the Canadian borders. So please : read the memoirs of the time. They are overwhelming. First hand. Of French people, German people, Hungarian people who were living there - 4 years - directly, at their own door, with aftermath years after that Canadian experience will never match.

[dilettante]

I think it's probably safe to say that November 11, like all commemorative days, means different things to different people and probably always has. I'm sure if any one meaning can be more 'real' or 'true' than another.

[Michael]

I have no stake in the argument except that I find irritating that you can not see beyond the Canadian borders.
I've been trying to think of a way to interpret this as anything but an insult and/or ad hominen attack.

I can't think of any. On that basis, I'm quite unlikely to bother to reply. Once the ad hominens start flying around, all meaningful discussion is long dead.

[Sucre]

I think it's probably safe to say that November 11, like all commemorative days, means different things to different people and probably always has. I'm sure if any one meaning can be more 'real' or 'true' than another.
Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to say but you use the right words.

[Sucre]

I've been trying to think of a way to interpret this as anything but an insult and/or ad hominen attack.

I can't think of any. On that basis, I'm quite unlikely to bother to reply. Once the ad hominens start flying around, all meaningful discussion is long dead.
Neither nor. I think : a fact.

You seem incapable of accepting that there are other ways of seeing things. Than you own. Other viewpoints. Which are just that : view-points. And maybe viewpoints change with time, you know. Maybe they change with the language, with culture, with age, with education... Since viewpoints are subjective, they are not debatable. They may be part of a debate though and when you let them sink in, they enrich your vison of the world.

The 11th of November has been a perfect illustration of this mindset. It seems quite obvious that this date was experienced very differently from very different people. I repeat : you have a very Canadian (or North American if this sounds more noble to you) way of seeing things - which does not match the experience of millions of people in Europe - Where the war took place. How you chose to discard the experience of these people, widely documented and reported, and only accept the way you see fit, I cannot understand.

You take my comment as you wish.