They died for our Freedom

[CT-Guards]

Me, too.

Exactly my point about the politics of remembrance

Thank you John,

My view is, is that those who wish to pay respect in whichever way they choose - let them do so without being snipped at by other certain forum members. That is as disrespectful as it gets.

At 40 years old (nearly) I have personally fought for my country and if me or others wish to pay respects to friends or family on this forum by way of a thread, post or signature then good for them - No politics involved for me it's black or white on this matter.

Those who don't like the 'Remembering Today' - don't read it and refrain from commenting.

Kindest regards .

[John_Hartley]

That is as disrespectful as it gets.

Nah. "Disrespectful as it gets" is wanting to stifle discussion on a discussion board about a relevent subject.

And you may wish to re-read the post for which you thank me. It was not agreeing with your views.

John

[NeilEvans]

I chose not to post individual topics for the Shropshire men, on average there would be 19 daily. I will however leave posts for my relatives. That's my choice, however i could see one day the forum being inudated with such posts.

neil

[dycer]

Sorry - What leaders are these who were killed?

Are you making the assumption that those killed would have ended up leading the nation or that leaders were killed.

Steve,

I'm suggesting that potential good post-War leaders were killed in the War.I'm thinking here of the Public School Boys who were educated to run an Empire but lost their lives before achieving their full potential.Please do think I am supporting the Class difference and Imperialistic ways but am suggesting that the 1930's Politicians were weak willed,certainly in European affairs,and possibly the young blood,who lost their life in WW1,may have been stronger.

George

[dycer]

I am not suggesting that the Remembered Today Feature be scrapped.

Many of these Names have the indignity of being without a known resting place and,as such,because their Names, are recorded daily, are not forgotten.

My point being,if a Forum Member posts a Name there follows a flurry of,to my mind,non factual spurious messages,but the Names that appear daily appear to be largely ignored,unless a serious Forum Researcher recognises the Name and posts informative information about the Man.

Why should a Name,supplied by a Forum Colleague be responded to and the majority of the Names that appear daily ignored?

George

[aliecoco]

But then, Alie, my attitude is different to yours. My outlook is different. My interest is different. I, like Tom, am probably more interested in the military/political aspect of the war than in the little people (and that is not meant perjoratively).

That doesn't make me better or worse than you. Just different.

Hi Steven,

Fair point, absolutely and I do 'hear' you, though I think this thread has rumbled on since both of our posts! I certainly didn't mean to imply that my particular 'take' on the Great War made me any better or worse than you, (that is not in my character to be so), but as you say "just different".

But for me the human side is the absolute relevance here, I have been moved so many times at the NA, as a particular soldiers story comes together whilst researching them, so much so that I want to remember and not ever forget. I certainly don't claim to 'know them', but that soliders story is part of WW1 and for me we have to try and understand the whole social aspect, in Britain and Europe to perhaps even understand why this war took place, and why it went on for so long, and why it ended. A wide understanding of the total subject is the key I think, and I am probably very guilty of trying to get my pea sized brain around various weapons, and militaria in general! So for that reason, I always say that I don't really know that much about WW1, because I should be exploring different aspects myself!

This thread also seems to be 'bashing' anyone that would like to remember. I have never had the need to have a 'signature' to list my family or perhaps men that I have researched, I don't feel the need to reply to every 'Remembering post' or even starting one. But I would never think 'ill' of anybody that did. That is why, I just couldn't believe that this thread was even started.

Alie.

[stevem49]

I'm suggesting that potential good post-War leaders were killed in the War.I'm thinking here of the Public School Boys who were educated to run an Empire but lost their lives before achieving their full potential.Please do think I am supporting the Class difference and Imperialistic ways but am suggesting that the 1930's Politicians were weak willed,certainly in European affairs,and possibly the young blood,who lost their life in WW1,may have been stronger.

George

George

There is an assumption that we lost our best 'possible' future leaders in WW1. Somewhat like the one that said a generation died on the Battlefield. Neither has been proved. That has nothing to do with Class or Politics but with the facts concerning the number of men killed from the UK.

If WW1 had not happened then we may still have had weak willed politicians. Then again if WW1 had not happened, WW2 would not happened.

As I see it, 750,000 odd men lost the chance to fulfill their full potential.

steve

[dycer]

George

There is an assumption that we lost our best 'possible' future leaders in WW1. Somewhat like the one that said a generation died on the Battlefield. Neither has been proved. That has nothing to do with Class or Politics but with the facts concerning the number of men killed from the UK.

If WW1 had not happened then we may still have had weak willed politicians. Then again if WW1 had not happened, WW2 would not happened.

As I see it, 750,000 odd men lost the chance to fulfill their full potential.

steve,

I fully accept all of the above.

Purely for comparison purposes,and it is a rhetorical question,although I am sure someone will try and answer it.

Both UK,France and Germany lost vast amounts of men in WW1.Why was it that the 1930's Political Leadership in Germany was formed from men who had warped views, but had fought in WW1 yet the Political Leadership in UK and France was formed from,in the main men who were too old to fight in WW1?.The main voice of opposition to the appeasement policies,in UK,coming from a man,who had spent some time, at the Front,but who the Establishment,tried to sideline.

George

[truthergw]

As you foretold, George, I will have a stab at that one.

I think that the parties in power in mid thirties, to some extent reflected the popular views of the electorate. Here in Britain there was a great war weariness. There was no great pressure to fight another war. That was allowed to go too far so that we were not prepared to defend ourselves from any country who was intent on waging war against us. That takes me to Germany where although there was a war weariness there was also, from the very end of the war and particularly after The Treaty of Versailles, a great feeling that they had been badly treated by the victors. This feeling was encouraged and also distorted by the myth of the undefeated army, stabbed in the back by Jews, communists, international conspiracy etc. There was a feeling that another war would need to be fought to right the wrongs. The Nazis were a new party, founded by young men. The politicians of Britain were successful politicians and so inclined to be older. I am not at all convinced that most had not fought in the War but I can conceive that they would average out as older than the Nazis. I think we were seeing democracy at work. The successful parties articulated the popular views.

[stevem49]

The Weimar Republic was brought down more by the international financial disasters of the day (Bit like today really only in UK )

It can be strongly argued that far right and left parties in Germany would have never had a chance if financial stability had continued. Without financial instability worldwide men such as Adolf could not have used the myths of an undefeated German and Versailles to get voters on-side.

steve