38 replies · 992 views
Didn't wish to ruin your thread, Edelbrock, but really....
The day of remembrance for war dead is Memorial Day, not Veteran's Day. The purpose of Veteran's Day is to honor those who have served.
Second, your assertion that the war dead have died to "give us our freedoms" is a patent bit of propagandistic nonsense. One can honor the memories of the war dead *without* buying into that propaganda, you know.
FrogChorus wrote: Yup, the 11th day of the 11th month when the First World War ended is commemorated by all those involved in the Great War and subsequent wars after that
OK, partially my error-- What we call Veterans' Day falls on the same day as Armistice Day, which was established to honor the veterans and war dead in the "War to End All Wars."
What we call "Memorial Day" was established to honor the war dead in the American Civil War, and was expanded after "the War to End All Wars" to honor the fallen in all wars.
In the U.S., Veteran's Day honors veterans, and Memorial Day honors our war dead.
I'm fully aware of this, Comrade. I see no need for people to celebrate or remember that I served, but I believe it is far more important to remember those that died for a cause for the good of humanity. The gave up so much, so that we could take for granted all that we have.
But by the tone of your post, it sounds like neither makes that much of a difference to you anyways.
EdelBrock wrote: I'm fully aware of this, Comrade. I see no need for people to celebrate or remember that I served, but I believe it is far more important to remember those that died for a cause for the good of humanity. The gave up so much, so that we could take for granted all that we have.
But by the tone of your post, it sounds like neither makes that much of a difference to you anyways.
Edelbrock, As I understood it, Veteran's day is a day for remembering veterans, not a day for remembering our war dead. That understanding is somewhat mistaken, given that what we call Veteran's day in the U.S. is Armistice day in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, in the U.S., your request to remember the war dead is being made on the wrong day.
As for that "cause for the good of humanity," it's propagandistic nonsense, and I don't have to buy into it to honor the war dead, and my failure to buy into it doesn't mean that their deaths mean nothing to me.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
As for that "cause for the good of humanity," it's propagandistic nonsense, and I don't have to buy into it to honor the war dead, and my failure to buy into it doesn't mean that their deaths mean nothing to me.
i fully agree with you here. how the deaths in vietnam were 'for the good of humanity' is beyond me. they were a waste of young lives, on both sides, mind you.
I'll agree that lives are lost needlessly in every conflict, lives that are not really used to gain freedom for all humanity etc
Gallipolli and Vietnam being examples.
However, there are many people who did, and will continue to die in wars for (what they percieve is) the good of humanity, and they believed it was worth dying in.
Well, I think it would be kind of hard to get people to give up their lives at such a young age for something so mundane as making rich men richer, so of course the young soldiers believe they are dieing for a noble cause.
That mistaken belief doesn't make it a noble cause.
The U.S. has been involved in perhaps 100 wars since it was founded; you could count on one hand those wars that could be said to be for a noble cause, and you'd still have some fingers left over.
The 7th Cavalry under Custer's command was wiped out to within a man on June 25, 1876; the "noble cause" these soldiers died for-- the "freedoms" we take for granted-- was to steal the Black Hills from the Lakota after we had signed a treaty that guaranteed the Black Hills as part of their Great Sioux Reservation. That, and George Armstrong Custer wanted to use the campaign as a springboard into the White House.
The Mexican-American War? The "noble cause"-- the freedoms" we take for granted-- was the theft of half of Mexico.
The Spanish-American War? The "noble cause"-- the "freedoms" we take for granted-- was the theft of the remaining Spanish Empire for ourselves.
And so on. Young soldiers died needlessly, and the justification for those deaths isn't base greed, it's a "noble cause." One can regret the needless loss of life at Gallipoli, in Vietnam, and the Little Big Horn without buying into the propaganda that says they died to give us freedom.
except that in wwi it probably was true, which is why we commemorate this date.
frankly i find it in bad taste that you could not leave this date alone and had to push your political barrow, even if i agree with your sentiments.
I made a separate thread precisely so I wouldn't disrespect the original thread. I don't think it's appropriate, however, to acquiesce to propaganda out of fear of offending the propagandists.
And I really don't understand what noble cause, what freedoms, the young soldiers of WWI died for.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I made a separate thread precisely so I wouldn't disrespect the original thread. I don't think it's appropriate, however, to acquiesce to propaganda out of fear of offending the propagandists.
And I really don't understand what noble cause, what freedoms, the young soldiers of WWI died for.
German domination of europe. Let's face it imperial germany wasn't exactly a free and democratic country.
In response to Ron's thread: Plus, our involvement was a response to the sinking of the USS Lusitania.
Funny, back in my public school days there was a Veterans' Day holiday. In college, 11/11 is like any other day... I think that's a shame. Even though I do not agree with all of the wars that the US military got involved with, we need to give them a hand.
NOOLigan wrote: German domination of europe. Let's face it imperial germany wasn't exactly a free and democratic country.
... and then this one, indeed Ronald.
This also leaded the Austro-Hungrian empire to an end and gave freedom to all the people who wanted to emancipate themselves in 1848 but did not succeed. The 1919 map of Europe saw the rebirth of Poland, the independance of Estonia, Litvia and Lithuania, Finland, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbia-Croatia and Slovenia, a larger Rumania and a tiny German Austria and a two third cut Hungary.
Od God, the causes for the Great War are many and probably aren't going to account to a reason for why all those people died:
General international causes of the war:
The Alliance System Militarism and the Arms race Navalism and Naval Rivalry Economic Imperialism and Colonial Rivalry Ethnic Rivalries and political frontiers The south Slav question Of course, the assasination of Franz Ferdinand
History Lesson over
edit: i guess non of the above do give reason for all the deaths. But many of the soldiers believed they were going on a 'Great Adventure' and were fighting for their country etc, when in reality they were not really doing anything of the sort - and they soon realised this.
[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Even though I do not agree with all of the wars that the US military got involved with, we need to give them a hand.
Agreed - that goes for all our boys
NOOLigan wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I made a separate thread precisely so I wouldn't disrespect the original thread. I don't think it's appropriate, however, to acquiesce to propaganda out of fear of offending the propagandists.
And I really don't understand what noble cause, what freedoms, the young soldiers of WWI died for.
German domination of europe. Let's face it imperial germany wasn't exactly a free and democratic country.
That opposition to German domination of Europe was the response of British Empire, in alliance with one or two other empires, to rising German imperialism; it definitely wasn't democracy facing down tyranny. The nations of the world were dragged into war through treaty obligations, and after the war, they sowed the seeds for the rise of nazism. And irony of ironies, Germany (in partnership with France) is the dominant force in Europe these days.
A generation of youth fell before the machines of war, and all for what? Democracy? The betterment of humanity?
Jiphy wrote:
NOOLigan wrote: German domination of europe. Let's face it imperial germany wasn't exactly a free and democratic country.
... and then this one, indeed Ronald.
This also leaded the Austro-Hungrian empire to an end and gave freedom to all the people who wanted to emancipate themselves in 1848 but did not succeed. The 1919 map of Europe saw the rebirth of Poland, the independance of Estonia, Litvia and Lithuania, Finland, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbia-Croatia and Slovenia, a larger Rumania and a tiny German Austria and a two third cut Hungary.
hear hear.
Not sure where cozzie's reference came in, cos US casualties were not too high in WW1, and by the time the US had got involved many millions had already died, particularly from Russia, Germany, France and GB.
By the way... November 11th is a bank holiday in France. Is it the same in your countries ?
Shedmonite already answered for the USA, but what about the other countries ?
Jiphy made a good point that the end of the war did bring about the rebirth of Poland and other countries freed from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Although these countries were soon swallowed up by Nazis then Soviets... 
11/11 not a bank holiday here (UK)
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I made a separate thread precisely so I wouldn't disrespect the original thread. I don't think it's appropriate, however, to acquiesce to propaganda out of fear of offending the propagandists.
And I really don't understand what noble cause, what freedoms, the young soldiers of WWI died for.
German domination of europe. Let's face it imperial germany wasn't exactly a free and democratic country.
That opposition to German domination of Europe was the response of British Empire, in alliance with one or two other empires, to rising German imperialism; it definitely wasn't democracy facing down tyranny. The nations of the world were dragged into war through treaty obligations, and after the war, they sowed the seeds for the rise of nazism. And irony of ironies, Germany (in partnership with France) is the dominant force in Europe these days.
A generation of youth fell before the machines of war, and all for what? Democracy? The betterment of humanity?
You have some good points. WW1 was definitely far less 'necessary' than WWII. The way it evolved was almost accidental, and quotes at the time said it would all be over 'by Xmas' etc. I do think sometimes that it almost took place because it had been quiet in terms of war, after a war-filled previous century.
True, the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire did lead to some degree, ultimately, of self-determination for these nations. So maybe there was some benefit derived from the war, but was that result the cause young men died for?
What amazes the most in this war is that (except my country which was already a Democracy by the time), Kaisers, Tsars, Kings and all these kind of people were more or less blood related...
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: True, the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire did lead to some degree, ultimately, of self-determination for these nations. So maybe there was some benefit derived from the war, but was that result the cause young men died for?
I think the cause was just in a way. But no-one knew the price in 1914. If they had had a time machine, I'm sure some sort of diplomacy would have taken place on all sides.
Burt Reynolds wrote: You have some good points. WW1 was definitely far less 'necessary' than WWII. The way it evolved was almost accidental, and quotes at the time said it would all be over 'by Xmas' etc. I do think sometimes that it almost took place because it had been quiet in terms of war, after a war-filled previous century.
Another valid good point Burt.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I made a separate thread precisely so I wouldn't disrespect the original thread. I don't think it's appropriate, however, to acquiesce to propaganda out of fear of offending the propagandists.
And I really don't understand what noble cause, what freedoms, the young soldiers of WWI died for.
German domination of europe. Let's face it imperial germany wasn't exactly a free and democratic country.
That opposition to German domination of Europe was the response of British Empire, in alliance with one or two other empires, to rising German imperialism; it definitely wasn't democracy facing down tyranny. The nations of the world were dragged into war through treaty obligations, and after the war, they sowed the seeds for the rise of nazism. And irony of ironies, Germany (in partnership with France) is the dominant force in Europe these days.
A generation of youth fell before the machines of war, and all for what? Democracy? The betterment of humanity?
yeh right. the british empire had existed long before the birth of the modern german state and it's imperialist policies.
the brits weren't exactly threatening their neighbours either.
If Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is deemed as the liberal interpretation of US History, then what is its conservative equivalent? Any suggestions? I would like to compare both versions to think for myself. I'm a mod(erate).
Jiphy wrote: What amazes the most in this war is that (except my country which was already a Democracy by the time), Kaisers, Tsars, Kings and all these kind of people were more or less blood related...
Yeah all kids of Queen Victoria or cousins - something like that, all very strange.
When it boils down to it, when you weigh up what was accomplished and achieved by the war to the amount of death the war caused - the loss of life wasn't worth it, millions and millions of deaths
NOOLigan wrote: yeh right. the british empire had existed long before the birth of the modern german state and it's imperialist policies.
the brits weren't exactly threatening their neighbours either.
another weird fact about this war is the forewar "entente cordiale".
A friend from Cameroon (ex German African colony) once said to me : France and England are ennemy brothers. They could not stand the rise of the German Empire...
FrogChorus wrote: Yeah all kids of Queen Victoria or cousins - something like that, all very strange.
When it boils down to it, when you weigh up what was accomplished and achieved by the war to the amount of death the war caused - the loss of life wasn't worth it, millions and millions of deaths
When you take this in account, you can understand the Bolchevik revolution... and then the rivality between socialism and nationalism which were to be the two main alternatives in the thirties...
Jiphy wrote:
NOOLigan wrote: yeh right. the british empire had existed long before the birth of the modern german state and it's imperialist policies.
the brits weren't exactly threatening their neighbours either.
another weird fact about this war is the forewar "entente cordiale".
A friend from Cameroon (ex German African colony) once said to me : France and England are ennemy brothers. They could not stand the rise of the German Empire...
The thing about us and the French is odd. We traditionally despise them and waged constant war against them for a thousand years, but we fiercely fight for them when they are subject to aggression from continental Europe. It's as if we need a buffer zone of the 'old enemy' between us and the rest, and will lose millions to keep it there.
Russia, at the other end of Europe, has behaved in a similar way (in terms of continental Europe), too.
