Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
I grew up in the 2nd world war.
Quite frankly l can not remember a period since when there has not been a battle raging somewhere.
I witnessed how my own family suffered and the fall out that carries on down the generations
So why do we never learn if nothing is to be gained from it, except more warfare, more deaths and more bitterness confirming that another war will be along soon. Can there ever be justification?Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 2
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
why do we never learnÌý
As we celebrate Pete Seeger's birthday, I'll rephrase that for you: "When will they ever learn?"
I too was born during WW2 and lost my father in it when I was 106 weeks old. So I know what you mean!
The question you pose is one which is difficult to answer except by reference to man's greed and his need to exert power over his neighbours. That and the need to gain and maintain access to resources in a world where those resources are diminishing as the population rises inexoriably.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 3
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Unfortunately it is life. There will always be needless fighting and bickering. It is part of what makes us human.
Plus not all war is uncalled for and not needed. I have to believe that WW2 was for a greater good. Eventually there was wrong on both sides but the world must be a better place for it.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 4
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
I have to believe that WW2 was for a greater good.Ìý
I choose to believe rather that it was fought - successfully - to prevent a greater bad.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 5
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
As we celebrate Pete Seeger's birthday, I'll rephrase that for you: "When will they ever learn?"Ìý
Plotinlaois
Doesn't attributing war to 'them' negate the responsibilty to 'us'
This may be very unpopular but l shrink everytime l hear the sentiment 'we're proud he/she died for his country'
So the present day do not learn either?
Young men join up to see the world, or to have paid employment, to have brotherhood with their fellow troops, but to die willingly for their country? l doubt it.
My husbands father also died in WW2, so are you not both still victims of that war today? l lost a Grandfather in WW1 and 2 uncles in WW2,and l was a prisoner of war and returned a broken man.
childhood images stay with you.
And the country did not make a land fit for heroes, but free dinner vouchers
to humiliate at school, poor housing conditions, loss of family life and future siblings?.......
I can see no excuse whatever for war, it is a smokescreen for atrocities and attrition.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 6
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Unfortunately it is life. There will always be needless fighting and bickering. It is part of what makes us human.Ìý
JWB 1865
Surely it is less of living and more of dying?
Surely it assists us becoming less human?
There is less honour in war and more dishonour IMO.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 7
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
War may make us less humane but not less human.
Mankind has always gone to war and always will. I don't like it and hate the death involved. World peace would never work though. Mankind isn't made to get along. Egos and possessions get in the way of thatLink to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 8
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
JWB. Oh how true, we are human with all its faults, but we will never learn. For we are in the hands of those who weald power for the sake of power and vanity.
The world has suffered at the hand of hate and religion far to long.
Like you and sunshine I also lived through WW2 at the hands of a very strict officer, and now in my old age maybe I can understand what made him turn out the way he was.
We will still suffer from the religous zealots in our world.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 9
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
I choose to believe rather that it was fought - successfully - to prevent a greater bad. Ìý
T
he trouble with this as l see it it is;
If what we are experiencing today is not the greater bad, then l am at a loss to think what is!
How can anything that costs so many lives on the whim of power someone else has, ever be right or good for the future?
Whatever happens in Afghanistan can not have a positive outcome IMO,the many young lives that have been lost that if reaching maturity could have added something apart from war-fare that could have been of benefit to the world?Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 10
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
If what we are experiencing today is not the greater bad, then l am at a loss to think what is!
Ìý
Try living under fascist rule. Or is that what you want? I understand the BNP expect to make big gains in the forthcoming election. If I believed in a god I'd say "god help us". I would concur with a view that we are still a long way from achieving what was hoped for after the end of WW2 but the solution does not lie with policies of the type advocated by the extreme right.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 11
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
My husbands father also died in WW2, so are you not both still victims of that war todayÌý
I certainly don't regard myself as a victim because of being fatherless. Nor do I agree with those who inveigh against single mothers. There were thousands of them created by wars, not all permanent but many during the most formative years of the children's lives. The vast majority of us grew up to be decent, well adjusted, hard working citizens. Mostly as a result of the social reforms - '44 education Act, Beveridge - that followed WW2 and many of which have been undermined since by the vogue for neo-liberal economics that began with Thatcher but which Blair/Brown embraced with enthusiasm.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 12
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Try living under fascist rule. Or is that what you want? Ìý
Plotinlaois
Of course not, but would it not be true to say that whatever replaces anything that is viewed as a bad system, fails to improve with a different one?
Communism for example? what about our supposed democratic system. One thing rules this country at the present and it is political correctness imo of course.
but the solution does not lie with policies of the type advocated by the extreme
right.Ìý
So can we take it that the extreme left is the answer, or somewhere in between perhaps?
Tony Blair did not 'do God' whilst in office,
However he has made great financial gain by doing God out of it.
He also helped start a war on a lie, and now he is peace envoy for the Middle East.
As l do believe in God all l can say is heaven help us all!Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 13
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 4th May 2009
I certainly don't regard myself as a victim because of being fatherlessÌý
Plotinlaois
I am very glad at that, however no ones circumstances are the same. My father also lost his Mother two years after the end of war, and in affect was an orphan. War and it's consequences do have victims, it does not mean we necessarily become 'victim dependant'.
Your father was most certainly a victim of not being able to carry out his role of a father to you. So whilst you may not consider yourself a victim, he most certainly was denide an opportunity of importance because of war?
The vast majority of us grew up to be decent, well adjusted, hard working citizens. Mostly as a result of the social reforms - '44 education Act, Beveridge - that followed WW2 and many of which have been undermined since by the vogue for neo-liberal economics that began with Thatcher but which Blair/Brown embraced with enthusiasm.Ìý
Perhaps this is because consecutive governments of all colours and personalities, are realy not interested in the electorate apart from the polling booths for one day.
Once any of them are in political correctnes is all whatever dire consequences it has for any future generations.
Leaving school unable to read, write or articulate properly is proof of failure. period.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 14
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Leaving school unable to read, write or articulate properly is proof of failure. period.Ìý
Whose failure? Without some kind of state education many more would do so than is currently the case. What we have now is certainly imperfect. IMO that is nothing to do with "political correctness" but much more to do with an inflexible curriculum and excessive testing. I see that Heads are joining their staff in boycotting the year 6 tests for next year and with good reason. Of course, it could be said that the nature of the curriculum and the testing regime are themselves a manifestation of one kind of "political correctness" but I suspect that is not what you mean when you use this phrase that is a shorthand for "opinions with which I disagree".Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 15
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Whose failure?Ìý
Societies? for being so moribund in allowing such wrongs to become right?
but I suspect that is not what you mean when you use this phrase that is a shorthand for "opinions with which I disagree".Ìý
You honestly believe that political correctness is not an issue in every day matters from education to anything else we experience daily?
Of course the curriculum etc., is all part of it.
So much testing goes on, it leaves little time for education it'self.
I see that Heads are joining their staff in boycotting the year 6 tests for next year and with good reason. Of course,Ìý
This is possibly more to do with paper work load then what is in the best interest of educating children.
My children and grandchildren have noticed a decline in teaching standards, the only reason for this can be teachers and authorities have gone with the flow, probably to keep their careers even if it is not being allowed to do it properly?
For some decades it has been upc to correct a spelling mistake 'as long as it can be understood' however the word is written is ok.
When the soldiers in the WW1 were ordered to go over the top and walk to their deaths they obliged without question.
l believe that gives all of us a responsibility today to question and enquire of everything possible in authority, for the next generation.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 16
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 4th May 2009
l believe that gives all of us a responsibility today to question and enquire of everything possible in authority, for the next generation.Ìý
That's something with which I can certainly agree. Where I take issue with you is in the view that things are worse (in Britain) now than was the case 60 years ago or that fighting either WW was a waste. Of course change for the better doesn't happen as fast as we'd like and often we take 1 and 1/2 steps back for every 2 forward. So long as there are people prepared to quetion authority and stand up for their rights and those of others things will be better for our grand-children.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 17
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Where I take issue with you is in the view that things are worse (in Britain) now than was the case 60 years ago or that fighting either WW was a waste. Of course change for the better doesn't happen as fast as we'd like and often we take 1 and 1/2 steps back for every 2 forward. So long as there are people prepared to quetion authority and stand up for their rights and those of others things will be better for our grand-children.Ìý
But change has not happened human nature remains the same war mongering nature it has always has been.
I disagree on the steps back and forward... Of course our personal experiences come into play here.
I agree l00% on questioning authority, however, when was the last time you tried, and more so was it sucessful? If you have had similar experiences to mine then it would have been unsuccesful. Authority made sure men suffering from shellshock etc., were killed by firing squad to keep others from maybe challenging the authority of why they were dying or killing another.
Authority is correct, even when proved wrong, they just change the words around.
You may think l am cynical, but experience has shown me that whilst wars might be fought and won or fought and lost, Freedom and truth is always the main casualty..sadly for all future generations
I have for as long as l can remember been anti-war . So nothing is going to change my mind now l think.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?Ìý
Who first coined that lame cliche?Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 19
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Who first coined that lame cliche?Ìý
I suggest you read anything of the 1st word war poets,(the ones actually there) particularly that of Wilfred Owen.
I also think that the millions who died in that war and its subsequent ones would share the
view of wherever it came from.
War is a filthy business whichever way you dress or address it.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 20
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
S&S,
Filthy yes, but sadly sometimes necessary.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 21
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
S&S,
You're applying the same broad-brush to all your arguements.
Conflict is always more complicated, as are the results.
It would fine if everyone, everywhere, had your attitude towards war, but that will never happen. Someone will always take advantage of the weak or unwilling.
Imagine a town full of pacifists invaded by a dozen psychopaths. Would the pacifists simply join the death queue, along with their children? Would they expect those in the non-pacifist neighbouring village to come to their aid, risking their own lives in the process? Or would a rebel pacifist simply shout 'enough!', and fight back ?
Pacifism kills, whether you like it or not.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 22
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
You're applying the same broad-brush to all your arguements.
Conflict is always more complicated, as are the results.Ìý
hello delrick
If conflict is 'always more complicated' then why do we complicate life by it?
Of course l use the same broad-brush strokes to all my arguments.
It would fine if everyone, everywhere, had your attitude towards war, but that will never happen. Someone will always take advantage of the weak or unwilling.Ìý
Have you ever considered why a peacefil world will never happen? l have, and have found the answer.
If you accept that 'someone will always take advantage of the weak or unwilling', then we can attribute that to almost anything,including your thread on what should happen to Baby Peters murderer. It still does not give you an answer to the why of it all does it?
Imagine a town full of pacifists invaded by a dozen psychopaths. Would the pacifists simply join the death queue, along with their children? Would they expect those in the non-pacifist neighbouring village to come to their aid, risking their own lives in the process? Or would a rebel pacifist simply shout 'enough!', and fight back ?
Pacifism kills, whether you like it or not.Ìý
I can only answer this question as with an opinion like anyone else, but also as a person of faith. And l believe my faith would hold strong over nature.
You see delrick nothing can be seen in isolation!
We talk of war, and again l have to go back to baby Peters mother, she stood by and let a man intent on harming her children to death, be free to do his worst. Who was the enemy at that gate?
In this case pacifism did kill,and it was the strong over the weak.
But the pacifism we talk of is of the heart and not the cerebral.
I would gladly die rather than be part of a war initiated on the whim of earthly power for the benefit of one group, that another group is told to die for.
This is how l see it, of course l know others do not see it like that.
But they have to do their seeking and their finding of what they believe is 'the' answer,to all the questions there; because that is the one thing we are all searching for isn't it?
whatever it is l am supposed to have said that offended you(still can not find it) l apologise for any offence it caused, even if unbeknown to me.
s&sLink to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 23
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
however, when was the last time you tried, and more so was it sucessful?Ìý
24 years ago I joined "the authorities" in the hope of subverting them. The most forcefull attempt was in vociferously opposing the education reforms proposed by Kenneth Baker in the late '80's. That work was led by Paddy Ashdown and I played a small part in the campaign, both by providing him with background information about the damage likley to be done at local level and also by going round talking to school governors and parents' meetings encouraging them to petition the government. All to no avail unfortunately. The disasterous result of those reforms, as predicted by Paddy and the rest of us, can be seen today and caused you to say in an earlier post that you believed education was failing us.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 24
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Plotinlaois
24 years ago I joined "the authorities" in the hope of subverting them. The most forcefull attempt was in vociferously opposing the education reforms proposed by Kenneth Baker in the late '80's.Ìý
At least in the 1980's democracy still had a voice that could be heard.
That work was led by Paddy Ashdown and I played a small part in the campaign, both by providing him with background information about the damage likley to be done at local level and also by going round talking to school governors and parents' meetings encouraging them to petition the government. All to no avail unfortunately. The disasterous result of those reforms, as predicted by Paddy and the rest of us, can be seen today and caused you to say in an earlier post that you believed education was failing us.Ìý
Why are people so reluctant to change that which obviously requires change.
And yet there is a danger there, when l think how many times the Health Service has been re-organised, only to have so many layers it is impossible to negotiate any of them.
And this is similar to what has happened in education. And probably every other area of importance to the coun try.
Except war of course, we can get those going at the drop of a hat! sorry- just had to get that in.
Another thread here is what is education educating children for today. for the dole?
University graduates are all after fewer career opportunities. Where does it all stop... create another war and conscription? heaven help us.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 25
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
At least in the 1980's democracy still had a voice that could be heard.Ìý
No it didn't! The situation then was the same as now - government by the most popular minority. The majority were ignored. The only difference is that for the last 12 years a different minority has been in charge - not that that made much difference in practice because they were too scared to do anything but follow in the path hacked out by their predecessors.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 26
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
No it didn't! The situation then was the same as now - government by the most popular minority.Ìý
Plotinlaois
So why have'nt the rules of the way we elect been changed?
I do not think it fair to blame governments alone, and l have absolutely no political leanings. The French stand up to government and usually win.
They probably only win because it saves the government embarrasment, but win they do.
not that that made much difference in practice because they were too scared to do anything but follow in the path hacked out by their predecessors.Ìý
So what does this tell us, 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' I believe.
Only one side wins, and unfortunately it is not necessarily that which is right, but that which is wrong.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 27
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
Wasn't this about WW1?
Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 28
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Hi Sunshineandshowers,
The writings of the WW1 poets only became popular in the 1960's when the world faced the threat of nuclear destruction, before this they had been virtual unknowns.
The whole concept and idea of the modern interpretation of the First World War was born during this period and was based, unknowingly, on the writings of Churchill, Lloyd George and Liddel-Hart, who all had their own motives in regards what they wrote. From this came the works of Historians who have influenced all future generations, such as A.J.P Taylor, who said that the 2nd World War was a good war, the 1st was not.
A lot of books written about the 1st World War are not based on the truth, for example the work of Clarke 'The Donkey's', they are just written to sell and make money.
Your other comment in regards shell shocked soldiers being shot is also a little vague and biased; of all the soldiers sentenced to court martial, only 1 in 10 were executed, and some where in fact repeat offenders. Mistakes were made, but decisions had to be taken for the greater good. That sounds really bad, but just look at what happened to the French army in 1917! The war could have been lost, and what would the world be like today?Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 29
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
toffee142
The only thing l could think of when reading your post was ' a lie goes around the world before truth has pulled it's boots on'
Have no idea from whence it came, but in war this is particularly true imo.
I find it increasingly hard to believe that people still believe we are in a better position today than we would have been if these wars had not been fought. imo utter rubbish, unless one has a chrystal ball.
Has it given us a country that is more transparent in any of its dirtier dealings, l do not think is has, look at politicians today, and the legality of the war with Iraq.
There is one thing war teaches us imo and that is that life, as long as it is someone els's is cheap and expendable.
Because that is how wars are won or lost.
How can it ever be worth it?
A.J.P Taylor, who said that the 2nd World War was a good war, the 1st was not.Ìý
Words fail me, so l will leave it at that!
s&sLink to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 30
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Hello again Sunshineand showers,
My original response was in reply to your comments regarding the First World War; you have your own views and you are right to defend them, however my point was that you need to look at it from both sides - what influences you is based upon the opinion of others and a world that faced destruction in the 1960's, not the actual reality of the First World War.
"I find it increasingly hard to believe that people still believe we are in a better position today than we would have been if these wars had not been fought. imo utter rubbish, unless one has a chrystal ball". Without these wars where would your freedom of speech be? Would the human rights you enjoy today exist? I don't need a crystal ball to answer these questions, I can look at images of the Holocaust and appreciate how lucky I am.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 31
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
toffee142,
Sadly there is the third side, less studied and considered, the numbers who have died.
What was the actual reality of WW1? perhaps l am missing something l am unaware of.I read copiously (or rather did) have l been reading the wrong books. l am puzzled.
Do you mean the 40's instead of the 60's l remember Kruchev and Kennedy sabre ratelling.
Without these wars where would my freedom of speach be? where is my freedom of speach?
Not as free as you would have me believe in my experience.
The Holocaust and its horrors was made possible by war imo. How could it have happened if the world was at peace?
I believe l have always been a pacifist, before even l knew of the word.
This will teach me to go on sites such as this!
l think l am a lone voice.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 32
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Hi Sunshineandshowers,
The numbers who have died are honoured every day by some (The Menin Gate for example), myself included, and by the nation as a whole on Armistice Day.
In regards books, look at the work of John Terraine, Gary Sheffield and Dan Todman, these portray the First World War in real terms, not that of popular culture. No I meant the 1960's, the sabre rattling of Kennedy and Kruschev, particularly the Cuban missle crisis, when the world stood on the brink of annialation, was when the modern interpretation of the First World War was born.
Your freedom of speech is having access to a site like this; being able to say what you believe and not what you think you should say.
Those who suffered during the Holocaust had thier human rights taken away because they were seen as inferior by the Nazis and their fate was sealed as soon as they came to power in 1933, so even if the world remained at peace, as Chamberlain wanted, they still would have suffered and perhaps many more may have been murdered. However your argument is a good one, without the First World War would Hitler have come to power, would the Holocaust have happened and would the Second World War have happened? But more importantly, would we live in the world we do today?
Regards, Toffee142.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 33
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 11th May 2009
The numbers who have died are honoured every day by some (The Menin Gate for example), myself included, and by the nation as a whole on Armistice Day.Ìý
I believe this to be less of honouring, and more of soley remembering.
Whether it is simply remembering (imo) or honouring as in yours, surely the only honour due to these men and women is for there to be no more wars.
I feel great pain whenenever l hear of yet one more casualty of one more war, l feel no urge to honour just to scream at the waste and stupidity of it all.Whatever the historians might add years down the line.
No I meant the 1960's, the sabre rattling of Kennedy and Kruschev, particularly the Cuban missle crisis, when the world stood on the brink of annialation, was when the modern interpretation of the First World War was born.Ìý
I was planning my wedding when the Cuban crisis arose, l don't know how old you are, or your personal experiences of even the threat of war.
I was horribly frightened by it all, as the fall out of the other two major wars was still evident
in my wider family. Every action has a consequence and that is what we should remember when honouring those who have given their lives.
It is difficult no to be become emotionaly or personally invloved in anything to do with such a horror as war. It is somebody else doing the dying after all.
Regarding your last paragraph,As l have said previously we do not have the benefit of knowledge on what would have happened in Europe if the war had not happened.
It is not a majority of goodness that flourishes in war it is evil and the destruction it brings with it.
I can not share your optimism on the world we have today, daily, the world becomes smaller in reguards to freedom to travel and technology,
We are awaiting the birth of a first great-grandchild, and it is with certainty l know this child like millions of others will not be coming into a world that finds it easier to war with one another than to live in peace with one another. Sounds like 60's speak, but rest assured l was not even a hippy!
Nothing less than peace will do, Men begin wars
and as their brains are supposedly bigger than womens, lets hope in time backs will be broad enough to talk peace instead of killing each other. There has to be a better way
Regards s&sLink to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 34
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Monday, 11th May 2009
I personally feel that taking time to remember the fallen is a form of honouring them.
I also refuse to believe that no good comes from war. As far back in time as you care to remember war has had it's victims and also it's benefits. The Britain that the Romans invaded was nothing like the one they left behind. I am sure that the Jewish community wouldn't doubt that the world of 2009 is a far better place to live than 1939. I am also a believer that Britain made the sub continent a better place. There were victims and consequences that weren't desirable but also advances made and improvements made. All is all what I am trying to get at with war is that is it "Swings and Roundabouts".
World peace is a dream and will only ever be a dream.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
-
Message 35
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 11th May 2009
I always find 'remembrance' a bit of an ambivalent thing. I'm all for remembering the sacrifice (out of respect for the dead) and the shocking wastefulness (to remind ourselves that war should always be a last resort). But some people seem to forget one or the other aspect.
On the one hand, some condemn the waste without acknowledging that this was the price of their freedom. On the other, some 'wear their poppy with pride' but would march us into wasteful wars all over again rather too easily.Link to this forum: WW1 was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars'Why wasn't it?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.