Just making a point - to add to another thread...but am not posting this in that thread as to do so would be both disrespectful and inappropriate. Armistace Day/Rememberance Sunday seems ( to me) to be a largely military occaision. Thing is, in any conflict, the number of civilian/innocent casualties appears to outnumber the military by many multiples. Discuss
|
 |
 The purpose of 'armistice day' is to celebrate the cessation of conflict. Remembrance, on the other hand, is exactly that - civilian or miltary.
|
| Edited: 11/11/11 18:41 |
 Remembrance remembers whoever you want to remember.
Most poetry seems to be military biased. The classic stuff may appeal more to an age more befuddled over consequences than the mores of the times. It is that almost innocence that makes writings of those times all the more powerful as it challenges the "romantic" notions of warfare.
It's always been nasty and brutal. Just how nasty and brutal is likely to be at the edges of people's darkest recesses. Somtimes light needs shining into the dark to see what is there no matter how horrifying it may be.
|
| Edited: 11/11/11 19:46 |
Seems ive been wearing my poppy incorrectly,the green petal is supposed to point at 11 oclock evidently.
|
|
 I've done a lot of research recently into the civilian experience during the Blitz, so I understand where you are coming from. It makes you sit back and think when you read about a family of nine people cut down by one high explosive bomb, especially when you read between the lines and realise that in all likelyhood the father survived the raid. I think in general each community has their own ways of remembering civilian losses. Liverpool for example recently had a major ceremony to remember the 70th anniversary of the May Blitz, and dotted throughout the Merseyside region are memorials and markers to those who fell in the air raids. Whilst it would be nice that their sacrifice and loss is remembered with a specific day I generally take armistice day as a chance to remember both civilians and the military anyway.
|
| Edited: 11/11/11 22:33 |
 World War Two seemed to be the start of warfare where civilian casualties were on a similar level to military casualties. Whilst the emphasis of Remembrance Sunday is often on the soldiers who were killed, I think that it is entirely justified to remember the non-combatants who died.
|
|
 Oh, goodness no. Even if you disregard the fact that an awful lot of combatants in the first world war (and at times earlier) were basically conscripted civilians, the side effects nearly always end up killing huge numbers of people. Its often trick to pin down of course. But just consider the economic consequences from the first WW. Or that flu epedemic or....
|
|
 World War Two seemed to be the start of warfare where civilian casualties were on a similar level to military casualties. Whilst the emphasis of Remembrance Sunday is often on the soldiers who were killed, I think that it is entirely justified to remember the non-combatants who died.
Read about Culloden, Explorer. Most of the history is hidden away, but more 'civilians' were butchered after the battle, than actual soldiers. And it went on for some time. The British 'state' doesn't like to admit to genocide, and most of the evidence was cleansed as quickly as the 'Culloden' battle honour was removed from regimental coliurs.
|
|
 "World War Two seemed to be the start of warfare where civilian casualties were on a similar level to military casualties." Alas, I think that's not strictly accurate. There's no doubt that the development of large scale aerial bombing (developed effectively by the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War a few years ahead of WWII) vastly increased the impact on civilians whether remote from the front lines or not. But there are numerous examples of imperial and colonial wars through the ages where the civilian population suffered out of all proportion to the supposed combatants - it's just that history tends to be written by the victors (historically that's been us, 'the west') who find it inconvenient to publicise that aspect of events. For example, pretty much the U.S.'s first colonial war, the Philippine-American War (1899-1902) is reckoned to have cost around 4,000 US military lives, 20,000 Philippine military, and upwards of 200,000 Philippine civilians. There'll be similar examples among most nations who've undertaken 'empire-building' through the years. I find that who and what to remember becomes a muddier and murkier question the more I examine it. "Victims of War" or perhaps "For the Fallen" seems to avoid at least some dubious and inconsistent judgementalism.
|
|
Hi. It seems my comment was a bit controversial - what I meant by it was that warfare in the 20th Century in general (and not just WW2) resulted in the deaths of many more civilians. That's not to say that civilians weren't killed before (the Jacobite Rising and subsequent battles also killed many innocent people), it's just that it was occurring on a huge scale in the 20th Century.
|
|
It is indeed an observation (no doubt valid) but what of it, what is your point?
|
|
Actually I doubt it is that valid. Yes the mid/late twentieth century added a bunch of new ways to directly devastate whole cities (Dresden, Hiroshima etc etc) but mass civilian casualties certainly not a new thing. Just took a bit longer back in the day  (especially the indirect effects.).
|
|
 Getting back to the original post, although it was originally conceived as a memorial to our nation's men who fell in the Great War, personally I observe the two minutes silence to respect and remember all who have died in conflicts - combatants and civilians from all sides. It was all of them - not only the servicemen - who I thought of at Great Gable* on Sunday morning. To me, the act of rembrance is for everyone who has lost a loved one because of armed conflict. * There is an account of the ceremony in Trip Reports
|
|
 the fact that an awful lot of combatants in the first world war (and at times earlier) were basically conscripted civilians
Interestingly the majority of British servicemen in WW1 were volunteers unlike pretty much all of the rest of Europe (who used conscription anyway prior to war commencing). Conscription began in 1916 and of those then conscripted it is likely that quite a few would have volunteered anyway. Australia actually held 2 referendums on conscription both of which were defeated so the Australian contingent in WW1 were volunteers.
|
| Edited: 14/11/11 16:24 |
 Wurz Right enough, at the beginning of WW1 ISTR that the british army was a pretty small professional army more used to policing the empire. later swelled by volunteers, before conscription started later still. Steve D
|
|
It's also worth noting that the heavily conscripted armies had major problems with mutiny and dessertion. Particularly the French, Russians (a major contributory factor to their revolution) and in 1918 knowing they were done for, the Germans.
|
|
