Remembrance Day Contemplation

Black Dog · November 12, 2014

It's too bad our own government cares not a whit for the people who serve unless they have some kind of use in a photo op.

Big Guy · November 12, 2014

To On Guard For Thee - A while back you asked why I thought that soldiers do not march lock step with their government. When young people enter the military, they do not leave their right to opinions and conscience at home. In most cases they go where they are told, do what they are told to and perform their responsibilities. They will perform what they are ordered to do to complete their mission.

They do not necessarily have to agree with the mission. They give up the right to act on the disagreement when they join the forces. The Nuremberg trials established that the "I was only following orders" excuse for certain actions during wartime was not a defense so the individual does have some "wiggle room" ordered to do something he/she thinks is not acceptable.

I do understand that a nation cannot survive with a military where the individuals chose to or not to get involved in a particular mission. But they have an opinion and a conscience.

As to the history of war, we hear mostly about the efficient use of soldiers and victories. There are very many horror stories of mutinies of whole companies and the refusal of many small groups and individuals to follow orders. The number of self inflicted wounds in the draft created American army in Vietnam was an indicator of how many of them were not that keen on being drafted into that war.

Mighty AC · November 12, 2014

Politicians should be offering up their sons and daughters first.

If that were a requirement we might actually see an end to war. That reminds me of the scene at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore asks congressmen if their children would be enlisting. Or the System of a Down lyrics - Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. - Orwell

Argus · November 12, 2014

The same way everybody else was stupid. War is stupid is my point.

It's a pretty damned simplistic point.

Argus · November 12, 2014

Once again, they may have had the inclination, but they didn't have the population or the wherewithal to achieve anything like that. Nazism would have died a natural death without all the shoot 'em up.

There is absolutely nothing in history to support any of the above. In fact, the Nazis had already started incorporating conquered natives into their military. There were a lot of French, Romanians, Austrians, Ukrainians, Croats and others. That would only have grown greater with time. Contrary to Hollywood romanaticism, for example, France was not exactly horriied in their conquest. Life went on fairly well and there wasn't much resistance to the Germans. Every year that passed would have made life under Germany more natual, and would have made it easier for the Germans to recruit.

And who was to stop them? The British and Rusians probably would have failed without American support, and that would have let the Germans sweep south and take the middle east as well. Much of the world could have come under their control fairly easily since the only powerful nation left would have been the US.

Argus · November 12, 2014

You're not narrow minded? Just re read your post. For instance, because you've never heard something you don't believe it. Anyway I wasn't "spewing" anything. I just asked him where he served and such. He brought up the whole waste of time it was.

WW1 was a waste of time, in most respects. WW2 was not.

Argus · November 12, 2014

I agree. But on Remembrance Day, it's all about romanticizing wars and repeating the same old: "Protecting our Freedom" or "Sacrificing for our Freedom".

Nobody is romanaticizing wars. It's about remembering the service and sacrifce of those who went to war on Canada's behalf.

Big Guy · November 12, 2014

The bill to make Remembrance Day a statuary federal holiday is now in its second reading.

Is the idea of making Nov 11 a statuary federal holiday a good idea or a bad idea?

The_Squid · November 12, 2014

I agree with a lot of posters here that Remembrance Day has been co-opted to glorify war and create support for today's wars rather than remembering those who have died for their country.

And comparing today's wars to wars of the past is getting very difficult to do. There is no sacrifice by the nation as a whole for these wars... there is no danger to Canada at all! They are unnecessary. And Remembrance Day is being used to prop up support. It's disgusting. And it's too bad so many people buy into it.

The use of police officers and Corrections guards and anyone else who happens to wear a gun in the ceremony is also silly. It's another testament to the meaning of Remembrance Day being abused.

A good series that tells the stories of some recent veterans: http://thetyee.ca/Series/2014/11/07/Soldiers-Tales/

Why should we make them go through these traumas (or get killed) by sending them into an unnecessary war? War never used to be something that was cheered by politicians... but it is now. What's changed? I think it's the fact that these politicians know that Canada is not in any real danger and that the sending of troops is a political move, not a necessary one.

Derek 2.0 · November 12, 2014

There is absolutely nothing in history to support any of the above.

And of course, if left unchecked, the Nazis would have had the bomb by late 45 or early 46, combined with longer range IRBMs and eventually ICBMs with near global reach.........years ahead of both the Americans and Russians.

Hudson Jones · November 12, 2014

I think Rememberance Day is alot larger than wearing a poppy, or remembering those who have sacrificed not only their lives, health, quality of life, just about everything any man or women holds near and dear to them that has been stripped away.

Rememberance Day means something different to everyone,and it is the one day of the year where we can reflect on those meanings regardless of what they are .....

Because we need to remember everything, the cost to our soliders, our families, our communities, our nation....we need to remember so we do not enter into future conflicts without some somber thinking...

We need to remember that wars produce nothing but sorrow, tears, bloodshed and great sacrifice. But we also need to remember that until man learns of a different method to solve issues without violence that they are sometimes nessicary. Because of that we need to remember each conflict and why we sent our nations soldiers into combat, we need to remember the cost of everything we sacraficed, we need to remember those citizens that volunteered to take up our governments cause. And we need to remember their sacrifices, it is a promise that our nation has given to them,

"We will Remember them"

For me Rememberence day, is emotional, painful, joyfull, one full of tears, laughter as we remember fallen comrads, after the ceremony we head to the local legion, 10 or 12 of us gather there every year, all guys that have eaten the same dirt in some far away place, most are civilians now retired from the military, but we all take the time to meet once a year, same spot, same table, one in the dark corner.........we tell the same stories about them year after year, mostly funney, but we also recount their last moments, and drink a few pints in their memory. To honor them, to keep their memories alive and well , to keep our promise to never forget...

We are not alone, the table next to us is a bunch of old vets that do the same thing, and have been for over 40 years....only difference is their table is getting smaller every year....

That was very well said.

Can't add anything more except that Remembrance Day is an important day for people to engage, remember and to share perspectives.

guyser · November 12, 2014

Rememberance Day means something different to everyone,and it is the one day of the year where we can reflect on those meanings regardless of what they are .....

And some people, for valid reasons , dont go along with the thinking that others have .

guyser · November 12, 2014

It's too bad our own government cares not a whit for the people who serve unless they have some kind of use in a photo op.

Bingo !

Argus · November 12, 2014

I agree with a lot of posters here that Remembrance Day has been co-opted to glorify war and create support for today's wars rather than remembering those who have died for their country.

I think that a lot of the Left is conflicted because they have a knee-jerk dislike for the military, for anything military. They're regretfully willing to accept that it's "okay" to memorialize people who died fighting for or in service to Canada, in part because they see such people as the victims of a militaristic capitalist government. The real problem they have is when we don't make it clear how much we disapprove of their actions, or the actions of those who survived. Any attempt to suggest those who went over and fought, and fought well, doing horrible things like, you know, killing the enemy, blowing up tanks, sinking ships, shooting down planes, however 'brave' that might be, strikes them as absolutely immoral. And so they cringe at fly-pasts and guns going off, and parading soldiers, because in their hearts they really feel all those veterans should be ashamed of themselves for what they've done.

On Guard for Thee · November 12, 2014

There is absolutely nothing in history to support any of the above. In fact, the Nazis had already started incorporating conquered natives into their military. There were a lot of French, Romanians, Austrians, Ukrainians, Croats and others. That would only have grown greater with time. Contrary to Hollywood romanaticism, for example, France was not exactly horriied in their conquest. Life went on fairly well and there wasn't much resistance to the Germans. Every year that passed would have made life under Germany more natual, and would have made it easier for the Germans to recruit.

And who was to stop them? The British and Rusians probably would have failed without American support, and that would have let the Germans sweep south and take the middle east as well. Much of the world could have come under their control fairly easily since the only powerful nation left would have been the US.

80 million German's were not in any way about to conquer the world. The Russian's tore them apart in any case. There is a lot of mythology surrounding war(s), don't buy it is my advice lest we keep falling into the same traps.

Michael Hardner · November 12, 2014

80 million German's were not in any way about to conquer the world. The Russian's tore them apart in any case. There is a lot of mythology surrounding war(s), don't buy it is my advice lest we keep falling into the same traps.

But the Russians beat them... in war, right ?

Michael Hardner · November 12, 2014

I think that a lot of the Left is conflicted because they have a knee-jerk dislike for the military, for anything military. They're regretfully willing to accept that it's "okay" to memorialize people who died fighting for or in service to Canada, in part because they see such people as the victims of a militaristic capitalist government.

I have been guilty of this in the past. For me, it's a matter of convincing myself that war is sometimes necessary, and also that the chance of war happening is reduced as time goes on... the cost of war is escalating, and the popularity is dropping.

Derek 2.0 · November 13, 2014

80 million German's were not in any way about to conquer the world. The Russian's tore them apart in any case. There is a lot of mythology surrounding war(s), don't buy it is my advice lest we keep falling into the same traps.

The Russians only started to reverse the early Nazi gains after being heavily supported and supplied with materials by the other allies, combined with the Nazis having to commit resources to contend with the other Allies in North Africa, Greece, Italy/Southern France and the threat of a Second Front being opened up in Normandy......this of course precludes the Battle of the Atlantic, the Blitz against Southern England and in turn, combating Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force over Germany.

The Nazis, without a requirement to fight the Americans and British Commonwealth, would have finished off the Russians in 1942-43.....and of course, becoming a nuclear power several years later would have cemented their gains in Europe, Eurasia and North Africa.

WestCoastRunner · November 13, 2014

And so they cringe at fly-pasts and guns going off, and parading soldiers, because in their hearts they really feel all those veterans should be ashamed of themselves for what they've done.

That is just so wrong. I have not read any posts here where folks have expressed the thought that veterans should be ashamed of themselves. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.

Bonam · November 13, 2014

The Russians only started to reverse the early Nazi gains after being heavily supported and supplied with materials by the other allies, combined with the Nazis having to commit resources to contend with the other Allies in North Africa, Greece, Italy/Southern France and the threat of a Second Front being opened up in Normandy......this of course precludes the Battle of the Atlantic, the Blitz against Southern England and in turn, combating Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force over Germany.

The Nazis, without a requirement to fight the Americans and British Commonwealth, would have finished off the Russians in 1942-43.....and of course, becoming a nuclear power several years later would have cemented their gains in Europe, Eurasia and North Africa.

If you actually look at the numbers, only a tiny portion of the German military was committed to anything but the eastern front after 1941. WWII in Europe was primarily a war between Germany and the USSR, with the Western front little more than a footnote from a numbers standpoint. Not only were the resources and numbers of troops involved in the eastern front vastly greater, but the nature of the fighting was also very different. In the West, some semblance of respect for rules or ideals of war remained and casualties were much much lower. It was not standard practice to eradicate enemy civilian populations, and the few exception towns/cities where this did happen are noteworthy to this day. On the other hand, on the eastern front, both sides did everything they could to make life as miserable as possible for the other side. Civilian populations were exterminated or enslaved as a matter of course. It was "total war" in a sense that most people in the West can't even begin to conceptualize.

The extent to which the Russians were supplied by the Western allies is also very often overstated... it contributed only a tiny percentage of material used by the USSR.

While of course no one can ever know for sure, it is entirely possible the USSR could have stopped Germany on its own. But that of course still means that the Nazis had to be stopped militarily, the only difference is who did what portion of the stopping.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Bonam

On Guard for Thee · November 13, 2014

But the Russians beat them... in war, right ?

Of course they did. But the rush to judgement/justification seems to regularly be that if somebody hadn't beat the Nazi's we would all be goose stepping around speaking German. It's all hogwash.

On Guard for Thee · November 13, 2014

That is just so wrong. I have not read any posts here where folks have expressed the thought that veterans should be ashamed of themselves. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.

I suspect he could be referring to one of my earlier posts, which had absolutely nothing to do with assessing anyone shame. Good of you to point out that putting words and thoughts into other peoples mouths or minds is pretty wrong. and perhaps even shameful.

Derek 2.0 · November 13, 2014

If you actually look at the numbers, only a tiny portion of the German military was committed to anything but the eastern front after 1941.

I know the numbers.........In Northern France alone, the Nazis had several Army Groups and several SS Divisions (to say nothing of second tier garrison forces), a number equal to the Forces committed to Stalingrad and Kursk.....likewise, the majority of both the Luftwaffe and Kregsmarine was engaged with the Western Allies.

The extent to which the Russians were supplied by the Western allies is also very often overstated... it contributed only a tiny percentage of material used by the USSR.

As an overall percentage perhaps, but in the early stages of 1941-42, well Russian industry was being rebuilt eastwards, the bulk of the Russian tanks and aircraft were British.......

While of course no one can ever know for sure, it is entirely possible the USSR could have stopped Germany on its own. But that of course still means that the Nazis had to be stopped militarily, the only difference is who did what portion of the stopping.

They nearly lost to only a portion of the German forces.......with no need to expend resources against the other allies, in other regions, the Nazis would have rolled over the Soviets, much like they did the French, if the Germans were able to focus their entire military against the Soviets in 1941...

Edited November 13, 2014 by Derek 2.0