Lost, but not forgotten - but should we remember?


(stella wood) #1

I have Grandad’s medals and military photos from WW1… and, looking through them, I can’t help but wonder what became of those young men, their families… what was the future for those who survived… pretty bleak I suppose…


(Mandy Davies) #2

My Granddad’s medals from WWII. That’s his Great Granddaughter.


(Ann Coe) #3

Within living memory for very few now. A great sacrifice for all concerned, whatever side they fought on, like most concerned my family lost loved ones in this and other conflicts !
At the risk of being’ shot down in flames’, I dare to ask this question …
Just how long do we go on commemerating wars/victories ?


(stella wood) #4

Good topic for discussion… so I’ve amended the Title.
Here’s my understanding of things…

In our village, from time to time, we have solemn marches/ceremonies. These are not only to honour those who died for their country… but also to remember the horror that war/conflict brings to ALL those involved… in the hope that by recalling this we will do our utmost to avoid war/conflict in the future. :thinking:


(Ann Coe) #5

Yes I understand that Stella, I have also taken part in these ‘ceremonies’ in the past. I do however think that its time that things now change. My personal feeling is that to see little ‘tots’ chanting by rote ‘morte pour la France’ is no longer appropriate.
The world as we knew in our younger times has changed, thankfully for the better, because my generation took no part in the ‘great wars’. My family has talked about what happened, about loved ones that were lost.
Why then hand these things down to a generation that should be looking towards the future ?
If we continue with these ‘ceromonies’ when will it ever end ? Yes it’s important that we don’t make the same mistakes. However, cheap travel, internet and instant news has broadened the horizons and I don’t feel that we should burden our future generations with the mistakes/events of the past.
I still hear people of a certain generation talk about how the Japs, Huns, can’t be trusted…terrible to pass those predujices on.
It is a good topic for discussion…I would like to see what others think …


(Bill Morgan) #6

I think history is an important subject for kids, and reminders of the horrors of conflicts are valuable, as an ‘attempt’, to ensure, the same mistakes are not repeated.


(stella wood) #7

Of course… there are conflicts more recent than WWI and WWII… here in France the Algerian War is still an “open-wound” for many old soldiers and families… Those folk never want to see such things occur again… :zipper_mouth_face:

and the UK has had its own conflicts…:thinking:


(Chris Kite) #8

I’m a firm believer that the horrors of war shouldn’t be forgotten, but Ann makes a very good point.


(Carol Lokocki) #9

My OH is President of two associations in memory of WW11 and the war in algeria in which my OH fought …why do we keep the memory alive is to honour our soldiers who lost their lives for France. In our sector there is one 100 year old solder still living but cannot remember much today. I believe it was misty 36140 who asked how long these celebrations are going to last. well they are dying slowly but surely .one day in the futur there will be nothing left .we are asked by the head master in our village to come along and tell the youngsters what they wish to know.Once every two years we are invited to go the arc de triomphe to light the unknown soldiers flame. Extremely emotionel for all of us.For myself it is important to present all the memories to the young .
that is my opinion .i was born in 1943 so i didnt see the war in UK but believe me the french who lived through WW11 havent forgotten it


(Vanessa Caton) #10

Two sides to this I agree. I did have a moment when reading our news here this morning which made me wonder what my take is on this subject and found myself having conflicting views.,
One of the last surviving RAF “aces” died recently just prior to his 98th birthday. There was an article about him and pictures of him with his medals and with Prince Charles .We’ve had flypasts and other “occasions” here to commemorate 100 years of the RAF so this article presumably formed part of that commemorative event. The article explained that the term ace is given to a pilot who has shot down five enemy aircraft.
The gentleman is described in the article as a hero. This was where I started to have doubts.
Whilst I think most people agree that war is one of the most horrific events, must be prevented at all costs and we all hope it will never happen again I had trouble with the word hero.
He was a modest man by all accounts but the article says he was decorated for his bravery and it hails him for the many missions he flew . What it fails to mention is how many people his missions killed. Or what the families of those he killed feel. I ended up feeling that hero was perhaps an inappropriate word. I intend no disrespect but I felt the word should be used for those who risk their lives for others (firefighters, cave rescuers etc etc) not perhaps for someone who after all is said and done has killed many people, albeit as part of his duty and during wartime . Many soldiers who were forced to fight face to face never came to terms with the fact that they killed another human being even in a wartime scenario. The article didn’t seem to ask him what his thoughts were on that and I guess now we will never know.


(Bill Morgan) #11

:+1: :heart:


(Bill Morgan) #12

Thoughtful post V :+1:


(Timothy Cole) #13

I think we should honour those who lost their lives in conflicts and educate the young that war should be avoided at all costs.


(Dominic Best) #14

I think you need empathy for people like the young man he was in the 1940s who risked his life daily to protect his country and its inhabitants. He did not fly for sport, he did not kill for enjoyment, I’m sure that he spent a lot of his time wishing that he was somewhere else doing something else but he did what few people would be prepared to do for the good of his nation. After doing his bit for his country he reverted back to the person he was before he rose to the challenge of war. He, and thousands more like him were heroes in their day and remain heroes to most people even in the over politically correct twenty first century.


(Vanessa Caton) #15

Dominic. As I think I said or at least implied in my post I have the utmost respect and empathy for the gentleman. I respect what he and those like him did . Please don’t accuse me of not having empathy. I did not in any way suggest he killed for enjoyment and I’m sure he was like many put in his position probably haunted by what he had by duty to do , although as there is no reporting of his views on that so we shall never know . I’m sure from what his family said about him he was a gentle kind retiring man in his everyday life. I would never disrespect those who by fate found themselves caught up fighting for , defending or protecting their families and loved ones in a conflict not of their making. The gentleman in question did what he had to do because it was wartime and he was following orders. I think you’ll find I said as much . I’m not questioning his actions but the language used to describe those actions. At the end of the day people were killed. How or why or by whom or what that person was like in everyday life was not the issue . They were still killed. To call that act heroic seems, to me at least somewhat in appropriate. Those who’s families were decimated would surely not use that word. My own father saw active service in the Royal Navy . He never forgot those days or losing his brother to war . He didn’t want to be responsible for killing people but may by his actions have done so. He was conscripted to serve his country at the age of 18. He did not view his role as “heroic”. He did it of necessity . He had no option - the law required him to join the Navy. My comment wasn’t about the man or even about war it was about the use of language . The use specifically of the word “hero”. A word which perhaps has come to have a different meaning in recent times - as I said - I associate it more with putting ones own life at risk in dangerous situations - firefighters, search & rescue etc not with killing people . Yes I know some dictionary definitions refer to war situations but the origin of the word is interesting:-
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Greek Mythology
OTHER SCRIPTS: ‘Ηρω (Ancient Greek)
PRONOUNCED: HIR-o (English) [details]
Meaning & History
Derived from Greek ‘ηρως (heros) meaning “hero”. In Greek legend she was the lover of Leander, who would swim across the Hellespont each night to meet her. He was killed on one such occasion when he got caught in a storm while in the water, and when Hero saw his dead body she drowned herself.


(stella wood) #16

Whilst I can understand some of Vanessa’s reservations…

I agree with Dominic that things need to be considered in relation to when (which era) heroic events occurred… and are still occurring…

Frankly, anyone who puts their own life on the line for others… gets my vote as a “Hero”…

My nephew volunteered for a 6-month stint in Afghanistan… aged 19 he went armed with his medical skills… (his Mum and I were terrified for him). He came back safely, thank heavens, having seen and having had to deal with the most awful situations. Our family seems to have a “hero gene” running through it (on the male side at least)… and we are all very proud of him. I do not know if he had to kill anyone, we have not discussed that aspect…

I am content with the certainty that he would have done whatever was necessary to protect himself and those he was trying to help.