115 replies to this topic

[George Armstrong Custer]

The following letter appears in today's edition of 'The Times' newspaper, and I quote it here as I'd be interested in members views on the writers conclusions and proposals. My own view is that the Remembrance ceremonies seem to have grown in attendance in recent years; the numbers attending ANZAC commemorations at Gallipoli, for instance, seem to grow annually. As long as this continues to be the case, I personally find the letter writer's conclusions to be unsustainable. It may seem paradoxical in some senses that attendances have grown as the numbers of living survivors has declined; but perhaps our collective consciousness recognizes that, with those who were there all but gone, Remembrance is all we have left to honor them. It also ensures that as a nation we understand what going to war - as is sometimes necessary - ultimately requires in terms of personal loss.

Giao,
GAC

THE TIMES, Wednesday, 16 November 2005

Sir, Armistice Day was inaugurated as a commemoration of the dead of the Great War and now Remembrance Sunday also honours the dead of the Second World War. Since 1945, British war deaths have been, mercifully, relatively few and have been from professional forces rather than mass armies of volunteers or conscripts.

The war memorials will of course remain, but perhaps it is time to consider how long the ceremonies of Remembrance Sunday should continue: if not indefinitely, then sooner or later they must cease, and there will come a time when the wars of the first half of the 20th century seem as distant as the battles of Agincourt and Waterloo do today.

Unless there is a major conflict in the meantime I would suggest that in November 2018 — the centenary of the Armistice — there should be the last of the Remembrance services. It is unlikely that there will be any living Great War veterans by then, and the number of survivors of the Second World War will have declined considerably. It would seem preferable to call a halt on a significant date rather than allowing the ceremonies to decay slowly through neglect.


GEOFFREY NICHOLSON
Mottram, Cheshire

[NIGEL]

Most likely some lefty with a bozo view that remembering why people were slaughtered and remembering those slaughtered is some celebration of our conquests over other nations.

The day those people and the reasons why those people died are forgotton, then thats the day the last war will begin, and then there will be no rememberence anything.

[Patrick H]

Yes I was saddened to read that letter. If the writer feels that such remembrance is dying away then why is he bothered enough to write to the Times. the fact is that, in my view, Remembrance has grown stronger over the last decade, viz the 2 minultes silence instead of 1 minute and the renewed interest in memorials, this forum etc etc.

Ignore him is my advise

Patrick

[Jonathan Saunders]

Geoffrey Nicholson is talking out of his backside.  History and more significantly for the act of remembrance, genealogy, has a bigger profile now than it ever has.  It will surely come to an end one day but it wont be as soon as 2018 (surely that year will see the biggest act of remembrance since around 1946).  I suggest he gets off that backside and down to a Memorial next Remembrance Sunday and see how many people attend, or better still, I'd like to see him try and get a front row place at Menin Gate any night of the week.  I wonder did he miss the 21 October this year?  Trafalgar does not have the profile of 11 Nov but it is still remembered publicly and privately every year by many.  I expect in 2019 he will be writing that the land given in perputity across the globe be cleared and redeveloped.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Geoffrey Nicholson is talking out of his backside.  History and more significantly for the act of remembrance, genealogy, has a bigger profile now than it ever has.  It will surely come to an end one day but it wont be as soon as 2018 (surely that year will see the biggest act of remembrance since around 1946).  I suggest he gets off that backside and down to a Memorial next Remembrance Sunday and see how many people attend, or better still, I'd like to see him try and get a front row place at Menin Gate any night of the week.  I wonder did he miss the 21 October this year?  Trafalgar does not have the profile of 11 Nov but it is still remembered publicly and privately every year by many.  I expect in 2019 he will be writing that the land given in perputity across the globe be cleared and redeveloped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree,  Jonathan; the letter writer seems just the sort who would attempt to 'rationalize' the 'development' of the WF cemeterys in years to come as being 'past their sell by date'. He and those who think like him don't stand a snowball's chance in hell, of course; but these days it pays to be ever vigilant against this kind of creeping attempt to impose a politicaly correct blandness to our national values. Good point about the continued observance (though on a smaller scale - this year apart) of Trafalgar Day; similar observations of respect are made without much media attention (until a major anniversary rolls round) at places such as Culloden; Waterloo; Bosworth etc., etc.,

Ciao,
GAC

[John Hartley]

the letter writer seems just the sort who would attempt to 'rationalize' the 'development' of the WF cemeterys in years to come as being 'past their sell by date'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And perhaps we should try not to libel Mr Nicholson by making outrageous speculative remarks, eh?

Much as I would disagree with his conclusions, I see nothing in his letter which is either "bland", "lefty" or "politically correct" (whatever that might mean). Nor do I see any reason why personal attacks appear to be warranted. He is exercising a right to free speech in a free press (both freedoms for which my ancestors have fought and died)

He raises an obviously true point - that being the nature of remembrance changes with the passing of time.

I recall Forum member Mark Hone speaking to my local WFA branch. His introduction contained some remarks which I have well rembered. It was that in certain African cultures it is considered that there are three stages to life - the first is when you are alive; the second is when you have died but others still remember you and the third is further into the future when there is no direct memory of the dead person.

We are still very much in the first and second stages. A handfull of WW1 vets remain, many more from WW2. And it will be many years yet before the third stage is reached. But I am absolutely convinced that when the third stage IS reached, then WW1 & WW2 will appear, to those not yet born,  as far away as Waterloo does to us. And short of another major international catastrophe, the need or desire for specific formal national remembrance will fade and whither away.

John

[doogal]

I agree completely with John Hartley.

Couldn't have put it better.

[Terry_Reeves]

I agree with John Hartley. However much you disagree, it is point of view to which the author is entitled and he makes some valied points.  Surely this is a matter for mature discussion rather than insulting remarks!

Terry Reeves

[dycer]

John,
    I cannot refute either yours or the letter writers observations.
    I appreciate with the passage of time that the Ceremony will become less immedate and meaningful.
    I hope it does continue though.If nothing more as a warning to future generations not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
George

[shinglma]

Most likely some lefty...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be the well known left-wing tactic of writing to the Times?






Mike

[squirrel]

I agree with JH and those who think likewise.

[spike10764]

THE TIMES, Wednesday, 16 November 2005

Sir, Armistice Day was inaugurated as a commemoration of the dead of the Great War and now Remembrance Sunday also honours the dead of the Second World War. Since 1945, British war deaths have been, mercifully, relatively few and have been from professional forces rather than mass armies of volunteers or conscripts.

The war memorials will of course remain, but perhaps it is time to consider how long the ceremonies of Remembrance Sunday should continue: if not indefinitely, then sooner or later they must cease, and there will come a time when the wars of the first half of the 20th century seem as distant as the battles of Agincourt and Waterloo do today.

Unless there is a major conflict in the meantime I would suggest that in November 2018 — the centenary of the Armistice — there should be the last of the Remembrance services. It is unlikely that there will be any living Great War veterans by then, and the number of survivors of the Second World War will have declined considerably. It would seem preferable to call a halt on a significant date rather than allowing the ceremonies to decay slowly through neglect.


GEOFFREY NICHOLSON
Mottram, Cheshire

I cannot see any signs of lefty thinking, or evidence the person is a bozo. Actually he seems a little bit saddened for what he sees as the natural death of Remembrance Services. I hope he is wrong, but also hope we don't have events that rival the World Wars to mourn. I believe that Remembrance should continue for all the men and women who have died in service of their country, wherever, whatever the cause- if you like -the natural progression of the Remembrance Ceremony.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Jonh Hartlet et al,
I'm happy to accept your point that Mr Nicholson is entitled to his views, whether or not those views are universally popular. However, I think Mr Nicholson's letter was extremely ill-judged in suggesting, 87 years after the end of the Great War and 60 after the end of the Second, that we ought to be considering these in similar terms as Agincourt or Waterloo - 590 and 190 years ago respectively. For goodness sake, there are still children being born today whose grandparents lived through WWII. Assuming these children live into their eighties or nineties, then there will be people living towards the close of the 21st century whose grandparents served in WWII. In my view - to which I'm equally entitled - it is offensive to suggest that we abandon our Remembrance services now; particularly so when more young people than ever are taking an interest in the lives and travails of their forebears.

If, like myself, you see the two World Wars  as two rounds of a great European civil war, then the remembrance of the two are as inextricably linked as were the men who fought them. Round one, the Great War, was not, as was fervently hoped by contemporaries, 'the war to end all wars'; but WWII may well have been, at least as far as an unrestricted full scale war on the European continent is concerned. If, as we all pray, that continues to be the case, then Remembrance of the cataclysms of the Twentieth century will continue for an indefinate to have a resonance across the nations who were involved - and not just on a personal level for individual descendants; there will remain a case for specific formal national remembrance by the nation states. Don't you think that the 'need or desire for a specific national remembrance' has itself played a not insignificant role in the fact that we haven't had another major pan-European catastrophe? That being the case, why on earth would we allow such remembrance to 'fade and wither away'?

Mr Nicholson is of course entitled to his views. However, he chose to go public with them, and ought to expect them to be publicly and robustly rebutted by those who regard them as ill-judged and, to say the least, premature. And no, I don't know if Mr Nicholson would also subscribe to the views of those who'd do away with the memorials to the fallen of the Great War in France; but I do see his views on Remembrance as symptomatic of a more general malaise which does shape such opinions.

Ciao,
GAC

[BeppoSapone]

He raises an obviously true point - that being the nature of remembrance changes with the passing of time.

I recall Forum member Mark Hone speaking to my local WFA branch. His introduction contained some remarks which I have well rembered. It was that in certain African cultures it is considered that there are three stages to life - the first is when you are alive; the second is when you have died but others still remember you and the third is further into the future when there is no direct memory of the dead person.

We are still very much in the first and second stages. A handfull of WW1 vets remain, many more from WW2. And it will be many years yet before the third stage is reached. But I am absolutely convinced that when the third stage IS reached, then WW1 & WW2 will appear, to those not yet born,  as far away as Waterloo does to us. And short of another major international catastrophe, the need or desire for specific formal national remembrance will fade and whither away.

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We might remember WW1, but does it really touch/hurt us?

Last year two toddlers, whose father had been killed in Iraq, attended the ceremony in this town. Today I noticed that some poppies had been taped next to his name on the memorial so I assume that they attended again on Sunday. Luckily it is just two kids with no father - so far.

Armistice Sunday must have been bloody terrible in the 1920s. Imagine these two kids multiplied many many times over. The sooner all war becomes as Waterloo the better.

[doogal]

When I first read the article posted atop, it did catch me unawares - and my first instinct was that this was a silly suggestion. However, whilst I don't agree necessarily with a "cut off date" being set in the near future, the letter, without spelling it out makes the valid point that things have to change, and things will change whether we like it or not.

Though we may consider this a sad fact for us and also for those who were killed in such brutal circumstances, its invitability is not an unsavoury state of affairs.

The act of remberance is dynamic and will change - like Waterloo or Agincourt, direct memory will disappear, though the event will remain in our collective historical memory, and I don't think it will necessarily be forgotten, but the terms of remembrance will change within the culture that creates it.

What this change is and how it manifests itself may be down to us now and those in the near future, and points at a wide range of political discourses and questions most of which don't really have a place here.

regards
doogal


---nevertheless, an interesting and thought provoking topic

Edited by doogal, 16 November 2005 - 04:47 PM.

[Paul Nixon]

We might remember WW1, but does it really touch/hurt us?

Last year two toddlers, whose father had been killed in Iraq, attended the ceremony in this town. Today I noticed that some poppies had been taped next to his name on the memorial so I assume that they attended again on Sunday. Luckily it is just two kids with no father - so far.

Armistice Sunday must have been bloody terrible in the 1920s. Imagine these two kids multiplied many many times over. The sooner all war becomes as Waterloo the better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite right Beppo.  I came across this touching photo today whilst browsing the exellent www.silentcities.co.uk

5041 Private Thomas Henry Scorer of the 1/4th Northumberland Fusiliers died 2nd October 1916 leaving behind a young wife and five children.  He was one of very many.

Whilst literal "remembrance" of the events of the Great War and the people who served their King and Country will of course pass with time, we should always acknowledge their sacrifice (and the sacrifice of many men and women in conflicts since then) and pay our respects accordingly.  I miss the chink, chink of medals on old men's jackets as they walk unsteadily up church aisles but that won't prevent me from respectfully acknowledging their sacrifices during official (and unofficial) days of remembrance in future.

Paul

Attached Files

•  scorerTHpic.jpeg   29.24K   0 downloads

[NIGEL]

And perhaps we should try not to libel Mr Nicholson by making outrageous speculative remarks, eh?

Much as I would disagree with his conclusions, I see nothing in his letter which is either "bland", "lefty" or "politically correct" (whatever that might mean). Nor do I see any reason why personal attacks appear to be warranted. He is exercising a right to free speech in a free press (both freedoms for which my ancestors have fought and died)

He raises an obviously true point - that being the nature of remembrance changes with the passing of time.

I recall Forum member Mark Hone speaking to my local WFA branch. His introduction contained some remarks which I have well rembered. It was that in certain African cultures it is considered that there are three stages to life - the first is when you are alive; the second is when you have died but others still remember you and the third is further into the future when there is no direct memory of the dead person.

We are still very much in the first and second stages. A handfull of WW1 vets remain, many more from WW2. And it will be many years yet before the third stage is reached. But I am absolutely convinced that when the third stage IS reached, then WW1 & WW2 will appear, to those not yet born,  as far away as Waterloo does to us. And short of another major international catastrophe, the need or desire for specific formal national remembrance will fade and whither away.

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is where you are wrong John, you see people see those wars now as a financial honey pot so they will be kept alive for that reason, and those who died since have to be remembered so they will given their place on rememberence Sunday.

As regards the letter writer being upset or angry by other peoples veiws--he gave up that right the moment his letter entered the postbox.

[BeppoSapone]

Quite right Beppo.  I came across this touching photo today whilst browsing the exellent www.silentcities.co.uk

5041 Private Thomas Henry Scorer of the 1/4th Northumberland Fusiliers died 2nd October 1916 leaving behind a young wife and five children.  He was one of very many.

Whilst literal "remembrance" of the events of the Great War and the people who served their King and Country will of course pass with time, we should always acknowledge their sacrifice (and the sacrifice of many men and women in conflicts since then) and pay our respects accordingly.  I miss the chink, chink of medals on old men's jackets as they walk unsteadily up church aisles but that won't prevent me from respectfully acknowledging their sacrifices during official (and unofficial) days of remembrance in future.

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is a photo of the widow and children of Major Mathew Titchener, of the Military Police.

He was killed in action in Iraq aged 32. The man is the kids uncle. I think their fathers' brother.

Attached Files

•  KidsAtMemorial.jpg   43.21K   0 downloads

[shaymen]

Fascinating viewpoints on this thread. I will just add one line and its a line we are all very familiar with.
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM
Glyn

[aliecoco]

Hi,

I must say that this is an interesting discussion. I do tend to agree with JH, and his post was very well put.

But I was just thinking that could it be the Royal Family's commitment to Remembrance Sunday thats the deciding factor on how long the Remembrance Sunday lasts for? Its obviously on most of the senior royals calendar, which in turn also means that its on many dignitaries calendars. Knowing how long the royals seem to live for, JH's stages 1 & 2 of life would mean that the tradition could last for perhaps another 80 years with William. (Thats of course if the monarchy lasts for that long.) Of course he would of remembered his great grandmother, and in doing so her brother's memory.

Alie.

[John Hartley]

It seems to me to be entirely typical of the chattering classes that abound in Cheshire. I well remeber a comment of the same ilk that suugested that the impact of the IRA bombing of Marks & Spencer in Manchester was greater than the acts of 9/11 in the USA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And perhaps you'd care to provide even the slightest piece of evidence to support your recollection?

And, if your recollection refers to a comment made on this Forum, then I'll be really, really interested to see what the person actually said. Look forward to you posting the extract. Know what I mean?  

John

(Born & raised in Cheshire and proud to be a Cestrian)

[John Hartley]

Mr Nicholson is of course entitled to his views. However, he chose to go public with them, and ought to expect them to be publicly and robustly rebutted by those who regard them as ill-judged and, to say the least, premature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, no doubt, you and other Forum members who agree with you are, as we speak, drafting their letters to the Times in response, so that Mr Nicholson actually gets to see the views (I suspect he is not a member of the GWF). I look forward to reading the letters (I'll check out tomorrow's on-line version).  

John

(PS: Suggest letter writers are careful in the personal attacks on the guy. The Times is unlikely to publish a letter that might have the slightest chance of being libellous. Libel is costly for a newspaper)

[Jonathan Saunders]

Nicholson is of course entitled to his opinion but as soon as he puts them in the public domain then he has to be prepared that others will strongly disagree with his views.  

Quite frankly I find his suggestion offensive as well as incorrect.  11 Nov was about remembering the Great War and then WW2 but today it is as much about remembering Palestine, Korea, Aden, Northern Island, Falklands, The Gulf Wars and I am sure I have missed a few minor conflicts - oh and it is also about remembering the survivors - our fathers, our grandfathers - our once touchable heroes that happened to survive but have now passed away.  

Family was once about support from the extended unit when we lived in our small communities but now a sense of family is about the nuclear unit - the direct linkage and family history is the identity of many.  As long as the new focus on the family exists then the act of Remembrance will remain important - the generations that follow may not have known those that went before them but they have the stories handed down, they have the photographs, they have something tangiable that makes Nicholson's comparison with Waterloo irrelevant.  

Remembrance will of course subside in its own good time - but what evidence does Nicholson have that it will decay in the years that immediately follow 2018?  I would suggest the current trends indicate it will flourish.  

Will Australia be cancelling ANZAC Day in 2018?  The Germans and Austrians still remember, as do Canadians, French and other nationalities.  Are we to Forget if they still Remember?  Why should we have someone dictate when our Remembrance should stop?  Not to mention the big hole this would put into income of the RBL - no more poppy days.  And what is Nicholson talking about Waterloo being forgotten?  Not by me and not by many others - certainly not by SKY tv.  21st October is an important day in my calender, as is 22nd August and its not just me but many others.

Will I write to The Times, well I might do but that doesnt guarantee they will print my letter and whether I choose to or not, doesnt make my outrage about Nicholson's comments any less.