War Memorials

antijoke

antijoke

antijoke

Caporegime
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
39,973
Location
England
Not sure how many of you heard the story today on the news/in the papers about this story.

What are your thoughts on adding the names of servicemen and women who have died in recent conflicts to such memorials?

Should they stay as a reminder to the WW1/WWII confilcts?

Should we have new memorials built to commemorate people who lose their lives in modern conflicts?

I personally feel that they should have new memorials created for those that sadly lose their lives in modern day combat, the ones for WW1/WWII should be left for just that.

Opinions?
 
If they are war specific then no they should not be added. However if people want, then build new memorials. Just write a letter to mp/council and raise some funds.
 
The memorials commemorate specific wars and should be left alone. Let them ask for a new memorial/plaque. I presume it would cover any other ”conflict” we have been involved since WW2.
 
We should have war memorials for all conflicts. As a reminder to those back home the sacrifice that these young men have given for the service of "this" country.

We, here in Wales - I'm English - are having a NEW NATIONAL FALKLANDS WAR MEMORIAL being built by the Welsh assembly and the Welsh South Atlantic Medal Association.

I did serve with 9 Para Sqn RE attached to 3 Para during the battle for Mount Longdon, as a fresh faced 19 year old.

I've noticed that there is one in Scotland too, England ?

It will probably never happen due to offending the muslim minority in this country.
 
I think they should be added to a new memorial, keep the World War ones as they are

They definitely should have some sort of memorial though
 
We have the National Arboretum, this is the place to record all servicemen killed in Military Service in the modern era.

WWI/WWII memorials because of the nature of the wars and the distance in time from them are apolitical, it would be wrong to add names of those who have died in conflicts since because in most cases there are dubious political motivations involved in most conflicts since 1945 (I do not mean that in anyway to lessen the sacrifice made by those who have lost their lives since 1945). Making those memorials a target for anyone who bears a grudge or wants to make an exploitative protest would be unfair.
 
World War memorials are for the World Wars, as described on all the ones I have seen. Those who have fought and died in service since are worthy of remembrance, but nothing to do with those memorials.

It would be a worthy cause to raise money in order to remember them with other memorials, but not on ones already in place.
 
Last edited:
simulatorman said:
The memorials commemorate specific wars and should be left alone. Let them ask for a new memorial/plaque.
Click to expand...

This.

Having been to Menin Gate, Tyne Cott and lots of other war memorials around France and Belgium it seems a bit out of place to add new names to memorials for past wars.

By all means soldiers should never be forgotten. Perhaps a 'universal' memorial for wars of a smaller scale might be an idea? Or even local memorials for each county/town to put the names of soldiers from that community on.
 
Benny06 said:
Perhaps a 'universal' memorial for wars of a smaller scale might be an idea?
Click to expand...

You mean perhaps like the National Arboretum which already exists ;)

National Memorial Arboretum Web Site said:
The Armed Forces Memorial (AFM), dedicated in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen on 12 October 2007, is a nationally significant focus for Remembrance, providing recognition and thanks for those who have given their lives in the service of the country since the two World Wars.

The Memorial is a stunning piece of architecture designed by Liam O'Connor which draws its inspiration from the ancient landscapes of prehistoric Britain and the classical forms of ancient Rome. It consists of a large 6 metre high earth mound, reducing from 100 metres wide at the base to just 50 metres wide at the top and based on early British barrows or tumuli. The spiralling walkway up the grassy, tree-planted slopes provides accessibility to people of all ages and mobility.

At the top of the mound stands a 43 metre diameter stone structure with two curved walls and two straight walls, constructed of 200,000 bricks faced with Portland stone panels. The panels contain the names of those honoured by the Memorial. In the centre of this structure is bronze wreath, flanked by two evocative bronze sculptures.
Click to expand...

People should visit it as it's stunning. I have 2 friends and 1 family member listed on there it was a good feeling seeing them represented at last.
 
Last edited:
From a purely technical perspective have any of the conflicts since the second world war actually been wars? As in a decleration of war was issued. Both Gulf conflicts weren't, the Falklands war wasn't, Suez wasn't and I don't think Korea was either.
 
Gilly said:
The reason behind it shouldn't really matter. You do not choose who to fight and why.
Click to expand...

The soldiers don't, government does. The reasons are wrong and injust, possibly illegal and I don't want the genuine reasons for previous conflicts (our real survival, not WMD lies) to be trampled on.

I would be more than happy for memories for our brave to go up, but keep it seperate from the genuine wars of survival.
 
TheMightyTen said:
WWI/WWII memorials because of the nature of the wars and the distance in time from them are apolitical, it would be wrong to add names of those who have died in conflicts since because in most cases there are dubious political motivations involved in most conflicts since 1945
Click to expand...

Hmm. The reasons for going into WWI were INCREDIBLY dubious! Lots of daft alliances which were kicked off when a Black Hand (I think?) assassin got Archduke Franz Ferdinand... We jumped in because we had an alliance with... Belgium was it? A silly, tensioned, bloody and scarring war for daft, daft reasons.

As I see it, all who die in the protection of this country should be commemorated - whether the reasoning for a specific war was unjust or not, they followed orders and ended up dead.

I have absolutely no problem with new names being appended to old memorials.
 
Last edited:
sara said:
Hmm. The reasons for going into WWI were INCREDIBLY dubious! Lots of daft alliances which were kicked off when a Black Hand (I think?) assassin got Archduke Franz Ferdinand... We jumped in because we had an alliance with... Belgium was it? A silly, tensioned, bloody and scarring war for daft, daft reasons.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

You are talking about the treaty of London, what is increadibly dubious about that?

Here you go..

"The war was triggered by the chain of events unleashed by the assassination, the war's origins go deeper, involving national politics, cultures, economics, and a complex web of alliances and counterbalances that had developed between the various European powers since 1870"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

I suggest you do some reading.

"The war to end all wars". :(
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom