Cameron and Miliband's Messages On Wreaths (WW1 Centenary)

[Zaune]

Appears to be genuine, but there are claims floating around Twitter that Miliband was handed his wreath with that message pre-printed on it.

In any case, that's not really the issue here.

Now, for the benefit of anyone else befuddled by David Cameron's ghastly handwriting, someone on Reddit was kind enough to translate it for me:

Your most enduring legacy is our liberty. We must never forget.

I am, frankly, at a loss for words.

[gigabytelord]

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with Cameron's message (besides the less than stellar handwriting of course) but the second one is... well... I'm not sure what was going through that persons head right at that moment, but what ever it was it certainly wasn't intelligent.

[Zaune]

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with Cameron's message...

*sigh* Tell me. How much do you actually know about the First World War?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Even if Cameron's message doesn't represent the actual war, it does represent the common idea of said war. It was 100 years ago and British history education is, frankly, terrible, so it's not surprising that truth and the idea have drifted waaay apart.

Still, at least Cameron made the effort, kudos for that.

EDIT: Also, if you interpret "our liberty" to mean "freedom from the glorified ideals of warfare" that were prevalent this time a century ago, then it makes more sense. Of course, that's probably being too generous.

That being said, Zaune, et al, what woudl you say the fallen's actual "enduring legacy" is?

[Borgholio]

IMO, it's the thought that counts. Cameron at least wanted to say something kind about those who died in the trenches, and Miliband essentially just said, "Fuck you."

[Crazedwraith]

Check the article Zaune linked. It's not Milliband. Everyone who was not Cameron had that exact kind of message in the exact same handwriting.

It's not that Milliband said 'fuck you'. It's that the organisers fucked over everyone except Cameron.

And there's nothing wrong with that message. It's a commeration of course its poetic and flowery and not that accurate.

[Borgholio]

Eep...must have skimmed past that point. Thanks for correcting the point, CW.

[Zaune]

That being said, Zaune, et al, what would you say the fallen's actual "enduring legacy" is?

An object lesson on what happens when patriotic spirit morphs into jingoistic dick-waving and nations start squaring off to each other like schoolboys in the playground.

[Eternal_Freedom]

True...so when I said the legacy was "liberty from the glories of war" it's quite reasonable. But as CrazedWraith said, it's supposed to be flowery and poetic.

Let's be fair here. If his message had been something more accurate like "Thank you for dying pointlessly for a "peace" that lasted barely twenty years" we'd be complaining that he was being insensitive wouldn't we?

[Zaune]

That's a... very charitable interpretation of what he actually meant.

[Simon_Jester]

It's a bit hard to come up with a historical message for World War One.

On the one hand, it was a (literal) bloody waste, in the highly obscene British sense of the word 'bloody.'

On the other hand... frankly, all that we are in the modern world flows in large part out of that conflict. World War One was the end of the old leftover-monarchical order of the nineteenth century, it shocked the industrialized world into modernization on a scale not previously contemplated. Almost every major event that took place afterwards had its roots in World War One on some level.

So at some point we are left in the position of apples deciding whether or not to curse the tree that we fell from, knowing full well that the tree is very, very ugly.

It is neither ignorant nor unworthy for people to want to find a more significant message in the war than that, to feel that it really was (for the Western Allies at least) a conflict of democratic states fighting to resist militarism.

[Siege]

"We will not forget your ultimate sacrifice in the face of miserable adversity." There, that took all of five seconds to come up with, should fly decently well as a piece of rhetoric, and it's not a line of complete bullshit white-washing Empire in vapid buzzwords like 'liberty' as if liberty had anything to do with the reasons WW1 was fought.

I would argue that it is ignorant to try and find a more significant message in World War 1. It should be remembered as a pointless, stupid, incredibly destructive war of petty tyrants and powermad xenophobic elites that caused nothing but untold misery to millions. Any attempt to make it into more than that just makes it appear like maybe it was the right way to go after all. That is doing a disservice to all the countless people who died miserable deaths in one of the stupidest wars humanity has ever fought.

[gigabytelord]

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with Cameron's message...

*sigh* Tell me. How much do you actually know about the First World War?

A lot actually. Save the "stupid americans" euro sarcasm for someone else.

Without the incredibly important intervention of Great Britain in the first World War, Germany and Austria would have won the war. At best they would have secured total economic and military dominance over all of central and western Europe. At worst they would have just conquered what they wanted and left the rest to shrivel and die under various puppet governments.

Or perhaps not and I'm just a hopeless romantic who refuses to believe 30 million people died for absolutely no reason. Call me an idealist but I'll take an allied victory over a central powers victory any day.

We can debate the finer differences between the old fashioned German Empire under Kaiser Shriveled Hand and Adolph Hitler's Third Reich later.

Seeing as a victory by either would have had extreme and long term effects on things like liberty. No, I don't see what's wrong with what he wrote.

Please feel free to enlighten me without the sarcasm this time preferably.

[Zaune]

Alright, alright, I'm sorry I came off that harshly.

But I would like to see some proof for your assertion that preventing a Central Powers victory was worth killing sixteen million people and wounding another twenty million.

[Thanas]

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with Cameron's message...

*sigh* Tell me. How much do you actually know about the First World War?

A lot actually. Save the "stupid americans" euro sarcasm for someone else.

Apparently not, because then you would not make such stupid statements.

Without the incredibly important intervention of Great Britain in the first World War, Germany and Austria would have won the war. At best they would have secured total economic and military dominance over all of central and western Europe. At worst they would have just conquered what they wanted and left the rest to shrivel and die under various puppet governments.

Your scenarios lack any kind of imagination or realism. As if anybody planned to let Europe shrivel and die (especially not the nation which depended on the European market).

Or perhaps not and I'm just a hopeless romantic who refuses to believe 30 million people died for absolutely no reason. Call me an idealist but I'll take an allied victory over a central powers victory any day.

Why? What makes their systems of government actually superior to those of the central powers, considering they included not just one but several autarkies?

We can debate the finer differences between the old fashioned German Empire under Kaiser Shriveled Hand and Adolph Hitler's Third Reich later.

There are no fine differences. There are massive differences, especially considering the treatment of jews and minorities. BTW, quickly name the nation which had the largest share of jews in important government post (ministerial level and above). Spoiler

Starts with German and ends with Empire

Seeing as a victory by either would have had extreme and long term effects on things like liberty. No, I don't see what's wrong with what he wrote.

Can you please show how victory would have had extreme and long term effects on the liberty of the citizens of the allied nations?

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's a... very charitable interpretation of what he actually meant.

Yes it is. But it's an interpretation we could use if we were being generous, like I said. It's also a useful example of how flowery rhetoric can be interpreted to mean just about anything.

[K. A. Pital]

Wow. 'I refuse to believe 30 million people died for nothing' is an argument now? People did die for pretty much nothing, unless you consider the Victorian concept of imperialism something worthwhile. The concept died anyway shortly thereafter, reasons can be debated but still, the war did not even manage to save any of the main Empires that participated in it; most of them perished either immediately or some 30 years after.

[gigabytelord]

Apparently not, because then you would not make such stupid statements.

Nothing about that made me look stupid. Pissed off that my intelligence was questioned for asking a question certainly, but not stupid. I should have been much clearer in making it a question however.

Your scenarios lack any kind of imagination or realism. As if anybody planned to let Europe shrivel and die (especially not the nation which depended on the European market).

You addressed the third statement but not the second (the least likely and far worst of the two). It doesn't take an imagination to read history books and no one ever said Kaiser Wilhelm II's long term plans for Europe after victory would have been realistic.

Why? What makes their systems of government actually superior to those of the central powers, considering they included not just one but several autarkies?

What do autarkies have to do with this? Show me even one major nation that was able to make it's self a true autarky. Answer: You won't be able to. Great Britain? Nope extensive trade with the US and China. She discovered long ago (unhappily might I add) that ignoring trade opportunities with other world powers was impossible. France? Wrong again, same thing. Germany? I'm pretty sure the British blockade, that cut off her ability to trade internationally is what eventually killed her. Austria-Hungary? Never even bothered with the concept. Neither did Italy, the Ottoman Empire or Russia.

And the differences between the allied and Central governments? One phrase comes to mind. Long term ideology. The British Empire was already starting to crack under it's own weight in 1914. It's desperate peoples were slowly moving further and further toward self rule and eventually democracy. And in fact WWI only sped up this process considerably. It being the starting point and WW II being the nail in the coffin. If the central powers had won? What do think they'd do Thanas? Just sit back and gloat at their victory? We know what Germany's plans for Africa were had they won. And we know they wanted control of shipping ports along the French coast. We know they wanted to punish France for past "aggressions" by annexing even more of the country. We know they never intended to give up Belgium and fully intended to annex Luxembourg. Put the pieces together man. They were trying to build a new world wide Empire by slicing off parts of their neighbors, and they had no intention of ever adopting true democracy. The German government of pre-1919 was an absolute monarchy where the emperor paid no attention to the will of the people. Austria-Hungary was even worse. The slow move to a more libertarian style of governing would have been severely delayed or outright stopped especially in Europe. And sorry for bursting your bubble but the Jews aren't the only people who've had a miserable existence at the hands of authoritarian governments. What about the occupation of Serbia by Austria-Hungary? Or the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire?

Now let's look at this from an American point of view. Would these changes have affected the States all that much? Without the involvement of Great Britain there would have been no blockade of Germany, no adoption of unrestricted warfare on trade shipping by Germany and no flare up of hostilities between the States and Germany. I would have to say no, but forgive me for caring about what happens outside the borders of my own country.

There are no fine differences. There are massive differences, especially considering the treatment of jews and minorities. BTW, quickly name the nation which had the largest share of jews in important government post (ministerial level and above). Spoiler

Starts with German and ends with Empire

Can you please show how victory would have had extreme and long term effects on the liberty of the citizens of the allied nations?

See above.

So no I don't believe those men gave their lives for nothing. One could say I almost refuse to believe it, however, I may be stubborn but I am not stupid. I'll accept I'm wrong about all this, I'll accept that it was all a waste if the logic bares out and mine proves wrong. But don't question my intelligence. And I still do not see what's wrong with what he wrote.

[K. A. Pital]

It doesn't take an imagination to read history books and no one ever said Kaiser Wilhelm II's long term plans for Europe after victory would have been realistic.

I wouldn't say any of the Empires could continue existing for long, regardless of who won the war.

If the central powers had won?

They would die a painful death. Just the same as the other Empires. The new Empires (Japanese, for example) did not last very long. They all perished.

[gigabytelord]

I wouldn't say any of the Empires could continue existing for long, regardless of who won the war.
They would die a painful death. Just the same as the other Empires. The new Empires (Japanese, for example) did not last very long. They all perished.

I would hope you'd be right on both accounts. However I'd like to point out that Japan only fell because the worlds two largest superpowers turned their full attention on them. Korea and Manchuria were stable (mostly) they were winning in china; slowly, painfully and brutally so, but they were winning and with Great Britain tide up in Europe at that point there wasn't much they could do about it.

eh... I've got to work tonight and now I'm depressed, I'll be back to this tomorrow.

[K. A. Pital]

I would hope you'd be right on both accounts.

Pretty much.

However I'd like to point out that Japan only fell because the worlds two largest superpowers turned their full attention on them.

Very much the opposite: even weak support from the USSR and/or the US was enough to turn China into an endless quagmire, an industrial war that lasted decades. Japan was on the collision course with all the colonial Empires in the Pacific, and mutual destruction of these Empires was a matter of time. The US also had colonial holdings in the Pacific, so - inevitable. Reasserting control over someone else's territory is different from holding it for hundreds of years. The Indians rebelled even against the British and were more than ready to rebel against the Japanese if their rule turned to a long-lasting yoke. I have no doubt that after the bloodbath of a global war and the spread of mass conscription and industrial weaponry, the anticolonial struggle would succeed.

[Elheru Aran]

China was too big to really conquer for the Japanese. Even without the Soviets, there were still the Communists, Nationalists, and various warlord bands to deal with, plus the odd foreign interest they stumbled over on occasion (IIRC they sunk an American gunboat at one point and caused quite the flap). Given time, they would've over-extended themselves far too much in China even without pissing off the Western powers by invading their colonial domains.

Without WWII, the colonial powers still would have fallen; it just would've taken longer and probably been a bit more messy. With it, the powers realized that they realistically could not hold on to their overseas domains, and (mostly) started engineering fairly graceful and somewhat hasty withdrawals. WWI just started the whole process going.

[Patroklos]

Its pretty amazing to me that after all these years the wartime propaganda against the Central Powers and the caricature of life there and its people is still alive and strong. Seriously, Germany was pretty darn advanced in most ways and was in no way some sort of Czarist Russia equivalent as some here seem to making out to be. In quite a few ways I would rather have lived there than in any other European power at the time, at least the Western parts anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

Not to mention Germany's industrialization was internally-sourced, did not depend on vast colonial possessions and could have, in theory, contributed to a more long-lasting European peace.

[Grumman]

Wasn't there another thread about Cameron totally missing the point of World War One? Taken in isolation I wouldn't blame him for this platitude, but this is from a head of state who, IIRC, glossed over his predecessor's use of honour - "the glorified ideals of warfare" as Eternal_Freedom put it - as a carrot to lure young men into the grinder.