Call for post-1945 war memorial

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PassingBells, May 16, 2006.

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Dont Know / Care


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is this what we really want?

    Surely there are more important things for parliament to be worried about, such as preventing more casualties.

    I suspect that I shall be in a minority on this site, and in no way do I wish to devalue anyone's sacrifice/loss, however I feel that if we do this, we are going to create a list that will just go on for ever.

    If we want to have a new memorial, and I'm not anti that, then lets have one for a specific event. I would like to see a Northern Ireland memorial, for those who gave their lives there, for instance.

    To my mind the Cenotaph memorialises all dead soldiers, regardless of when killed. Plus it's right outside Downing St, so TCB sees it every time he leaves his house.

    PB - preparing for incoming.
  2. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    I clicked yes, but then i will never say no to a memorial...I thought most memorials these days are to first and second world wars and since?
  3. The cenotaph and most other memorials were built for WW1 then WW2 was added after.

    In fairness since then some memorials have added words along the lines of ' for all conflicts or for those who lost their lives in the service of their country'

    Recently a memorial was opened for the Merchant Marine and there has been a specific memorial dedicated to Korea.

    I personally see no problem with a memorial to servicemen/women in general, along the lines of the Vietnam memorial in Washington, where it is done in year order. Start with Sep 45 (after surrender) then go forward year by year. This would pick up all minor conflicts and eployments and leave no-one out.

    It would also serve as a reminder to others who only remember the 'big ones' or those that generate publicity and would be a sobering thought that the only year a service person has not died on active service since 1945 was 1968 :cry:
  4. The National Memorial Arboretum, part of the National Forest, is a monument to those who died during the 20th century. I understood that the intention was to honour the dead with a living memorial - the Arboretum.

    National Memorial Arboretum

    However, one of the most moving is the memorial dedicated to those who died in Vietnam. So, yes, that is a good idea. A list of Service personnel who have given their lives for their country - by year. But I would not wish to detract from the memorials of the First and Second World Wars.

    If a National Memorial were to be erected, it would not stop the politicians committing the Services to every two-bit conflict, but it might make them think about adequately resourcing the organisation!

  5. In the town i live in about 14 years ago the town council added 5 names to the local war memorial, amazingly 2 of those names were from soldiers that had died of wounds in the first war and had some how been missed off the list of war dead the other 3 were all servicemen that had died since WW2 1 from malaya 1 from Borneo and one for Ulster so some places already commemerate the dead from post 1945 i voted yes as a seperate memorial would do justice to everyone
  6. The result of having a specific memorial for those killed in the service of the country between 1945 and today is that there will, in the fulness of time, be demands for a memorial for those who died between today and some random date in the future and then another memorial for those who died between that random date and another still further in the future - ad infinitum.

    At the rate the Government commits the Services to action/active service, a short interval will result in the country being covered with memorials whilst a long interval will diminish their impact and significance.

    An already ignorant Joe Public will be spoilt for choice resulting in them selecting the easiest and most familiar memorial - the Cenotaph.

    Whilst the Cenotaph was originally to commemorate the fallen of WW1, it seems now to be accepted as a memorial also to the fallen of WW2.

    Surely much better that its significance/meaning be expanded to include all servicemen and women who have died in the service of their country.
  7. Am sure there was a campaign for such a memorial in late 2005 in The Sun.

    Does anyone remember? I will try to dig it out
  8. I think that the sacrifice from the soldiers in both WW's was tremendous, but then what about the numerous smaller deployments/wars/etc. since? I think even if a single serviceman/woman dies in a war due to enemy action, they deserve to be remembered as the WW veterans have been.

    Just pitching an idea... Similar to the vietnam wall in Washington, i guess, but how about a single place in Britain where ALL the deaths due to enemy action are recorded, starting with conflicts SINCE WWII, as there are already many memorials to WWII and before. This would satisfy the need for remembering the dead, and also prevent the scenario of thousands of random memorials all over the country to all sorts of engagements.

    Just an idea, mind.
  9. What about deaths caused by blue on blue?
  10. I like the idea of a memorial wall type thing.

    Although not for the military, there is a synagogue in Prague that has a similar memorial. Written on all the inside walls of the synagogue are the names of all Czechs who died under the Nazi regime. A very fitting tribute and very moving when you realise just how many names there are and thats just from the Czechs.
  11. Blue on Blue would be difficult, wouldn't it? How do you really class that? This will sound terrible: Blue on Blue is accidental death. Whats everyone elses opinion on this? Should Blue on Blue be up their with the other deaths? If so, should they be marked out as blue on blue? Or not? Opinions, people.
  12. How long before we get a memorial for joe scrotts rat that died of a heart attack, on hearing the news about 911.

    Rememberance Sunday should be enough to suffice. Otherwise the whole meaning of it would just be watered down.

  13. Hmm. How were they classified during the Second World War? Haven't made up my mind on that one.

    Agree wth Skjold though on keeping the Cenotaph. It is well known and well positioned.

    The fact that it is bang outside the door of No.10 and that the whole of Whitehall has to be shut off once a year is a very healthy reminder to those in power and the general public that the Armed Forces are doing a job serving them and have died in the process.

    Otherwise I can picture the scenario in 50 years time. With all the WWI and WWII veterans dead, some bright spark claims the Cenotaph is now 'redundant' and proposes it be moved to some obscure place to make way for another pointless set of traffic lights. Despite a small group of avid protesters, the incumbent president of Britain agrees and before you know it, it's gone.

    Help, I'm turning into a cynic!