[News] Cambridge University students kick out plans to honour Britain's war veterans

[clapham_gull]

They're brainwashed into being anti British so no surprise....Guess this is what education is in universities these days!!

They are like programmed robots and really ****ing annoying.

University has ALWAYS been like that. When I went at the end of Thatchers reign it was highly politicised, I remember lectures being cancelled in protest at the poll tax

Just some young people challenging the status quo and ideas.

It's only a minority though unless something affects most (like fees),

99% are just getting on with their studies, getting pissed, nicking the odd traffic cone and generally avoiding anybody with anything to do with a debating society or the Student Union.

Since they are paying now it's entirely up to them what they do for three years.

Personally, I was off my box for three years on the back of a grant and I thank the Thatcher government for that.

 

[binky]

That’s the single biggest load of sh*t I’ve ever read on here, and that’s saying something

Wait.
Are you claiming that the current generation, as epitomised by the CUSU, do have to worry about world war, food shortages, imminent nuclear attack, mass unemployment and hyper inflation?

Or that previous generations didn't have to worry about those things?

Or that such things never happened, or were never possible?

I'm not sure exactly why you think that post was "the biggest load..." you've ever read, but I'd be interested to find out

 

[Acker79]

Wait.
Are you claiming that the current generation, as epitomised by the CUSU, do have to worry about world war, food shortages, imminent nuclear attack, mass unemployment and hyper inflation?

Do you really believe the Cambridge Students union is a perfect example of the current generation? That's like saying The Holmesdale Fanatics are the perfect example of all football fans.

Cambridge students probably skew richer than average, from middle and upper class families, thus not affected by record high use of food banks, a gig economy that relies on zero hour contracts that has led to an underemployment rate double the unemployment rate. Inflation that outstrips wage rises leading to many that are in full time employment getting real world pay cuts every year, in a world with a US president who was reportedly one tweet away from starting a war with North Korea.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Sounds fair enough to be fair. Encouraging "the commemoration of those whose lives have been affected by war" is what we've all grown up with isn't it? Though I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong...?

Also, the students who are that much part of the CU are much like, for example, The Footlights, people who very much want to be involved with their organisation (and, dare I say it, have a talent for it?) and will push boundaries to make their mark. For me, it was the football team and I rate my uni achievements to this day pretty much around how well we did. The head of the union in my time wanted to get into politics and local government, but we went to bloody Wolverhampton so I doubt he made much of a mark, bless him.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You’re such a free thinker

To be fair, it must have taken a lot of free thinking to decide to live in Swindon.

 

[BadFish]

Slightly misleading headline. The headline should be something like "students attempt to change the wording of university rememberence events to be inclusive of all those who suffered due to war (which is really bad) but people overreacted and there's not much local news going on so this is good for us"

Not that I agree with the students, but it certainly wasn't "kicking out plans to honour britains war veterens"

Ah screw it: "BURN THEM!!!!!! THIS COUNTRY IS F***ED"

This, People are so desperate to be offended and outraged.

 

[BadFish]

Who gives a shit, really, what a % of some oiks in middle England think about anything?

Well given these knobheads will probably end up running the country...

 

[BadFish]

Sounds fair enough to be fair. Encouraging "the commemoration of those whose lives have been affected by war" is what we've all grown up with isn't it? Though I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong...?

Also, the students who are that much part of the CU are much like, for example, The Footlights, people who very much want to be involved with their organisation (and, dare I say it, have a talent for it?) and will push boundaries to make their mark. For me, it was the football team and I rate my uni achievements to this day pretty much around how well we did. The head of the union in my time wanted to get into politics and local government, but we went to bloody Wolverhampton so I doubt he made much of a mark, bless him.

Thats what I thought too.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

They're brainwashed into being anti British so no surprise....Guess this is what education is in universities these days!!

They are like programmed robots and really ****ing annoying.

This shows a deep understanding of our education system.......NOT.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

The intentions of the Germans in WW1 were frankly not much different to their descendants in WW2.

In 1914 the state of Germany was less than 50 years old, a country forged from the defeat of France in 1871 under Bismarck of blood and iron fame.

If you want to know why the end of the war was negotiated at Versailles, check out the history books.

Equalising the dead from all combatant countries as one mass tragedy denies the sacrifice made by hundreds of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers in fighting an enemy that had intentions that were undoubtedly bad.

It is a shame that in the space of a hundred years this understanding has been lost, no doubt in 2039 there will be similar wet quilts that would say the same about WW2.

Tw@ts.

Country without empire wants empire, country with empire wants to keep empire. Not a whole lot of difference there. Obviously the causes of WW1 is a complex issue which cannot and should not be decided on a forum, but the caricature of us as the good guys and them as the bad guys is somewhat dubious.

 

[mikeyjh]

Country without empire wants empire, country with empire wants to keep empire. Not a whole lot of difference there. Obviously the causes of WW1 is a complex issue which cannot and should not be decided on a forum, but the caricature of us as the good guys and them as the bad guys is somewhat dubious.

"Somewhat" is something of a massive understatement when talking about WW1. It's an incredibly complex subject that's history goes back to the preceding decades, even centuries. I think the majority honestly see it as us vs the Bosh.

In the context of the soldiers on the ground - which is what we're talking about here - Mostly there are no good guys and bad guys, just soldiers who I'm fairly sure would rather be somewhere else. It's a shame if we can't remember the hundreds of Argentine conscripts that died in the Falklands, they were sons, brothers, husbands, fathers as well. They just looked different to us and spoke funny right?

 

[Kneon Light]

The intentions of the Germans in WW1 were frankly not much different to their descendants in WW2.

In 1914 the state of Germany was less than 50 years old, a country forged from the defeat of France in 1871 under Bismarck of blood and iron fame.

If you want to know why the end of the war was negotiated at Versailles, check out the history books.

Equalising the dead from all combatant countries as one mass tragedy denies the sacrifice made by hundreds of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers in fighting an enemy that had intentions that were undoubtedly bad.

It is a shame that in the space of a hundred years this understanding has been lost, no doubt in 2039 there will be similar wet quilts that would say the same about WW2.

Tw@ts.

Maybe I've misunderstood but my take on this is that the original wording only only mentioned "British Soldiers" thus completely ignoring the role played by Soldiers from the rest of the Commonwealth. Personally I think it is fair enough to object this if that is the case. Disappointing that between them they didn't manage to come up with a wording that all could agree to though.

 

[cunning fergus]

Maybe I've misunderstood but my take on this is that the original wording only only mentioned "British Soldiers" thus completely ignoring the role played by Soldiers from the rest of the Commonwealth. Personally I think it is fair enough to object this if that is the case. Disappointing that between them they didn't manage to come up with a wording that all could agree to though.

If that is accurate then the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater, and if that was the “challenge” then it would be an extreme and disproportionate response to not reflect the commonwealth’s contribution.

I think however, that the position is one of equalising the “tragedy” of war across all combatants and civilians.

I disagree with this narrative for the reasons made in my previous post.

 

[cunning fergus]

Country without empire wants empire, country with empire wants to keep empire. Not a whole lot of difference there. Obviously the causes of WW1 is a complex issue which cannot and should not be decided on a forum, but the caricature of us as the good guys and them as the bad guys is somewhat dubious.

There is a massive difference but you will only know if you educate yourself.

Germany’s political position in the run up to 1914 was one where Whilhelm II and his aristocratic/militaristic circle we’re trying to hold off increasing change driven by an increasing socialist representation in their youn parliament. The Chancellor at the time Bethmann-Hollweg favoured war as a way of uniting the country behind the Kaiser (which is Caesar in English).

In the creation of Germany the Prussian Bismarck had invoked wars with Denmark, Austria Hungary and France. A short sharp war, as these had been very beneficial to Prussia, laterly to become Germany and as a political tactic it was always on the table.

Britain at the time was in splendid isolation not seeking to become embroiled in continental difficulties.

Germany thought (gambled) that Great Britain would not be involved in a war with Germany, France and Russia, and they were wrong.

If criticism could be levelled at GB is that the political leadership dithered rather than be clear about its intentions toward Germany and Belgian neutrality, had we been stronger that MAY have brought Germany back from the brink.

Chamberlain had the same opportunity in the run up to 1939 when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, but dithering and appeasement prevented that and look where it ended up.

Nonetheless Germany were the bad guys in 1914, it’s not my fault that your too ignorant to know that.

 

[BrickTamland]

The intentions of the Germans in WW1 were frankly not much different to their descendants in WW2.

In 1914 the state of Germany was less than 50 years old, a country forged from the defeat of France in 1871 under Bismarck of blood and iron fame.

If you want to know why the end of the war was negotiated at Versailles, check out the history books.

Equalising the dead from all combatant countries as one mass tragedy denies the sacrifice made by hundreds of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers in fighting an enemy that had intentions that were undoubtedly bad.

It is a shame that in the space of a hundred years this understanding has been lost, no doubt in 2039 there will be similar wet quilts that would say the same about WW2.

Tw@ts.

What a weird, odd, strange and ridiculous argument.

 

[Hampster Gull]

The great unwashed will become leaders in the future

 

[jakarta]

There is a massive difference but you will only know if you educate yourself.

Germany’s political position in the run up to 1914 was one where Whilhelm II and his aristocratic/militaristic circle we’re trying to hold off increasing change driven by an increasing socialist representation in their youn parliament. The Chancellor at the time Bethmann-Hollweg favoured war as a way of uniting the country behind the Kaiser (which is Caesar in English).

In the creation of Germany the Prussian Bismarck had invoked wars with Denmark, Austria Hungary and France. A short sharp war, as these had been very beneficial to Prussia, laterly to become Germany and as a political tactic it was always on the table.

Britain at the time was in splendid isolation not seeking to become embroiled in continental difficulties.

Germany thought (gambled) that Great Britain would not be involved in a war with Germany, France and Russia, and they were wrong.

If criticism could be levelled at GB is that the political leadership dithered rather than be clear about its intentions toward Germany and Belgian neutrality, had we been stronger that MAY have brought Germany back from the brink.

Chamberlain had the same opportunity in the run up to 1939 when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, but dithering and appeasement prevented that and look where it ended up.

Nonetheless Germany were the bad guys in 1914, it’s not my fault that your too ignorant to know that.

How dare you show some knowledge of European History up to the outbreak of the First World War.

 

[alfredmizen]

Just to clarify my own position, I have no problem with remembering those who died in war - especially in World War 2 where it really was a fight against an evil regime.

And on the 2nd point, I was meaning that Germans will not have agreed with what they were fighting for. The Sound of Music - although they were in Austria - showed the Christopher Plummer character resisting the authorities, and I also remember years ago das Boot - the German series about a U-Boot - clearly showed the U-Boot captain not being sympathetic to the Third Reich.


I would count myself as anti-war, but would not count myself as a pacifist. But there are a lot of pr@ts around.

yes there are lots.of.PRATS around.

 

[alfredmizen]

That's just not true though. It's true for WW2, but not for WW1. In linking the deaths to the importance of the war, you sort of make their point.

The question is should we honour people who fought for unjust wars? If they knowingly fought for evil, I would say no but in WW1, there is really no reason at all to consider the British as the 'good guys' and the Germans as the 'bad guys'. So I agree we should remember those who died in WW1, but to remember specifically the British troops (which obviously forgets the millions who died from other parts of the empire) reinforces the idea that those people died for Britain and reinforces the idea as many people still seem to assume that this was a justly fought war.

Yes I agree we should remember, but I wish to honour anyone who fought for freedom and anyone who sacrificed their lives in meaningless wars regardless of their nationality.

The british and commonwealth troops who died were "good guys" because they were "our" guys , a point that seems lost on utter sh*tstains like.you.

 

[alfredmizen]

That’s the single biggest load of sh*t I’ve ever read on here, and that’s saying something

im not sure but i think he was being ironic .