Bomber Command Memorial will attract VAT

[rover 623gsi]

Eric Mc said:

Mattt said:

Engineer1 said:

we seem to be getting to the point that the young don't know anyone who fought in the war or whose lives where altered by the war.

I think, sadly, that this is the case - and the more the years go on, the less attention will be paid to memorials & the memories of those who were lost during the wars.

World War 2 teachings are (or were) missing off the Curriculum for KS3 History, but WW1 was included. I think this needs changing - I can still vividly remember my visit to Ypres & the Somme memorials, probably the most worthwhile trip I ever undertook at school.

The youngest (legal/18+) soldier involved in WW2 will be 83 now, so I doubt anyone born now will ever learn about the war from first hand accounts.

I've often wondered why the "educationalists" put more weight on knowledge of WW1 compared to WW2? Was it, I wonder, because they perceived the treatment of the "ordinary Tommy" as evidence of a "Class War" element of WW1 which fitted in with their 1960s socialist agenda?
Also, did no one write poems in WW2? Where are all the WW2 poets?
Or is it just that the educationalists felt that WW1 poetry also backed up their view of the class system?.

It may also have been because WWI was longer ago and that WWII was too recent to be considered worthy of historical debate.

[Eric Mc]

jeff m said:

Eric Mc said:

thatone1967 said:

Mattt said:

I asked at the time, and was told by my History teacher that they thought it would be of interest to boys and not girls. True or not, don't know.

It's not stuff that should be of interest...it's stuff we should ALL know....

What about WW1 is more interesting to girls compared to WW2 - or any other war for that matter?

Maybe because it would be difficult to discuss WWII without including Churchill. He was about as far as you can get from a Labour hero.

And he was far from being a Conservative hero as well. Don't forget Churchill was despised by many of his colleagues in the Conservative Party. I don't think it's as simple as that.

I think it is more to do with the nature of WW1 and the "myth" of the poor working class lads being ordered to their slaughter by their inept upper class masters - who kept out of the firing line.

WW2 was far more egalatarian in nature, in comparison. Indeed, much of the organisations set up by the government to admisnister that war were very "socialist" in nature.

Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 30th December 15:47

[Zaxxon]

I think that there was also a level of ‘romanticism’ surrounding WW1 that people could cherry pick for idealisms.

The last major usage of cavalry charges in war
The myth that the lower classes fought whilst the Middle and Upper classes stayed behind the lines (a higher percentage of officers from Lt to Major died compared to enlisted ranks)
The last great naval battle in the Battle of Jutland
The end of the Victorian era and mentality
The fighting Tommy and his cheerful spirit
And also that the war was mainly ‘over there’ in a different country
The dawn of the dashing fighter pilot aces

WW2 was a technology driven war, it involved the UK as part of the battleground, it physically involved everyone at home. It brought mass horror with the concentration camps and Soviet purges. It brought fear with the Atomic bomb. Not much to reminisce about when you’re still living in fear of the Cold War.

Also Rudyard Kipling died in 1936, so not many awe inspiring yet somber poetry being written.
Just real reporting and pictures from the media to bring the horrors of war into your local cinema’s.

[Mojocvh]

Eric Mc said:

jeff m said:

Eric Mc said:

thatone1967 said:

Mattt said:

I asked at the time, and was told by my History teacher that they thought it would be of interest to boys and not girls. True or not, don't know.

It's not stuff that should be of interest...it's stuff we should ALL know....

What about WW1 is more interesting to girls compared to WW2 - or any other war for that matter?

Maybe because it would be difficult to discuss WWII without including Churchill. He was about as far as you can get from a Labour hero.

And he was far from being a Conservative hero as well. Don't forget Churchill was despised by many of his colleagues in the Conservative Party. I don't think it's as simple as that.

I think it is more to do with the nature of WW1 and the "myth" of the poor working class lads being ordered to their slaughter by their inept upper class masters - who kept out of the firing line.

WW2 was far more egalatarian in nature, in comparison. Indeed, much of the organisations set up by the government to admisnister that war were very "socialist" in nature.

Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 30th December 15:47

And they don't want to teach the kids of the sacrifices made by the Americans in the fight against fascist tyranny.

http://www.madingleyamericancemetery.info/index.ht...

Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 30th December 16:25

[Engineer1]

WW1 looks much cleaner morally than WW2, the bombing of civilians the knowledge of the concentration camps (that we invented in the Boer war) etc.

[Eric Mc]

Engineer1 said:

WW1 looks much cleaner morally than WW2, the bombing of civilians the knowledge of the concentration camps (that we invented in the Boer war) etc.

The bombing of civilians began in WW1. Indeed, the Royal Air Force was founded in 1918 with that as its main aim in the sense that the argument for an independent air arm centered on the ability to bomb an enemy strategically. With the limited technology available in 1917 and 1918, that inevitably meant bombing civilians - which did indeed happen.

I think morally, WW2 is MUCH clearer than WW1.

[plg]

Eric Mc said:

Engineer1 said:

WW1 looks much cleaner morally than WW2, the bombing of civilians the knowledge of the concentration camps (that we invented in the Boer war) etc.

The bombing of civilians began in WW1. Indeed, the Royal Air Force was founded in 1918 with that as its main aim in the sense that the argument for an independent air arm centered on the ability to bomb an enemy strategically. With the limited technology available in 1917 and 1918, that inevitably meant bombing civilians - which did indeed happen.

I think morally, WW2 is MUCH clearer than WW1.

Not to mention the alleged use of planes to gas the Kurds in Mesopotamia in 1919/1920 during the Iraqi Revolt against the British....

[Randy Winkman]

Jasandjules said:

thatone1967 said:

an opportunity for the government to do the right thing... (waive the VAT) let's hope they take it...

You know, as it's CMD and not Brown, I think they will.

Didn't Brown introduce this tax relief in 2005?

[Eric Mc]

What tax relief are we talking about here?

[voyds9]

thatone1967 said:

I wonder if voyds9 actually meant to say, does the memorial need to COST £4.9 million ( not that I begrudge those heroes a penny)

Yes that is what I thought I had said. We already have the cenotaph for focussed remembrance, most towns have a monument to the war fallen.

But we are now building another monument costing £4.9m again in London.

What next separate monuments for the Naafi, SOE, cabinet office, etc.

[Jimbeaux]

Eric Mc said:

voyds9 said:

Do we really need a £4.9m memorial

The fact that you are asking this question fills me with despair.

+1 here. Edited to tone myself down.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 30th December 19:32

[Jimbeaux]

Eric Mc said:

Mattt said:

Engineer1 said:

we seem to be getting to the point that the young don't know anyone who fought in the war or whose lives where altered by the war.

I think, sadly, that this is the case - and the more the years go on, the less attention will be paid to memorials & the memories of those who were lost during the wars.

World War 2 teachings are (or were) missing off the Curriculum for KS3 History, but WW1 was included. I think this needs changing - I can still vividly remember my visit to Ypres & the Somme memorials, probably the most worthwhile trip I ever undertook at school.

The youngest (legal/18+) soldier involved in WW2 will be 83 now, so I doubt anyone born now will ever learn about the war from first hand accounts.

I've often wondered why the "educationalists" put more weight on knowledge of WW1 compared to WW2? Was it, I wonder, because they perceived the treatment of the "ordinary Tommy" as evidence of a "Class War" element of WW1 which fitted in with their 1960s socialist agenda?
Also, did no one write poems in WW2? Where are all the WW2 poets?
Or is it just that the educationalists felt that WW1 poetry also backed up their view of the class system?.

Sadly, I think you are spot on.

[Zaxxon]

Bomber Command lost the most men of any specific campaign during WW2, something like 55,000 men.
I think that if any group of people deserve their own momorial then it's them.

Also Bomber command never recieved their own medal for the campaign, whereas other campaigns did.

Many supporters of bomber command and it's members believe that they were ignored because of the post war backlash against Sir Arthur Harris

[Jimbeaux]

Mojocvh said:

And they don't want to teach the kids of the sacrifices made by the Americans in the fight against fascist tyranny.

http://www.madingleyamericancemetery.info/index.ht...

Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 30th December 16:25

Of all my stops in the U.K. I never knew that was there. Thanks Mo.

[Randy Winkman]

Eric Mc said:

What tax relief are we talking about here?

The Telegraph said: "A Government scheme which exempts memorials from VAT expires on Jan 4, and with work on the £4.9m monument now scheduled to begin in May, tax will be payable on labour costs and professional fees."

I thought that GB introduced that "scheme" in 2005.

[davepoth]

From a historical aspect WW1 was very interesting - It marked the end of "noble" war, and it was effectively ended by the Europe-wide threat of communist uprisings.

I agree WW2 should be taught, but I have a feeling nobody wanted to even address it prior to the end of the iron curtain because it hadn't really finished.

[PaulHogan]

Zaxxon said:

Bomber Command lost the most men of any specific campaign during WW2, something like 55,000 men.
I think that if any group of people deserve their own momorial then it's them.

Also Bomber command never recieved their own medal for the campaign, whereas other campaigns did.

Many supporters of bomber command and it's members believe that they were ignored because of the post war backlash against Sir Arthur Harris

I applaud the sentiment of your post but can't let the text I have boldened go unchallenged.

What about the Eastern front where 20,000,000 plus Russians and 6,000,000 Germans died?
Or the 5,400,000 victims of Japanese war crimes?
Or the additional 250,000 civilian famine deaths in occupied Germany in 1946?

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualti... to see a breakdown of sorts of the (who really knows?) 70,000,000 dead.

[Eric Mc]

PaulHogan said:

Zaxxon said:

Bomber Command lost the most men of any specific campaign during WW2, something like 55,000 men.
I think that if any group of people deserve their own momorial then it's them.

Also Bomber command never recieved their own medal for the campaign, whereas other campaigns did.

Many supporters of bomber command and it's members believe that they were ignored because of the post war backlash against Sir Arthur Harris

I applaud the sentiment of your post but can't let the text I have boldened go unchallenged.

What about the Eastern front where 20,000,000 plus Russians and 6,000,000 Germans died?
Or the 5,400,000 victims of Japanese war crimes?
Or the additional 250,000 civilian famine deaths in occupied Germany in 1946?

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualti... to see a breakdown of sorts of the (who really knows?) 70,000,000 dead.

This is Britain. It's our right and duty to honour those who have fallen whilst serving this country.

If others have died for their country, their country can erect a memorial to them (which, of course, many do).

It is a disgrace that 65 years after WW2 ended, up to now no formal recognition of the role of Bomber Command has been properly made. This monument is that recognition.
Please also don't forget that Bomber Command took part in other campaigns over and above the strategic bombing of Germany.

[ninja-lewis]

rover 623gsi said:

Eric Mc said:

Mattt said:

Engineer1 said:

we seem to be getting to the point that the young don't know anyone who fought in the war or whose lives where altered by the war.

I think, sadly, that this is the case - and the more the years go on, the less attention will be paid to memorials & the memories of those who were lost during the wars.

World War 2 teachings are (or were) missing off the Curriculum for KS3 History, but WW1 was included. I think this needs changing - I can still vividly remember my visit to Ypres & the Somme memorials, probably the most worthwhile trip I ever undertook at school.

The youngest (legal/18+) soldier involved in WW2 will be 83 now, so I doubt anyone born now will ever learn about the war from first hand accounts.

I've often wondered why the "educationalists" put more weight on knowledge of WW1 compared to WW2? Was it, I wonder, because they perceived the treatment of the "ordinary Tommy" as evidence of a "Class War" element of WW1 which fitted in with their 1960s socialist agenda?
Also, did no one write poems in WW2? Where are all the WW2 poets?
Or is it just that the educationalists felt that WW1 poetry also backed up their view of the class system?.

It may also have been because WWI was longer ago and that WWII was too recent to be considered worthy of historical debate.

When I was at primary school in the late 90s we covered topics from the Second World War - Remembrance, evacuation, the Blitz, the Battle of Britain, the Holocaust, Grandparents' memories, etc - at various points. I think we were exposed to WW2 to a greater extent - through war films, museums, relatives, etc whereas our exposure to WWI was less. But by the time we got to secondary school, WWI made a very suitable topic for English poetry (Sassoon, Owen, Kipling, Binyon et al) and in history it could be placed in a context of Versaillies, the rise of Hitler, universal suffrage, the Balkans and the Middle East (newsworthy at the time), the Great Depression, Irish independence, the bolsheviks, the Empire, and so on.

[twister]

rover 623gsi said:

It may also have been because WWI was longer ago and that WWII was too recent to be considered worthy of historical debate.

Perhaps this is true for todays syllabus, but I remember studying the Vietnam War for GCSE History back in the late 80's, so they weren't concerned about things being too recent back then...