Keith's contribution of 01 Jan 14 - 05:40 AM is of course copy-and-pasted from a "London-based comprehensive teacher John Blake", as Google readily tells us. A man of poetic English, this being the main contrast to primitive Keith.

No question that history is a complex matter, much more so than many including Keith tend to think. The main controversial point is whether "those who served" did so "in full knowledge of what their service meant". As I commented earlier: if matters appear very complex even for us with hindsight, how on earth could they have been fully transparent to "those who served"?!

I do not want to "cheapen" or criticize soldiers who felt they were doing their duty. The idea of honouring them, however, would imply that we approve of the sort of power gambling that led to the war, by the governments of all the large countries involved (- sorry for repeating). I definitely do not approve of that, particularly not for today and tomorrow; that is the political aspect of it. I protest against any government or other power gamblers seizing real or imagined heroes of the past for their own agenda.

At Xmas 1914, everybody realized that the initial plans "home by Christmas" had failed. It was therefore imaginable that peace negotiations took place, as had in previous wars, so that it was reasonable to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. This time, however, those in power decided to raise the stakes to "the winner takes it all", presumably because their propaganda machines had been more efficient than planned - everybody now having access to newspapers.

We do not wish to fall victim to such propaganda again and again. Not by persons who support our own governments, not by anybody else.