World War One memorial

Arsenalred7

Drove past the Holy Trinity church today in Stapletonhall road ( I no longer live in the area). I noticed the the war memorial cross was missing, I spoke to the vicar who informed me that the "cross of sacrifice " blew down in the storm of 1989 & had not been replaced. As next year is the hundredth anniversary, do you, the residents of stroud green think that the cross should be restored as a fitting reminder of all those who gave their lives in both world wars and that we, the future generations, will never forget. For if we do history could repeat itself.

Detritus

Good idea, brave men who shouldn't be forgotten.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Arsenalred7

Sorry it was damaged in1987 my mistake! perhaps we could encourage Holy trinity and offer our support. Their E-mail is info@holytrinitystroudgreen.org.uk

Sutent

Great idea. I will e mail

Detritus

Business shouldn't sponsor something like this, it should be people. Those men gave everything it shouldn't be reduced to a feel good factor for the local butcher.

andy

The new Earl Haig Hall should sponsor it.

vetski

This is a great idea. I recently met the man who'll be the chair of the Royal British Legion for London come Jan - I could ask him if the RBL might help? And I'll find out if the WI would be able to contribute in some way.

Arkady

@andy - quite....

yagamuffin

Not sure why a Crouch End group would be interested, do they not have their own memorial?<div>As @Detritus said, this is something we, the local community should be paying for.</div>

HelenM

The garden around the memorial was recently dedicated as a peace garden including a board describing events on Granville Road in the 1939 - 45 war.  I would prefer a symbol of peace - combining respectful remembrance with an appeal for non-violent conflict resolution - to a cross. 

Detritus

Maybe on a new memorial a symbol to non violent resolution, but on a old one it should be a cross, they died in another time with a different veiw on life and war, its not for us to put our morals on their memorial.

HelenM

'Another time' also had plenty of people who called for peace … e.g.  - http://events.history.ac.uk/event/show/10861<div>I also know of a current project to identify COs in Stroud Green at the time of war - and it is turning out that there were many. One thousand people attended a meeting at what is now St Mellitus Church to discuss a call for peace and an international peace meeting in the Hague.<br><div>I'd recommend a book called 'The Great Silence' about post-war life in Britain - pain, sorrow, mass suffering in silence and a huge need for symbols of remembrance but also a wish for peace and 'never again.'</div><div>I think we could reflect all these aspirations on one site.</div><div><div><br></div></div></div>

Ilovegreyhounds

The War Memorial Trust offer grants http://www.warmemorials.org

Detritus

I agree @helenm any new memorial should depict never again but not an old one it should be returned to the way it was when first built. The men inscribed on it would have had family and friends around when it was built and I would like to think had some say in how it looked. We should respect that. This is in remembrance of them not to make a moral statement about war.

Arsenalred7

What ever our personal views we can't change history, Our fore fathers erected a cross of sacrifice in honour and remembrance of their comrades. Who are we to change their wishes?

Detritus

Totally agree Arsenalred7

checkski

I agree with Helen on this one. In all the sickening bullshit, cant, and ballyhoo to come next year, I hope the voice of the pacifist is heard loud and clear.

Detritus

Sickening bullshit? Commemorating the dead and remembering the start of ww1 is not sickening bullshit. Regardless of your own personal views on war the men inscribed on the memorial deserve to be remembered as brave men. Not as a gimmick.

Detritus

Sorry gimmick is the wrong word, war memorials mean a lot to me, I helped get one erected up north for a Lancaster crew, the people on them slowly get forgotten and its not right. The least we can do is to maintain and respect there memorial in the way it was built. These men were not pacifists and shouldn't be treated as such.

checkski

I agree with your second sentence, Detritus - but probably not with your version of how it should be done. I guess you might want to use the word sacrifice. I wouldn't: for me, WW1 was mass murder on an international scale, of the very weak, by the very powerful.

checkski

The second sentence of your 9.49pm post, that is.

kreuzkav

I agree with Checkski, my grandfather was left without a father aged 6.  Working class canon fodder in a great war that didn't end war. 

Detritus

I'm in broad agreement ww1was the last great throwdown of colonial powers. And a vast majority of the dead were nothing but pawns to be lead to slaughter. But still bloody brave men and I really think that any memorial should be as was first intended built by people who knew and loved them not redesigned by people 90yrs later who have a completely different moral ethical and jaded view of the world. I know deep down I wouldn't have that kind of courage. Times have changed and thankfully we don't send our army's out for wholesale mass slaughter anymore. They did something non of us could even imagine. We shouldn't belittle that fact by changing their memorial.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

miss annie

Totally agree. It is a memorial to remember those who were killed in a war. We should remember the lives given up and those who died such horrific deaths so that we could sit at a computer and have the freedom to mock the sacrifices made. This conversation puts me in mind of the idiots who think that by wearing a poppy we glorify war when actually we wear it to remember the dead and remind us of the tragedy of war. Of course peace is preferable to war but trying to stamp our own mark on this memorial is wrong.

HelenM

Where is the mocking?

HelenM

Some of the most powerful advocates for peace are soldiers and former soldiers. Harry Patch, for example, from WWI and Ben Griffin former SAS and now Veterans for Peace.<div>http://peacenews.info/node/5810/was-harry-patch-worlds-oldest-pacifist</div><div>http://veteransforpeace.org.uk</div><div>Saying peace is better than war isn't a disrespectful sentiment - and trying to find ways to secure future peace would be applauded by the likes of Harry.</div>

HelenM

Sorry, I'm hogging this now! Just a small technical thing to point out - @Detritus - there are pacifist peace groups and there are peace groups that aren't pacifist. The good news is that there are a lot of peace groups! And jaded? Bruce Kent / Kate Hudson / Alastair McIntosh / Vandana Shiva / Paul Rogers - honestly, they are just pure sunshine.

Detritus

I know @helenm I grew up in a army family, both parents, 3 of my grandparents, I lived on a number of army bases and remember my dad going to war in the Falklands. So I do understand. But my point in who are you or who is anyone to change someone's memorial, ok so you have views on peace very commendable but the people who built paid for and commissioned this particular war memorial also had views but what they had that we don't is a direct link and a actual knowledge of the men inscribed it should be returned to how it was when first built. Any new memorial should have an aspect of peace and never again but not this one. We have no right to change other people's memorials to their dead

ADGS

The idea that saying 'Sorry Belgium, sorry France, I know we allied with you but we don't want to get our own hands dirty so you'll just have to deal with that unprovoked attack by Germany yourselves' would have been an acceptable course of action makes me feel slightly ill.<div>Now, if a German pacifist movement had been effective enough to stop that happening in the first place, great. But turning the other cheek is ultimately just an encouragement to bullies. </div>