David Cameron: WW1 vets fought for freedom. Is this offensive or not?

[a completely inoffensive name]

While doing my usual evening on Reddit I found an uproar in the Europe subreddit regarding a tweet made by British Prime Minister David Cameron linked here:
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/st...33093741060096

In which he describes the WW1 vets as heroes "who gave their lives in the course of freedom." Now this apparently made a particular Belgian angry as it was in his view a pointless war that should be exposed for what it was, a needless waste of life for which no good purpose was had. The responses in the thread he made is here. From my reading of the thread it seems as if r/Europe was of two minds, the Western Europeans agreed that the war was pointless and should not be glorified while the Eastern Europeans viewed the war as the beginning of their liberation from the Russian Empire. I am curious as to what the Europeans of the org have to say on this matter. Are the WW1 vets heroes fighting for freedom or were they poor souls condemned as cannon fodder for the arrogance of European politicians? How do we reconcile our honor for the fallen without glorifying the war itself?

[Fragony]

Belgium suffered pretty badly. There isn't any consensus on who's to blame for the war, it's a pointless inevitability of the politics since 1848. Fighting for freedom, I wouldn't call it that as the vets didn't have a choice, or voluntered because they were naive

[Kadagar_AV]

IMHO, a very stupid war.

Perhaps even the very MOST stupid war ever.

It is of course not the soldiers fault, but the leaders.

So noooo.... Can't say the soldiers gave their life for "freedom".

[Husar]

A completely pointless war.

Especially considering that it forced the next World War on us as well.

[Fragony]

A completely pointless war.

Especially considering that it forced the next World War on us as well.

Pointless yes, thoughtless no, there was a hand under the skirt. People tend to believe that it started with a single incident that ignited the fuse but a lot more was going on behind the screens. I think the Greater-Serbia theory is the most convincing. Problem with that theory is that Russia wasn't prepared for war logistically, not enough rails. Than again, you can't invade Russia as it's too vast so it could have been worth the gamble to lure Europe into a war. The reason being sea-routes.

[Greyblades]

AFAIK the nations of the time weren't fighting for freedom but to uphold agreements and after a year both sides were only fighting just so they wouldn't have to say they threw away millions of men over basically nothing.

Hrm... well I suppose at a stretch the british troops were fighting for the freedom of the belgian state from the german state's aggression, and I guess the first shot of the war was fired for the freedom of serbia.

Still, even at best it was a horrendous oversimpification that indicates Cameron (and by extention the ruling party) has forgotten the lessons we learned in that bloody mess, or worse never learned it.

It's actually kind of a worrying sign when juxtaposed against the nazi resurgence in greece.

[Fragony]

Hrm... well I suppose, technically, the british troops were fighting for the freedom of the belgian state from the german state's aggression, and the first shot of the war was fired for the freedom of serbia. Still, stupid comment.

Heh, did I mention the hand under the skirt? There is evidence that the Serbian government was fully aware of the consequences of the assasination and the border control was told to let the assasin through, there is also corresponce between Russia and Serbia that suggests that the by then PM Pastich(sp) was into the deal and very much aware of what was about to happen. The Serbs would than get their greater Serbia, and Russia their acces to the searoutes. The German emperor actually tried to prevent war, there is a two week hiatus between the punitive mission of Austria-Hungary because of that.

That is an existing theory, nobody really knows.

[Kadagar_AV]

Heh, did I mention the hand under the skirt? There is evidence that the Serbian government was fully aware of the consequences of the assasination and the border control was told to let the assasin through, there is also corresponce between Russia and Serbia that suggests that the by then PM Pastich(sp) was into the deal and very much aware of what was about to happen. The Serbs would than get their greater Serbia, and Russia their acces to the searoutes. The German emperor actually tried to prevent war, there is a two week hiatus between the punitive mission of Austria-Hungary because of that.

That is an existing theory, nobody really knows.

Does this theory have as much value as the other theories you present?

[HoreTore]

Saying that the WW1 vets fought "for King and country" or something like that is accurate.

Saying that they fought "for freedom" is sheer nonsense. The German empire wasn't anti freedom. But Cameron is a conservative, and they seem to have a really limited vocabulary. That, plus their ability to portray everything coming from "their own" as good, while everything coming from "the others" as bad.

WW1 was the logical culmination of the alliance building of the late 19th century coupled with conflicting imperial interests. It really wasn't about anything else, and every involved country was just as responsible for it. WW2 was the German's fault, WW1 most certainly wasn't.

[Kadagar_AV]

The nebulous phrase "They fought for [insert]" is almost always a load of crap.

FIFY