To not want to 'celebrate' VE

[Ramblethroughthebrambles]

I've been asked to take part in VE celebrations this week. I've politely declined. It feels OK to me to join in a solemn commemoration, with a focus on how to make sure this never happens again, but not a celebration of victory which all the UK events seem to be. I'm grateful for the sacrifices so many soldiers and others made and that we didn't become part of the Nazi empire. I completely get why people originally celebrated the end of such an awful war and its hardships. But celebrating military victory 80 years on doesn't sit right with me, especially given the conflicts in the world today. It seems to normalise military intervention and sends the message that military victory is a 'good thing' when often it's a result of failures in international diplomacy/ strategy / long term thinking. I'm not a complete pacifist and recognise there are times when military intervention is a necessary evil. But that doesn't make me want to celebrate it.

I never hear anyone else expressing this view in public. There seems to be an expectation that we'll all want to get the bunting out and have a tea party. So AIBU?

@Ramblethroughthebrambles

Thank you for starting the thread.

The allied victory had very different implications in East Germany. They suffered awfully under the Stasi for many years, and lost other children in the family due to the allied bombing. It would be insensitive to ask them this question. They abhorred what the Nazis had stood for but I doubt if they are able to see the allied victory simply as a 'good thing'.

I get what you're saying that VE celebrations are not 'hurrah'. However, if we automatically say 'that's what happens in war' or 'what we had to do' it prevents us acknowledging that these were choices and examining them carefully to see if we would make the same choice again.

What a ridiculous goady question! Not sure why I'm bothering to answer as you don't really seem to want to understand a different POV but here goes, just in case you do.

I've already indicated that my understanding is that there was no obvious way out of WW2 by the time it began. You're (wilfully?) missing the point of my posts. Even if we accept it was the right decision at the time though, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to actively celebrate a victory that led to 60+ million deaths and other horrors, though we might be quietly grateful for the outcome and the sacrifices made, and accept it was probably the least worse option.

Of course diplomacy is always partly in the dark, because a lot of what is happening in other countries is not known until afterwards (or never). Human beings are not all seeing and all knowing and we inevitably prioritize what's under our noses. That's why it's so important for the benefits of hindsight to be used to re-examine decisions that have such horrific consequences, to try and learn and not repeat patterns. It doesn't mean I'm saying little ol me on MN could have done better! Jeez! I'm suggesting that we should have clear expectations that those who make diplomatic decisions learn from expert analyses of previous international relations, especially as there is now more understanding of the psychology of diplomacy.

No I'm not an expert in international relations, but surely that doesn't mean I just doff my cap at all the decisions men have previously made and assume there's nothing that can be learned with hindsight!

I think i agree with your general sentiment but think you're directing it at the wrong thing...

I have always had to be very careful about expressing the fact that I feel very uncomfortable about glorifying military. But I get far more uncomfortable when we have adverts on TV recruiting young lads to the modern day army telling them it's noble/something to be proud of and how you "make something of yourself", we revere and thank young modern day soldiers and military personnel for their "service" and "protecting us" by fighting ( that was far more true of the men who died in world war 2 than now... Nowadays intelligence agents protect far more than any soldiers/boots on the ground in my opinion).
And if we move away from modern, back to the world wars, I also agree in not glorifying it. Think, poems like "dulce etc decorum est.." which also tackle that issue. Even remembrance Sunday is a bit odd sometimes and has overtones of immense glory of the dead rather than always acknowledging how little say some of them had in whether or not they wanted to "lay their life down" and the true nature and horror of it, rather than the glorified, noble, heroic way people like to "remember" through rose-tinted lenses. (And I do think sometimes this "hero reverence" can mislead young people today into thinking that they want to be soldiers/in the military that maybe otherwise would be less inclined if you described it less sentimentally).

However, VE day in my opinion isn't really any of the above, but celebrates the end of a horrific war, preventing even further loss of life , rather than glorifying it! Would you rather the war went on another 2 or 5 years? I don't quite see how that's the one to get upset over of all the other ways we glorify military and war. My only real issue with VE day is the jingoistic and nationalist types that often get themselves hyped up, flag waving, and having to see the royals on telly. But I can't see an issue with the principle of it ..

@LittleLeggs
I agree with the middle part of your post about the sanitized and idealised lens through which we are often encouraged to view the military and armed conflict. You might be right that the examples you give are more problematic. It's difficult to weigh up because it all seems part of the same problem to me and one contributes to the other. The way you describe VE day is how I see it's original meaning - relief. But the events I'm aware of do seem to include an element of hero reverence and contribute to a narrative of noble war. I completely get that that is not necessarily the perspective of those participating and maybe I'm not getting invites to the right events. But that is what I've observed.

That always seems to be overlooked. The war wasn't over for my father or the men fighting with him.

I think there's one aspect of this that might be being overlooked, and that's that some of the stuff about cakes, and trestle tables, music and street parties and so on isn't always war-related but is part of more general nostalgia for earlier times, often things we associate with parents or grandparents.

I think often we don't only feel nostalgia for our own youth, but also for the different generations of adults that were there in our youth but have now gone, but who influenced our childhoods through things like their cooking, the games they played with us, their homes, the way they spoke...

All those things have gone, but can leave behind fond feelings towards recreations of earlier decades, as a general thing - not just because of the war, but of course mixed up with the war for the 1940s, and with the war creating far more excuses for nostalgic re-enactments.

For me it’s very simple.

Although the world is not, and never will be, perfect, is Europe in a better place now
than it would have been if the Nazis had won?

It’s a big emphatic “yes” from me!

Come off it, it didn't take 50 years to come out of rationing and rebuild.

Well if you feel you're not getting invites to the right events, that makes you even more entitled. It's not about you, it's about remembering the sacrifices that were made - whether that's through remaining solemn or having celebratory get together. As it's the latter you feel iffy about, be honest with those inviting you. They will know not to bother again.

for anyone who wants to explore the conflicting feelings of VE day. I recommend
Miller ‘buried’ frontline war experiences, archive says ahead of show www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2025/may/14/lee-miller-buried-ww2-experiences-photo-london-lgbtq-plus-ukrainian-soldiers?CMP=share_btn_url Lee miller
A recent film with Kate Winslet and a brief exhibition in London.