REMEMBRANCE Sunday approaches with the annual commemoration heightened by landmark anniversaries of the First World War. Passchendaele ended 100 years ago this week with more than a quarter of a million casualties on either side, another of the great battles waged over a small area of ground but which achieved so little in military terms.

The collective slaughter was the genesis for events that have followed ever since the guns fell silent 101 years ago, started to ensure not just that the individual sacrifice wouldn’t be forgotten but also that lessons would be learned and history wouldn’t be repeated. It was after all the war to end all wars, scarring almost every family in the land and causing huge suffering around the globe.

Sadly, in recent years spats have arisen over the wearing of the poppy which have been rising in intensity and venom. Faux outrage over their appearance on football shirts or whether they’re being sported is frankly unbecoming and demeaning of the substantive issue.

The organisers of remembrance events and those who distribute its floral symbol are non-combatants in the current hostilities. I’ve attended many such occasions and invariably purchase a poppy. Those I’ve met or know are dignified and peace-loving though respectful of both the sacrifice made then and by the military today. I found the events to be humbling and poignant.

Many at those formal gatherings have been ageing and declining in numbers, as my grandfather and father’s generation have passed away. Those remaining grow frailer, though even more eager to recall their fallen comrades and reflect upon their own personal memories. Perhaps, it also reflects both a more secular society and a change from a conscript to a professional army.

Likewise, those who promote peace and the white poppy I hold in high regard. It was a principled position then and one which was held with great dignity and equal bravery. It wasn’t an easy position to take and could entail great suffering. Those who espouse the pacifist cause to this day are equally genuine in their beliefs and respectful of those who serve or have sacrificed.

Instead conflict is waged by keyboard warriors who have little if any combat experience yet demand adulation of the military and glorification of war. At most their wrists go tired as the sun goes down. My father and grandfather didn’t think that they were special, they just did what most of their peers had to do. They didn’t consider themselves an elite or supermen, just ordinary citizens who did their duty. Moreover, when the war was over they just wanted to get home and try to ensure that there wouldn’t be another. Public commemoration and private reflection were all that was wanted at this time of year, not a veneration of conflict.

Those armchair generals are as gung-ho as those in August 1914 who created a mood that it was a picnic from which they would all return by Christmas. There was, then as now, a naivety of the horrors of war and a simplicity in the complexity of conflict. Moreover, there was a failure to question why they were marching to war.

So, whilst I’ll sport my poppy and have appreciated the sombre commemorations of the First World War, I can’t help thinking that we’re neither reflecting nor learning. Where’s the critique of why the war occurred and who benefited from it? It wasn’t for plucky little Belgium or to defeat the invading Hun. This came about through empires and for trade, and because politicians failed to pull back from the brink and allowed events simply to happen.

I’ve seen the recollection of the sacrifice by the many humble soldiers, but where’s the condemnation of the few industrialists and financiers who made grotesque profits from the war? The martial glories have been recounted, but far less so has been the execution of frightened young boys and shell-shocked men.

The sacrifice in the trenches has been rightly recalled, but what of the pitiful treatment of those who returned whether mentally or physically wounded and who along with their former comrades most certainly didn’t return to a land fit for heroes? Isolation and neglect followed and for the physically able emigration and unemployment were hardly the demobilisation they’d been led to expect would be the spoils of war.

It was about this time 100 years ago that war sentiment waned and anti-war feeling grew. The ever-increasing casualty list compounded by the threat of tightened conscription criteria saw a mood swing.

Maybe after Sunday we could see a similar take in centenary events with a reflection on what an entirely senseless slaughter it was and condemnation of the political leaders responsible for it. After all we’ve a duty to learn, as well as remember.