Do some historical research on 11/11. This wasn't originally a "top-down" project by the state to remind us of sacrifice, it was originally a grassroots movement by local communities - those same local communities that subscribed to memorials in their local churchyards or market squares - to honour those they'd lost. It would never have been "brushed under the carpet", because local communities remember. They remember because the honoured dead were their relatives.
Indeed, it
would have been brushed under the carpet had it been down to officialdom. The population were extremely angry after the First World War, both at the scale of loss of life, and at the ineptitude that led to it. With the Russian Revolution well underway, and serious upheaval throughout Europe, our lords and masters would have liked nothing more than to brush the whole business under the carpet, ignore and forget about the appalling sacrifices made, and get on with grinding the faces of the poor into the dust.
It's a miracle that popular feeling surfaced as a desire to remember the fallen, rather than in insurrection, but yes, the State can stake no great claim to the remembrance movement, and the fact that they continue to grandstand in front of it demonstrates to me that they're no more in tune with the will of the people now than they were a century ago.
To answer weltweit's remarks, wars provide, by their nature, opportunities for people to perform extraordinary acts of courage, and it is gratifying that we can still remember some of those people and their acts 100 years afterwards. But that's no thanks to
exactly the same kind of people then who are lording it over us now, and it's bad enough that they attempt to ride the bandwagon, without us having to be grateful to them. Remembrance should, in my view, come with a broad seam of anger, at the donkeys who start wars and lead men into battle, and at the bastards who are only interested in the sacrifice of others when it serves their own ends.
Slogans like "total war" are irrelevant - if you're the one the shells are falling on, that's total enough war for most people. Conscription, too, is largely irrelevant - the military-industrial complex's product line is such that we don't have the same need for conscripted armies of cannon-fodder - but that's not something to be "grateful" for, as if we should somehow be relieved that, by an accident of technology, most of us shouldn't expect to have to fight and possibly die to make some kind of geopolitical point. It doesn't mean that the likes of Cameron et al would not shove us into the front line with an out of date rifle and leaky boots just as soon as it suited them to.