The Poppy Police : do they dishonour war dead

[Parafox]

21 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

to be fair if someone punched me in the face with those it would be a day I’d remember…

That's funny 

[Trav Le Bleu]

16 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Isn't that the point of the thread? Not to take the piss out of people wearing a poppy or the legion, but the unaffiliated groups who sell crap like the gloves above and go way OTT with. Or one I'm pretty sure is in this thread, when the One Show stuck a poppy on the Cookie Monster, which either means if they accept he's puppet they are sticking poppy on a puppet, or if they don't they are pinning it to his bare skin 

At least they didn't stick a puppy on a poppet.

[Scanchez]

Left without comment

 

[Daggers]

So ruddy bloody respectful

 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

16 minutes ago, Daggers said:

So ruddy bloody respectful

 

 

I would love them to be interviewed on East Midlands Today if they haven't been already.

 

The specific question that needs to be asked is 'why have you commemorated Remembrance Day by sticking massive poppies on sheep?' or alternatively "how on God's green earth is this a fitting tribute to the fallen?'.

 

I want to know the thought process, which is beyond my simple brain at this moment

Edited 11 November 2022 by Bellend Sebastian

[bovril]

A lot of this stuff is obviously very cringey but perhaps not more than people who trawl the internet looking for people to take the piss out of

[Fox92]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

So ruddy bloody respectful

 

 

"It was an opportunity for us here to remember all those who served and sacrificed their lives in the war and helping people to think about them as they drive past."

 

It is obviously a good gesture but I can't help but laugh because it's Poppies on sheep. Is this the best way they could have rememebred those that serves and sacrificed?

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

"It was an opportunity for us here to remember all those who served and sacrificed their lives in the war and helping people to think about them as they drive past."

 

It is obviously a good gesture but I can't help but laugh because it's Poppies on sheep. Is this the best way they could have rememebred those that serves and sacrificed?

 

People shouldn't be thinking about lives sacrificed in war while driving past - they should be concentrating on driving to avoid sacrificing lives on the road.

 

And if they were going to put poppies on animals in a field, at least they could have made it more relevant than sheep: e.g. put poppies on donkeys and lions in the field.

[gerblod]

I've always detested this kind of socially enforced compliance to something which may mean a lot to one person and absolutely nothing to another. It's problematic for anyone to mourn people you never knew, especially at a time, day and month fixed by a century old armistice few people have connection with now.

It was valid after both world wars, but less so now that peace has become the norm throughout Europe. I can feel sorrow for all those Ukrainian (and Russian) families whose men have died in a conflict with no purpose, but, without the back story sorrow seems manufactured - like an actor bringing on tears.

For me these parades  seem more militaristic in nature, rather than reflecting the pacifism that emerged after the 1st WW. People in uniform marching smacks to me of the wrong feeling. I've never understood why it's felt to be an admirable thing. I like the white poppy idea - a symbol of remembrance  for all victims of all wars.

A few years back, when Blair was regularly placing the PM's wreath at the Cenotaph, I thought that that was the height of hypocrisy. Following Bush into a war which the Yanks manufactured soured me to the man. I never believed him anything other than an egotist after that.

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, gerblod said:

I've always detested this kind of socially enforced compliance to something which may mean a lot to one person and absolutely nothing to another. It's problematic for anyone to mourn people you never knew, especially at a time, day and month fixed by a century old armistice few people have connection with now.

It was valid after both world wars, but less so now that peace has become the norm throughout Europe. I can feel sorrow for all those Ukrainian (and Russian) families whose men have died in a conflict with no purpose, but, without the back story sorrow seems manufactured - like an actor bringing on tears.

For me these parades  seem more militaristic in nature, rather than reflecting the pacifism that emerged after the 1st WW. People in uniform marching smacks to me of the wrong feeling. I've never understood why it's felt to be an admirable thing. I like the white poppy idea - a symbol of remembrance  for all victims of all wars.

A few years back, when Blair was regularly placing the PM's wreath at the Cenotaph, I thought that that was the height of hypocrisy. Following Bush into a war which the Yanks manufactured soured me to the man. I never believed him anything other than an egotist after that.

I think the point of military personnel marching is that for them they do to remember their comrades that are not here. It has been said that soldiers in combat don't fight for King or Queen, government or country but for their mates. If not your thing then fine but it means a lot to those that fought and their loved ones. Even in these days of tracing family history it can be quite something to learn an uncle etc was lost in conflicts be it military or civilian.

 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

I felt more inclined to pay attention this year after the invasion of Ukraine as it's made me appreciate the privilege we have of not living in a conflict zone.  

[gerblod]

21 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I think the point of military personnel marching is that for them they do to remember their comrades that are not here. It has been said that soldiers in combat don't fight for King or Queen, government or country but for their mates. If not your thing then fine but it means a lot to those that fought and their loved ones. Even in these days of tracing family history it can be quite something to learn an uncle etc was lost in conflicts be it military or civilian.

I had relatives in Germany who died in WW1 and WW2. My German dad and his two brothers-in-law survived WW2, but all suffered PTSD afterwards. As a kid, I was shocked to see how many German men were cripples due to losing arms and legs in combat. 

 

One can surely honour the dead in different ways than marching along in uniform. To me it will always represent militarism rather than mourning.  

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, gerblod said:

I had relatives in Germany who died in WW1 and WW2. My German dad and his two brothers-in-law survived WW2, but all suffered PTSD afterwards. As a kid, I was shocked to see how many German men were cripples due to losing arms and legs in combat. 

 

One can surely honour the dead in different ways than marching along in uniform. To me it will always represent militarism rather than mourning.  

I guess it is a matter of choice. Hopefully nobody in our part of the world is compelled to attend parades etc. Perhaps in Germany there is still a connection to the dark military past that is not the same in UK. 

[gerblod]

21 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I guess it is a matter of choice. Hopefully nobody in our part of the world is compelled to attend parades etc. Perhaps in Germany there is still a connection to the dark military past that is not the same in UK. 

It's not about compulsion to attend military parades, the difference between those orchestrated Chinese, North Korean and Russian displays of aggressive might and the religious and social parades (Remembrance & Durham Miner's Gala for example) is clearly apparent through the nature of the regimes in which they appear.

 

I guess my fear in seeing young boys and girls marching on these occasions and taking in the idea that sacrificing your life for your country is in some way noble, at the time when enlistment was obligatory and 'going over the top' was an order enforced with dire punishment for refusing, might lead them into believing that it's the accepted norm. Children are hugely impressionable and biddable and need to be protected against certain kinds of patriotism.

 

As for Germany's connection to its "dark military past", Adenauer and Brandt continued the work that the British govt of occupation and the Yanks began in 1945. Britain has also a dark military past - brutal colonialisation of many parts of Asia, Africa and Oceania over two hundred years.

Germany's  dark past lasted twelve years. It's forbidden to display any regalia or effigies of the Nazi régime. We still have memorials to slavers and such ne'r do wells. It's educative to know that c. 12m Germans died as a result of the Nazis taking power. The consequences of allowing war mongers power is a lesson well learned by Germans.

 

[ScubaBlue]

I find the whole conversation around this every year pretty frustrating.

 

The brave men and women from all of the allied countries fought for freedom and democracy. Surely the rhetoric around the wearing of poppies goes against the very values they were fighting for… freedom of choice. 

 

Wear one or don’t wear one, it’s your choice… but don’t call out those with a different opinion to you! 
 

I wear one around Remembrance Day - mainly to remember both grandparents who suffered greatly from their participation in WW2… but also for the millions like them around the world in numerous conflicts.

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, gerblod said:

It's not about compulsion to attend military parades, the difference between those orchestrated Chinese, North Korean and Russian displays of aggressive might and the religious and social parades (Remembrance & Durham Miner's Gala for example) is clearly apparent through the nature of the regimes in which they appear.

 

I guess my fear in seeing young boys and girls marching on these occasions and taking in the idea that sacrificing your life for your country is in some way noble, at the time when enlistment was obligatory and 'going over the top' was an order enforced with dire punishment for refusing, might lead them into believing that it's the accepted norm. Children are hugely impressionable and biddable and need to be protected against certain kinds of patriotism.

 

As for Germany's connection to its "dark military past", Adenauer and Brandt continued the work that the British govt of occupation and the Yanks began in 1945. Britain has also a dark military past - brutal colonialisation of many parts of Asia, Africa and Oceania over two hundred years.

Germany's  dark past lasted twelve years. It's forbidden to display any regalia or effigies of the Nazi régime. We still have memorials to slavers and such ne'r do wells. It's educative to know that c. 12m Germans died as a result of the Nazis taking power. The consequences of allowing war mongers power is a lesson well learned by Germans.

 

All of this.

 

The history of practically every country is written in blood - it's just written in more righteous fashion when that country is the winner.

 

War and the ideas that drive it, has no nobility whatsoever - at the very desperate best, it is a dreadful necessity where doing an evil act is the only option to prevent an even more evil one.

[Foxdiamond]

8 hours ago, gerblod said:

It's not about compulsion to attend military parades, the difference between those orchestrated Chinese, North Korean and Russian displays of aggressive might and the religious and social parades (Remembrance & Durham Miner's Gala for example) is clearly apparent through the nature of the regimes in which they appear.

 

I guess my fear in seeing young boys and girls marching on these occasions and taking in the idea that sacrificing your life for your country is in some way noble, at the time when enlistment was obligatory and 'going over the top' was an order enforced with dire punishment for refusing, might lead them into believing that it's the accepted norm. Children are hugely impressionable and biddable and need to be protected against certain kinds of patriotism.

 

As for Germany's connection to its "dark military past", Adenauer and Brandt continued the work that the British govt of occupation and the Yanks began in 1945. Britain has also a dark military past - brutal colonialisation of many parts of Asia, Africa and Oceania over two hundred years.

Germany's  dark past lasted twelve years. It's forbidden to display any regalia or effigies of the Nazi régime. We still have memorials to slavers and such ne'r do wells. It's educative to know that c. 12m Germans died as a result of the Nazis taking power. The consequences of allowing war mongers power is a lesson well learned by Germans.

 

I grew up learning about the first world war from watching the BBC programme The Great War (1964) plus knowing about the second world war from relatives. It soon became obvious to me as a child that war is horrible and not glory. Of course Britain has a dark past though she never had a large standing army. I think the dark German past could be traced back a bit more than the 12 years to the Prussians perhaps?  I would think people join the military for a number of reasons.  I think a rounded education so youngsters don't think somehow hate or war is the answer is important. I think veterans need to gather and be honoured by their modern counterparts is understandable but certainly don't let anyone see this in isolation from the history behind it. 

[gerblod]

22 hours ago, leicsmac said:

All of this.

 

The history of practically every country is written in blood - it's just written in more righteous fashion when that country is the winner.

 

War and the ideas that drive it, has no nobility whatsoever - at the very desperate best, it is a dreadful necessity where doing an evil act is the only option to prevent an even more evil one.

[gerblod]

14 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I think the dark German past could be traced back a bit more than the 12 years to the Prussians perhaps?

The history of the German speaking 'nations' in no way resembles the British. Prussia was one of around 500+ margravates, bishoprics, Hansastädter, kingdoms et al which existed in the late middle ages. 

Prussian intervention saved the day at Waterloo - thus ridding Europe of the worst tyrant before Hitler.

But, you're correct in citing Prussia, in the form of Otto von Bismarck, who really forced the amalgamation of these disparate entities into Germany by beginning wars against Denmark and France. That's Prussia's dark past. Ask any Bavarians what they think of Prussians and you'll get an insult laden response . Bavaria was essentially forced into the amalgamation. Although the largest and richest state, they weren't militarised to the extent that Prussia was, so I guess they were dragged into 'Germany' kicking and screaming. Also Bavaria is a Catholic state - Prussia Lutheran. Christianity in its various forms is still contentious in Germany.

When Bismarck was offloaded, Kaiser Wilhelm continued the expansion of the military, especially the Kriegsmarine (Navy), envious of British colonial possessions and intent on destroying British naval power. So I guess the 1stWW was down to his nasty character. Add another four years to the dark past.  

[Foxdiamond]

45 minutes ago, gerblod said:

The history of the German speaking 'nations' in no way resembles the British. Prussia was one of around 500+ margravates, bishoprics, Hansastädter, kingdoms et al which existed in the late middle ages. 

Prussian intervention saved the day at Waterloo - thus ridding Europe of the worst tyrant before Hitler.

But, you're correct in citing Prussia, in the form of Otto von Bismarck, who really forced the amalgamation of these disparate entities into Germany by beginning wars against Denmark and France. That's Prussia's dark past. Ask any Bavarians what they think of Prussians and you'll get an insult laden response . Bavaria was essentially forced into the amalgamation. Although the largest and richest state, they weren't militarised to the extent that Prussia was, so I guess they were dragged into 'Germany' kicking and screaming. Also Bavaria is a Catholic state - Prussia Lutheran. Christianity in its various forms is still contentious in Germany.

When Bismarck was offloaded, Kaiser Wilhelm continued the expansion of the military, especially the Kriegsmarine (Navy), envious of British colonial possessions and intent on destroying British naval power. So I guess the 1stWW was down to his nasty character. Add another four years to the dark past.  

It was the Kaiser, Bismarck and the Junkers I was thinking about. I know Blucher and his army was vital at Waterloo and to Welllington. 

[gerblod]

5 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

It was the Kaiser, Bismarck and the Junkers I was thinking about. I know Blücher and his army was vital at Waterloo and to Wellington. 

I suspect that Prussia was determined to expand its influence within hereditary German lands and to consolidate its territories in the east right from Frederick the Great's rule. But every major state in Europe was empire building - France, Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and the Ottomans. Germany and Italy came late to the carve-up because they'd only become countries in the mid and late 1800s.

I suppose German/Prussian aggressive expansionism began with Bismarck. 

Because it was never a country its lands were always vulnerable to its neighbours. The Thirty Years War was fought in Southern Germany - left its infrastructure destroyed. I surmise that it and other wars led to a collective insecurity regarding its borders, which led to its later extreme behaviour in the two World Wars. But, as far back as the Roman control, Germanic tribes were rebelling continually against Rome. Something in the beer or wine, maybe.

[ALC Fox]

The way I see it, if you create a symbol that is supposed to represent all things, there will always be people who push against it.

 

For example, James McClean said that if it represented WW1 and WW2 only, he'd have no problem wearing one. But when it represents all British military involvement, it becomes difficult for someone with his background to support that. It doesn't make him a hypocrite for living and earning his money in England. It doesn't mean he hates England either.

 

And there will be people around the world with similar feelings, including in this country who feel both incredibly proud in our country's involvement in the defeat of the Nazis but also incredibly ashamed at the subjugation of native peoples around the world, of concentration camps in southern Africa, of massacres in India.

 

You can simultaneously be proud of those who have served and those who serve now to keep us safe and protect our way of life, but also be uncomfortable about the things that have happened in Britain's name in the past.

 

It's a complex thing. If you choose to wear a poppy but are ashamed of colonialism, you're not a hypocrite. If you don't wear a poppy but are supremely grateful for the sacrifices made during the two world wars, you're still good.