The poppy thread

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i have no doubts about this, i wear a poppy because i am deeply grateful for those who gave their lives for our freedom and continued independence from dictatorship during the twentieth century ... as to getting sentimental [not sure that is the word i would choose] about the Iraq and Afghan conflicts casualties, the more open expression of grief and outrage at the futility the better because it becomes more painfully apparent that such sacrifice was in vain .... that the wars are now futile and unjustifiable does not lessen the loss of life nor its import, it deepens it ... and the stronger the grief and outrage the sooner the troops will be pulled out and the harder it will be to send them in again .. for me the poppy is a symbol of gratitude and outrage, nothing less would do ...

[Pabmusic]

A thought-provoking thread. It was completely understandable that Remembrance Sunday came about after 1918, even though it is probably impossible for us now to appreciate the full impact of the Great War. British deaths were just over 2% of the population – no other conflict had come close since the Civil War (about 3.7% of the population) in the 17th Century. Even the WW2 British deaths (including civilians) amounted to less than 1% of the population.

One thing that’s not always appreciated, though, is that the British Army had never been especially popular before WW1. It was there to police the Empire and keep order at home. There had never been conscription before 1916, so the standing army was always very small compared with others, much of it being posted abroad, anyway. Even having a standing army in the first place was constitutionally unpopular – funding had to be approved by renewing the Army Vote each year (the Navy always got theirs automatically). It was WW1 that changed it all, because of so many volunteers and conscripts; it became ‘our’ army, made up of ‘our boys’. Everyone knew someone in the Army.

I, too, have noticed the tendency to romanticize the Army in recent years, even though it has reverted to something like its pre-WW1 role. By this I mean the maintenance of order at home (Northern Ireland) and abroad (Aden, Cyprus et al.) and occasional foreign adventures (Suez, Falklands, Iraq, Afganistan). I’ve also noticed the devaluation of ‘heroes’. It is surely right to remember the tragedies of the many deaths in world wars. It is equally right to share the grief (and sometimes disgust?) of the family and friends of servicemen and women who die today. But all of them heroes? There are real heroes, but they are exceptional – literally so. The tragedy comes more from the influence of extreme violence on ordinary lives, to such an extent that it can affect us nearly a century later.

That tragedy is worth remembering on November 11th and I’ve always seen the poppies in that light.

[MrGongGong]

Well, since the soldiers who were involved in Bloody Sunday walked away, Remembrance Sunday is NOT in their memory. Because they were not killed in action.

If YOU can't see that difference then there really is no hope at all. :sadface:

The clue- listen carefully- is in the word RE-MEM-BRANCE.......http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...olleyes003.gif

I once went to lunch at a rather famous Universities Astronomy department , I quickly realised that everyone else was infinitely more intelligent than myself so my strategy was to think very carefully before mouthing off about stuff I knew little about. I have found that it's a very useful thing.

There is a stick on the floor, one end is a beautifully carved and polished handle and the other is covered in Sh*t some people (mrP) seem to only be able to pick up the dirty end ..........

Try READING what people say and UNDERSTANDING a little of their meaning rather than jumping to your stupid conclusions............

and to clarify my point that you seem to have misunderstood completely ! What this event has become is in memory of ALL people in the military not just those "killed in action" ............the point being that there's a huge difference which you seem to be unable to see

this was an interesting discussion but (as usual) good old mr P wades in with his usual pile of ignorant crap

[Flosshilde]

Leaving asside Mr Pee's predictable (non) response, I would largely agree with most of the posts. A couple of things I would add - when I worked in the NHS (& also in schools) a member of the British Legion would be escorted round the premises by a member of staff to 'sell' poppies. I objected to this form of moral blackmail - it was very difficult to say no to a colleague. Also, surely the state should pay for support for military personnel injured in the course of their duties? With the exception of WWII, which I think was fought for a 'higher', more 'moral' purpose, conflicts since (& including) WWI have been fought for the state's benefit, not ours.

If I donate to a charity, I always refuse the sticker/badge/emblem - it's a private contract between me and the charity.

[Mr Pee]

I once went to lunch at a rather famous Universities Astronomy department , I quickly realised that everyone else was infinitely more intelligent than myself so my strategy was to think very carefully before mouthing off about stuff I knew little about. I have found that it's a very useful thing.

There is a stick on the floor, one end is a beautifully carved and polished handle and the other is covered in Sh*t some people (mrP) seem to only be able to pick up the dirty end ..........

Try READING what people say and UNDERSTANDING a little of their meaning rather than jumping to your stupid conclusions............

and to clarify my point that you seem to have misunderstood completely ! What this event has become is in memory of ALL people in the military not just those "killed in action" ............the point being that there's a huge difference which you seem to be unable to see

this was an interesting discussion but (as usual) good old mr P wades in with his usual pile of ignorant crap

What delightful terminology. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you need to resort to that sort of insulting language. What a shame. :sadface:

And I will continue to disagree- if you wish to load Remembrance Sunday with your own political bias, then that's entirely up to you. But how dare you condemn those- such as poor deluded old me- who wish to use it for just that REMEMBRANCE purpose for which it was originally intended.

You have decided that Remembrance Sunday is in memory of ALL people in the military. If that is the case, why do servicemen line the Cenotaph? Why do veterans march past it and salute? Are they honouring themselves? No. They- and the vast majority of the British public- are doing so in REMEMBRANCE (there's that word again :erm:) of those who have died in all wars, whatever one's view of the political issues behind that war. That is a completely seperate issue.

[BBMmk2]

I dont think there is any harm at all in wearing poppies. I have a great connection with the arnmed forces, throiugh my various family members being involved with them. There are some very good people doing sterling work for the armed fporces out there, especially for the injured too!


I agree with Mr Pee that Rememberance Sunday is for all wars, which I think is what it stands for today, anyway.

[Mary Chambers]

I would respect a form of remembrance that involved remembering ALL war dead, military and (especially) civilian, from ALL countries. And the ceremonies could do with a lot more 'outrage', and a lot less about 'noble sacrifice', which only extends the sentimentalising (is there such a word?) of war.

[Mr Pee]

I would respect a form of remembrance that involved remembering ALL war dead, military and (especially) civilian, from ALL countries. And the ceremonies could do with a lot more 'outrage', and a lot less about 'noble sacrifice', which only extends the sentimentalising (is there such a word?) of war.

Ceremonial outrage? Now there's a concept. :erm:

All countries have their own remembrance traditions. It seems only right that each nation remembers its own war dead in its own way. And if you watch the veterans and the families of the veterans who march past the Cenotaph, you'll see civilian representatives alongside them, and representatives from all Commonwealth countries.

I don't think anyone needs reminding that war is an outrage. But remembrance Sunday is an opportunity for dignified and respectful memory of the dead. Moving? Yes. But far from sentimental.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ceremonial outrage? Now there's a concept. :erm:

Performing Penderecki's "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima" at the national Remembrance service would be a start

[David Underdown]

Referring to all those serving in the armed forces as heroes was just as prevalent during WWI as it is now. That war certainly brought about something of a sea change in attitudes, and saw much greater public support for charities such as the RBL, though they weren't entirely new, the (Second) Boer War had seen similar things happening on a smaller scale - that was perhaps also the first time there had been fairly large scale volunteering, though still at a much lower level than would be seen in late 1914 and early 1915. Before the war the attitude of a mother who when her son enlisted as a private in 1877 said, "I would rather bury you than see you in a red coat" was not atypical. The army was for those who could do no better, "the very scum of the earth" in Wellington's words (whether the enlistment profile is vastly different today is an interesting question). This particular son wad rather unusual it should be said, having started as a ranker he became the first (and only) man in the British Army to rise from private to field marshal, spending much of WWI as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and ending his career as Sir William Robertson Bart, GCB GCMG GCVO DSO, with honorary degrees from Oxgord and Cambridge. Interestingly he requested there should ve no military honours at his funeral.

Over the past two or three years I've done quite a bit of research into men (primarily) named on a couple of rolls of honour, http://www.cccbr.org.uk/rolls/casualties/?warID=1 and http://www.surreybellringers.org.uk/...onour-research to make them more than just names that "Liveth for evermore". As a result I've been able to have several men added to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's register, men who should have been officially commemorated, but because their deaths took place after their discharge from the forces (but from the same cause as had originally led to the discharge), they had been overlooked during the register's compilation. I've also been able to review certain other files which have helped in establishing the eligibilty for commemoration of many more people (including civilians taken from the Channel Islands during the German Occupation in WWII who subsequently died in concentration camps).

I've also done a certain amount of family research, particularly into a great-great-uncle who died of wounds received in the Battle of the Somme, and my two grandfathers who both (slightly unusually) served in noncombatant roles in WWII, one as a chaplain, RNVR, the other as an RAF medical orderly.

These are the people I'll be remembering when I wear my poppy, and ring the half-muffled bells on Rememberance Day.

[Mary Chambers]

Performing Penderecki's "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima" at the national Remembrance service would be a start

And reading Wilfred Owen poems instead of Laurence Binyon, perhaps.

[greenilex]

What worries me is the emphasis on "glory" as an aid to recruitment.

My ex-students who had problems at school deserved better than to be bamboozled into joining "our boys".

[Ferretfancy]

My father was a professional soldier from 1900-1910, and a willing conscript in the First World War, luckily for me he survived, otherwise I would not be here. I didn't think very much about this when I was younger, but it's a poignant reminder for me now.

I think that we respect the individual dead today, as the people of Wootten Basset have done, but there remains the fact that they are professional soldiers who were never forced by law or public pressure to enlist, as their grandfathers so often were. I do not suggest that they are any less brave or committed, simply that those of older generations had less choice. This is partly what makes the enormous losses of the two World Wars so terrible to contemplate.

I recently visited the city of Volgagrad, once called Stalingrad, with its huge memorial and enormous statue of Mother Russia. Every day there is a ceremony to remember the 20 million or more dead. I find it touching that most of the Russian visitors, both to the memorial and to the museum, were the young.
We should continue with our annual ceremony, it isn't too much to expect.

[MrGongGong]

What delightful terminology. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you need to resort to that sort of insulting language. What a shame. :sadface:

And I will continue to disagree- if you wish to load Remembrance Sunday with your own political bias, then that's entirely up to you. But how dare you condemn those- such as poor deluded old me- who wish to use it for just that REMEMBRANCE purpose for which it was originally intended.

You have decided that Remembrance Sunday is in memory of ALL people in the military. If that is the case, why do servicemen line the Cenotaph? Why do veterans march past it and salute? Are they honouring themselves? No. They- and the vast majority of the British public- are doing so in REMEMBRANCE (there's that word again :erm:) of those who have died in all wars, whatever one's view of the political issues behind that war. That is a completely seperate issue.

There's no "political" bias at all
Remembrance Sunday has been turned into a memory of all people in the military who have died
there is a difference (as has been stated) between professional soldiers and conscripted teenagers in WW1 but you seem unable to see that

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i do believe there were conscripts in WW2 and Korea not to mention the national service men who had to fight to defend the imperial presence in the 1950s ..