Subscribe
Notify of
guest
31 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Evan P

It’s sad how people politicise the poppy (or not wearing one), even on both ends of the political spectrum. It’s used by the far left to fuel their anti-military campaign, and the far right to make out that they are just being “patriotic”. How people forget that it’s all about remembering ordinary people like you and me who made sacrifices to give loved ones at home a better future is beyond me.

Sam

I might be wrong but isnt the White Poppy otherwise known as an Opium Poppy? Just throwing a battleship sized spanner in the works 😂 The PPU sound like they would surrender to a placard protest lol

P Smith

The same opium that the English exported from Afghanistan and sold in China, Singapore and elsewhere, addicting tens of thousands to the drug. England profited from opium dens.

Grubbie

I can’t help but feel that were the glorious dead to have a vote, they would much rather we had a party and got drunk in their honour than all the sombre nonsense.
Grandstanding about white poppies by military types is just another type of virtue signalling.

Rick

The glorious dead would be appalled if the country threw a party and got drunk on Remembrance Day. Grubbie you’re being a jerk.

Grubbie

You didn’t ask them, did you?The thought police.

Derek

No, we couldn’t ask them because their voices were stilled, so we asked their families and their comrades from the trenches what we should do to remember their courage, sacrifice and the fear and horror that they suffered. This is what was decided. Please do have your drunken party – they died so that you are free to do as you wish.

Iqbal Ahmed

Rick, firstly, I don’t think there is any ‘glory’ in death in battle. I bet most of the (mostly working class) lads who died in the trenches would have preferred to live life, have families of their own and achieve their goals in life rather than lying in the dirt. Secondly, most were conscripts with no choice but to serve. Some believed in the war aims, others did not.

WW1 was a rich man’s war and a poor mans fight. It destroyed the flower of youth of an entire generation so that the Empire and it’s unfair social and class system could endure. How can anyone defend a political system where non White people were subjugated in their own home lands? Isn’t that why the far right are aroused at this time of year?

Airborne

My little russkie bot, you need to take Grubbie to task, as he is the first to use the term “Glorious dead” not Rick, who was responding to that gibberish post of his. And it didn’t take long for you to spew out the usual race garbage in your post, did it? I am not to sure if you are a ruskkie bot, barking and begging on demand for you weekly wage of a bucket of mouldy spuds and 2 litres of petrol, or a simple troll who spends far to much time surrounded with crusty tissues and his mums underwear?

Anthony D

The first world war resulted from the need to face down Prussian and Austro-Hungarian militarism. It had nothing to do with maintaing the British empire or class system. It destroyed three empires not solidified them.

It should also be a lesson to us all about the inevitable consequences of states competing and great power rivalry more broadly.

DaveyB

The First World War was also unfortunately inevitable and to state that it was to protect the class status quo or certain empires demeans all those who took part. The war was due in some part to the numerous military political pacts that were made between the various countries. The thinking at the time was that the greater the size of the combined armies the greater the deterrent. Great Britain and the “Empire” were not really interested in European politics (sounds familiar).

As soon as Princep assassinated Franz Ferdinand and his wife, it was subsequently discovered that Serbia were secretly funding the Black Hand group who carried out the political murders. The Austro-Hungarians approached Serbia to have the perpetrators investigated. Serbia refused and denied any knowledge. Serbia I suppose, felt that as they were in a pact with Russia they felt safe and could simply turn their backs on the situation. The Austro-Hungarian Empire therefore went to went to war with Serbia, which then brought in Russia, who were still smarting from their previous defeats from the Japanese and Prussia. It was believed that the Tsar was looking for a military victory to ward off political trouble in Russia. Germany were fully supportive of Austro-Hungary especially when Russia mobilised their troops on the Prussian border.

The July Crisis in 1914 gives a very good account of the numerous f**k ups made by politicians of the time allowing GB to be manoeuvred into a position where she was finally obliged to go to war, notably by the French. It was only really dragged in to the war due to Germany’s invasion of Belgium, who had invoked the Treaty of London (1839) which guaranteed their neutrality. So what started as a two country provincial war developed into a monster that engulfed most of the World.

It is very easy to criticise the decisions made at the time, especially by those who judge them against today’s standards. Those who do, their logic is floored and just plain wrong. The wearing of the white poppy is meaningless and should be judged as such, because the people who champion it have a very skewed view of history and fail to learn for lessons learnt from previous failures. The First World War is in some respects an epic mistake and a failure to communicate. Also, unlike the Second World War it was not a fight against tyranny or political bullying.

If we compare what happened this year in Salisbury and probable previous assassinations carried out and denied by Russia. By the standards of the early 20th Century we should be going to war with Russia. However, we haven’t and that is because today we use diplomatic dialogue, but also use economic sanctions that are backed by an international community. The war did lead to the first stab at a collective will of countries in the League of Nations, which ultimately failed due to the lack of military intervention. This then led to the United Nations and NATO, which has so far prevented a third World War, which uses diplomacy and economics but also has the will to intervene.

I wear my “red” poppy with pride. I lost family in the Great War both fighting in Belgium and at Sea. It is my connection with those that have allowed me the freedom to state my views on forums such as this. But ultimately it is for my utmost respect for those who took part and for those who did not come home!

Airborne

On many occasions you come out with piffle, but we read your posts and mostly feel sad for you. However this post is one of just troll like gibberish, produced by a person who seems to try their best to offend. Anyone who has actually been involved in conflict knows more than any others that it should never be a first option, but also understand appeasement never works. Nobody is grandstanding, its an opinion…..damn you do struggle with many subjects don’t you.

Grubbie

Snowflake

Airborne

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn……

Iqbal Ahmed

Airborne, I think that Grubbie brings a fresh perspective to this site. Otherwise everyone else seems to be in lockstep behind a somewhat right wing nationalistic understanding of national pride through a martial prism without question.

Airborne

Right wing? what piffle you troll Muppets talk! Defending your country from exterior aggression? Defending the peoples right to a free and democratic way of life? Defending the fact you can talk piffle? Grubbie just waffles, very much like you, and I do think one of the new carriers must have slept with his missus or something, as he seems to hate both carriers so much, its not quite normal.

Grubbie

I dislike the big carriers because they have deprived of navy of the balanced structure it needs ,because I can’t see a viable mission that couldn’t be achieved by other means and because I think that if used against any serious opposition ,it will lead to defeat and casualties.I want to be able to defend my country,not waste its reasorces on vanity projects.The sacrifices of previous generations have led us to a pinnacle of civilisation, I would do anything to preserve it.

Airborne

No what has deprived the navy of a balanced force is stupid pontificating civvy muppets called politicians who only ever look at the short term, their next 5 years, and like to waste money on vanity projects and propaganda to get dullards to vote for them. If politicians funded the military correctly then all this would be a moot point. Coupled with kicking the MODs wasteful arse it would be job done!

Iqbal Ahmed

Grubbi, this is indeed what happened in the years immediately after the Great War.

‘Victory balls’ – charity fundraising events involving fancy dress, dancing, singing and copious drinking – were held to cater for this needy feel alive after the horrors of war.

It was only later that the more somber remembrance we are familiar with evolved with time.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45641166

Derek

Try reading the article you posted, clearly you didn’t , or else you disengenuously edited out the parades, church services and 2 minutes of silence mentioned as being held during the day with the ‘victory balls’ held at night. No doubt many British Legion clubs are celebrating tonight having contributed to a dignified and respectful day.

Dignified and respectful – an anathema to the so called’progressive’ far left.

Try moving towards us at the centre if you are serious about reconciliation.

Grubbie

Its what I would want and what I think most people would want,especially those WW1 conscripts in their early 20s.We should celebrate this precious and hard won peace.

Grubbie

Not even an opinion, they vote down facts.

Iqbal Ahmed

Not a single soul who fought in the first world war now lives. Those who fought in the second world war are now dwindling, most in nursing homes or having the disability benefits cut. So where is this poppy money going if it isn’t to support the victims of the politicians wars since 1945?

It is just rank hypocrisy.

I’ll still not buy or wear a poppy until it says ‘for Peace’ or ‘never again’ on it, until the MOD picks up the tab for helping ex servicemen, out of the defence budget, and the money collected goes to the victims of war rather than those who enable politicians to perpetrate them.

Rick

I’m stupefied, Iqbal refuses to wear the red poppy. Didn’t see that one coming!

Airborne

Only because it would mean spending his benefits on something rather than JD Wetherspoons 2 for 1 lager deals.

David Stephen

So who enables politicians then Iqbal? Is that not the voters, of which you claim to be one?

Ian Willis

Those who want to buy a poppy should be free to do so and those who don’t should be free to abstain. The first world war was a war of Empires. The second world war was a war against tyranny. I think memorial should move beyond the sacrifice of soldiers to also include civilian suffering and the folly of politicians who sent other peoples sons to war. Macron was 100% correct to warn of the dangers of nationalism.

Anthony D

Ian, I agree with most of that but the end… They weren’t wars of choice for Britain, France or the Benelux countries.

Tom

Agree whole heartedly with the article and it’s conclusions. Well said.

P Smith

Those who demand people wear poppies march lockstep and goosestep with the ideology the poppy allegedly opposes. Stop trying to imitate yank fascism (e.g. pledge of allegiance, killing flag burners).

The poppy is the symbol of mass murderers – those who shot and murdered hundreds and wounded a thousand in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919, those who murdered fourteen on Bloody Sunday in 1972, those who wore uniforms and perpetrated dozens of war crimes around the world.

Nicholas

It’s so delightful to hear the British speak, it makes them sound more intelligent. When I see them arguing online it’s even more entertaining!