The Poppy

[rossie mad]

More like two cousins knocking lumps out of each other, then when one cousin is getting his ass kicked he calls in his best friend and they end up killing the other cousin.

I have read some crap on this thread, but for its utter crassness, that (mis)characterisation of WWI takes it to a whole new level.

By "two cousins" and a "best friend", I assume you mean the British and Germans, plus the USA, as though they were the only combatants involved. Have you never wondered why the conflict was called "The Great War" or "World War One", rather than eg "The Anglo-German War" or somesuch?

In fact, the Great War involved the collision of most of the world's great empires of the time, most notably the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German, French, Ottoman and British, plus other major countries like Italy and China, as well as a host of smaller states. Consequently, the war was fought over the whole of Europe and beyond, with the Western Front (Flanders etc) only being a part - and not always the bloodiest part at that. For example, I saw reference recently to the Soca Valley Battles/Isonzo Front between Italy and Austria. I thought I was reasonably clued up about WWI, but must confess I was only barely aware of those names. Yet it turns out that during a sequence of 12 offensives between 1915 and 1917 in what is now modern-day Slovenia, over a third of a million troops died.

Similarly, there were huge losses suffered on countless other battlefields, of which those who take only an Anglo-centric view are not even aware. Therefore to talk about WWI being some sort of family spat between some Brits and Germans, eventually settled by the intervention of the Yanks etc, is about as accurate as the Hollywood depiction of WWII as essentially amounting to "John Wayne beating up a bunch of suicidal Nips in the Pacific (Oh, and a lot of Jews died somewhere, too)" 

In fact, at the start of the 20th Century, the British were (typically) uninterested in events on Continental Europe, somewhere where they had no significant possessions and where they hadn't fought any major battles since helping topple Napoleon a century earlier.

Consequently, their involvement in WWI followed a complex series of events, following a crack in the Hapsburg Empire emerging at Sarajevo, which then drew in the Russians, Germans and Turks, before spilling over into France and the Low Countries. As such, Britain felt itself compelled to join in to defend two strategic interests: namely the threat to its overseas Empire posed by the newly expansionist German Empire (especially via its greatly enlarged Navy), plus Britain's formal alliance with France, whose borders were threatened by the Germans.

There is nothing great about any war and the only reason it is sometimes described as the Great War as you call it is that the history writers and policy makers as well as the propaganda machines in britain tend to call it that to somehow justify the senseless killing it and its allies endorsed to eventually come out victourious.
Remember history is written by the winners.

Also it is widely accepted that World War one was fought with the two major players being Britain and Germany with the US coming to Britains aid when it looked on the verge of being overrun in Europe.
Your attempt to include every nation to justify a World War and that britain and germany were somehow dragged into the war is laughable.
Most of these nations jumped on the bandwagon because of historical or economic ties to either side.

The assaination in Sarojevo was only the catalyst for such a conflict.
Tensions had been mounting long before that what happened in Sarojevo only lit the fire.

The only reason Britain had less interest on Continental Europe at that time than it had 150 years previous was because Europe wasnt liable to bow as easy to the king and empire than the natives in India,Palestine and Africa.

The first world war will be seen in history books long after we depart as a senseless unnecessary war fought by two administrations who had little or no respect for their nations.

The conduct of the War by the Governments and Generals etc was undoubtedly often callous in the extreme, but that should not colour the debate as to why the War was fought, still less any analysis the differing motives of the many and various participants for getting involved.

Standing up in the name of small nations my arse.

Nor should it distort or betray the motives of individual soldiers and sailors etc who joined up. In the case of the UK (including Ireland), it is undeniable that the fate of "poor little Belgium" was key for many volunteers, as stories of German atrocities, both genuine and propagandised, began to gain widespread currency.

As for those hundreds of thousands of Irishmen and women who were involved, their motives were many and varied. some simply joined up to "serve King and Country", others (Ulster Volunteers/Carson and Irish Volunteers/Redmond) to further their respective cause in the Home Rule question. Still more saw it as noble to stick up for little nations who were being invaded by ("uncivilised") Empires, or even out of religious conviction i.e. "Catholic countries" like France and Belgium being threatened by those "vicious Huns" etc. Still more joined up because they needed the money, or because their Pals were enlisting, or even out of a sense of adventure (though these latter were soon to be grievously disabused when they learned what their "adventure" really involved).

Now you really are losing it.The defence of the small countries jargon again used by the policy makers on the british side to justify to go to war and to continue the barbarity on both sides on the Western Front.
Most men who joined did so out of adventure at the start and it was generally excepted and publicised in britain at the time that the boys would be returning home in a year victorous.

When this didnt materialise it was out of a sense of duty and defence and the propganda at the time stating that the germans would take over the empire if the british people didnt join up.

Also the small matter of conscription we must not forget.

On the Irish side the vast majority joined as you correctly stated for the false promise of Home Rule.Not out of some religous crusade you moron.


In any case, however, it is not for us, nearly 100 years later to sneer at them or detract from their motives or heroism.

I agree.Heroism that however was fuelled by the propaganda of two administrations who didnt respect or relate to their people and who couldnt have even dreamed of the barbarity that took place in both there names.

Which, in fact, is what Remembrance Day and the Poppy etc should be all about.
For whatever the rights or wrongs of the various conflicts which we have all witnessed over the last century, to wear a Poppy or remain silent for two minutes once a year is NOT designed to endorse these conflicts or show any measure of support for them. Rather it is simply to remember all those people who fought and died, in the sincere hope that those of us who have come later will never be required to repeat their sacrifice.

I have no problem with remembrance day and minutes silence and i never stated i did.
My problem is the kind of justification and celebration for up on three weeks of a war that should never have happened and also the justification of current absolutely senseless conflicts

Which is why, for example, a German footballer (Ballack) playing for an English club (Chelsea) can wear a Poppy on his shirt at the weekend, just as his Chancellor (Merkel) can today lay a wreath at the Cenotaph of a former enemy (France):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091111/ts_afp/francegermanywwihistory

What would have been easier for Ballack to do? (remember he is in the public spotlight)
Refuse to wear the poppy and incur the wrath of the Sun,Sky News,The BBC as well as the british public booing him untill the end of his career or simply shutting and putting up with it so he could have an easier life without the sleaze bag brit tabloids slating him for all eternity.

Indeed, as half the World pauses today to remember those who died, it sometimes seems that it is only in Ireland (and the environs of Parkhead?) where bitter, ignorant and prejudiced individuals fail utterly to recognise or admit the significance of the day. Then again, following the events of 8th November 1987 closer to home, some of us, sadly, already knew that...

Half the World you say riight i cant imagine the whole population of China,USA or the population of the continent of Africa running round wearing poppies today but you keep telling yourself that.
You have to remember the virtually now defunct british Empire isnt the centre of the universe anymore.

As already stated it was Falkirk stadium and from listening to it i would say that maybe 5-10% of the travelling fans were involved in this behaviour so dont tar us all you plike.

Why did you have to bring enniskillen into it?
More justification maybe for some false sense of righteous.
Are all irish people bitter ignorant and prejudiced (by the way these words are rich coming from you) or is it just the irish people in northern ireland who were on the receiving end of the brutality of the british army which the poppy represents in their eyes?

P.S. I would have let your post pass, as a product of simple ignorance, until I read your later assertion that:
"I would have been a big fan of history in school and would have read my fair share of history books in relation to the era from 1800 up to the start of the cold war"
Therefore, if you really have read up your history of those events, but still come to your puerile, indeed offensive, conclusions, I can only deduce you to be motivated by a combination of bitterness, prejudice and stupidity.
Perhaps the next time you open a book, you might be advised to open your mind first...

Bitter prejudice and stupidity (again rich coming from you although i wouldnt be the sharpest tool in the box at times).
My motivation for my earlier rant was the unnecessary justification of a stupid war that should not have happened if the then political leaders werent so afraid of negotitition.

Presently im reading the Troubles by Tim Pat Coogan just after finishing the part covering Bloody Sunday in Derry.
Heroism indeed.

[Evil Genius]

And what is wrong with a minutes applause? Stinks of Poppy fasicism to me.

In itself, there may be nothing inappropriate about applause rather than silence, but that was not my point (as I suspect you know).
Rather, I was pointing out that alone amongst the SPL clubs, Celtic declined to stage a silence at Parkhead in 2008, because they feared that silence would be more easily abused by a verminous minority from amongst their otherwise decent support.
And events at Falkirk at the weekend proved their fears to be correct.

Your obviously passionate about the slaughter that was WW1, but your flowering up the "great" war with examples of this and that (seriously EG I don't have the time you seem to, to start going through your examples), I could also give examples of whole communities destroyed by WW1,

Actually, I am not particularly passionate about WWI per se (or the "Great War" as it is popularly known, "great" denoting extent rather than approval, btw).
Nonetheless, I know enough about it to be aware that inter alia it "destroyed whole communities"; indeed, I might even have referred to that were it relevant to the debate, and not merely a transparent attempt by you to deflect from the real topic.
In any case, I am passionate about History generally, so I hate to see it abused by ignoramuses serving their own, narrow agenda.
On which point, I will take your failure to reply to my detailed rebuttal of your attempt to denigrate my original post as evidence that you are embarrassed at being shown to be talking through your (ahem) hoop.

also ask yourself the question, why was conscription brought in in Britian, Canada, Australia etc... would it have been that they had run out of people feeling sorry for Belgium or Pals going off together.

My original point was that on Remembrance Day etc, we commemorate those who have died down the years, rather than the morality (or otherwise) of the conflicts in which they fought. This is because (imo) it is quite possible to volunteer for entirely noble reasons, to serve in a conflict which itself may be entirely ignoble.

The question of Conscription is something else; if you wish to discuss it, why don't you open a separate thread? Or would that not serve to deflect from the fact that you have been exposed as talking ignorant bilge about British and Irish volunteers in WWI? 

This great sacrifice that people keep harping on about re: Irish volunteers in WW1 is revisionism at its worst, the majority of these men went to the "front" for the reason that if they did Home Rule maybe granted or "Rome Rule" denied - infact rather then selfless acts these men made the ultimate sacrifice for all the wrong reasons.

I have sought to demonstrate, with evidence, that millions of people (including Irishmen) voluntarily enlisted for WWI without the need for conscription, for a wide variety of reasons. You failed miserably in your attempt to rebut this.

Instead, your insistence on concentrating on only one of those reasons (Home Rule), and your characterisation of it as "wrong", only demonstrates a narrow, bitter and prejudiced agenda on your part.

Poor souls lied to by better educated men.

Did anyone ever claim they weren't? I am as familiar with the phrase "Lions led by Donkeys" as anyone else (you might need to Google it, though).
However, that it only makes it more  important that we remember those Lions, rather than less (imo).
In any case, it makes it shameful when people actively seek to abuse their memory, whether that be by something relatively trivial, such as jeering a minute's silence, or something much more serious, such as detonating a bomb at a War Memorial on Remembrance Sunday. 

Reminds me of the average US jarhead, being told that they are going to Iraq or Afganstan to protect "freedom".

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Your repeated attempts to draw the thread off topic, in order to deflect from your own embarrassment and ignorance, are both familiar and tedious: why don't you quit while you're behind...

[Evil Genius]

More like two cousins knocking lumps out of each other, then when one cousin is getting his ass kicked he calls in his best friend and they end up killing the other cousin.

I have read some crap on this thread, but for its utter crassness, that (mis)characterisation of WWI takes it to...






... not have happened if the then political leaders werent so afraid of negotitition.

RM,
If you tidy your post up (quote/unquote function etc), I may reply if/when I get the opportunity.

In the meantime, it's too much hassle.
EG

[Rossfan]

Now ye Brits have had ye're bit of glorying in war ,violence , murder ,bloody sunday,Black and Tans,death of Aiden McAnespie,Lee Clegg etc etc can we declare this subject closed for another year.

[armaghniac]

Let's all pause for one minute to reflect on the achievements of the Brutish Empire

[Evil Genius]

Now ye Brits have had ye're bit of glorying in war ,violence , murder ,bloody sunday,Black and Tans,death of Aiden McAnespie,Lee Clegg etc etc can we declare this subject closed for another year.

Well, if no-one has anything better to add to the debate than your particular brand of shi t-stirring, maybe we better had...

[Evil Genius]

Let's all pause for one minute to reflect on the achievements of the Brutish Empire

You appear to be confused - today is Armistice Day, when we remember those who fell in war.

Perhaps you mean Commonwealth Day (formerly "Empire Day"), which falls on May 24th?

If you need to know more, I daresay these people can help you:

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

Well, poppy day is over again for another year.

Now we've got the annual nauseating experience that is 'Children in Need' with Uncle Hugo, Wendy Austin and Fat Nolan to relish. Then there's Christmas, New Year's Eve, Valentine's day...ffs, why is life full of such repetitive mediocrity!!

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

EG I responded to the points which I had mentioned earlier your attempt to portray the men who went to war as doing so for the "nobelist" of reasons, you obviously view things differently to me, this does not make my views any less relevant, your numerous insults to me regarding my knowledge or views or supposed bias do you no favours.

Home Rule was the main and in most cases only factor for Irishmen to volunteer. Fact.

Certainly in Britain their were men who went to war for the reasons you mentioned, but they were in the minority a point which you avoid. More were conscripted.

Where did I say that men didn't volunteer (in response to your third last point).

I have not tried to deflect nor have I tried to take this off topic.

[Rav67]

In fact, at the start of the 20th Century, the British were (typically) uninterested in events on Continental Europe, somewhere where they had no significant possessions and where they hadn't fought any major battles since helping topple Napoleon a century earlier.
Consequently, their involvement in WWI followed a complex series of events, following a crack in the Hapsburg Empire emerging at Sarajevo, which then drew in the Russians, Germans and Turks, before spilling over into France and the Low Countries. As such, Britain felt itself compelled to join in to defend two strategic interests: namely the threat to its overseas Empire posed by the newly expansionist German Empire (especially via its greatly enlarged Navy), plus Britain's formal alliance with France, whose borders were threatened by the Germans.

So the Crimean War wasn't a major battle then?

[Evil Genius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8355836.stm

Interesting piece, especially that Armagh War Memorial has no Roll of Honour, due to the Nationalist-controlled local Council originally not wanting to have to reveal that the majority of those who died in WWI were actually from their own community...

http://www.armaghwarmemorial.com/
Oh well, the above is one exercise in historical revisionism which is very worthwhile (imo). In particular, this extract from the "Your Family's Story" section might be applicable to some posters on this site:

"Is there a story about a man or woman from the Armagh and District area who died in either world war  missing from this web site? 
After almost one hundred years the records available do not match the information often held by the family.
If you know of anyone who is missing from this data base, or if you have additional information, photographs or personal items that you would like to be displayed alongside our current information please complete the attached form. Upon receipt one of the project workers will review the information, and if necessary will contact you"

[Evil Genius]

EG I responded to the points which I had mentioned earlier your attempt to portray the men who went to war as doing so for the "nobelist" of reasons, you obviously view things differently to me, this does not make my views any less relevant, your numerous insults to me regarding my knowledge or views or supposed bias do you no favours.

Incorrect. I pointed out that millions of men volunteered from a variety of motives, some of them noble, others less so. I'm not sure that that any of those motives could be called "ignoble", but in any case, the distinction I was making, and which has clearly been lost on you, is that it is possible to commemorate those people who lost their life in war, without celebrating the war itself.
Which is why, for example, Harry Patch, Britain's last surviving WWI veteran could describe that war as "legalised mass murder", yet still participate in Remembrance Day commemorations at the age of 105:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/25/harry-patch-obituary

As for the subject of "insults", you may eg insult my and others intelligence all you like, but I take exception when you insult the memory of people who made the ultimate sacrifice, usually in conflicts which were a hell of a sight more important than our own petty little troubles in Ireland and who (self-evidently) cannot speak up for themselves.

Therefore, if I choose to use the language I do towards you, and people think less of me than of you as a consequence, so be it.

Home Rule was the main and in most cases only factor for Irishmen to volunteer. Fact.

If you are so confident it is a "fact", you will have no difficulty in proving it. I won't be holding my breath, mind...

Certainly in Britain their were men who went to war for the reasons you mentioned, but they were in the minority a point which you avoid. More were conscripted.

I am well aware that more of the combatants in WWI eventually were conscripted than volunteered. However, you have no evidence that those conscripts were unwilling to fight (i.e. see the cause furthered); rather, after the slaughter of the early days of the War, they were unwilling to die, especially in a conflict which didn't seem to be getting anywhere - there is an important distinction.
And in any case, if you are reluctant to commemorate those people who volunteered for WWI because you dislike their motives, why do you also denigrate those people who were later conscripted i.e. had no choice but to fight?
Might that be because they were all serving in a British uniform, and it is more important to you to express your customary bitterness to all things British, than try to make distinctions in complex, difficult situations like this?

Where did I say that men didn't volunteer (in response to your third last point).

Tbh, I'm not sure why you, a Donegal Irishman, are especially interested in those soldiers from GB, volunteers or conscripts who fought the Kaiser in Flanders etc, since they can be of little concern to you.
However, in the context of this debate, you and others who have been scathing about Poppy Day etc, have done so from an Irish perspective. That is, you and they have concentrated on those combatants who came from Ireland.
On which point, all of those who did so were volunteers, which is why your  introduction of Conscription is a red herring.

I have not tried to deflect nor have I tried to take this off topic.

Therefore when I take the trouble to reply directly to points put to me by you and other posters, with specific and reasoned evidence, why do you not reply in kind?
Would it be that when first you tried, with sneering references eg to Belgium, Catholicism, Pals, voluntary enlistment and Parkhead 2008 etc, you were exposed as actually knowing nothing about what you were posting?

Pathetic.

[Evil Genius]

In fact, at the start of the 20th Century, the British were (typically) uninterested in events on Continental Europe, somewhere where they had no significant possessions and where they hadn't fought any major battles since helping topple Napoleon a century earlier.
Consequently, their involvement in WWI followed a complex series of events, following a crack in the Hapsburg Empire emerging at Sarajevo, which then drew in the Russians, Germans and Turks, before spilling over into France and the Low Countries. As such, Britain felt itself compelled to join in to defend two strategic interests: namely the threat to its overseas Empire posed by the newly expansionist German Empire (especially via its greatly enlarged Navy), plus Britain's formal alliance with France, whose borders were threatened by the Germans.

So the Crimean War wasn't a major battle then?

Technically you may be correct that the Crimean War was fought in what I called "Continental Europe".

However, I discounted that particular war from my thesis, since Britain and Russia were fighting mostly in the Ukraine, effectively over the Ottoman Empire, whose territories in Continental Europe were of minor importance (Balkans notwithstanding).

And in any case, Britain's Imperial competition with Russia, which effectively inspired the Crimean War, was all to do with "The Great Game" i.e. expansion into India and the East. The Ukraine happened to provide the venue, but neither party was concerned with making gains in Europe out of it.

Still, if that's the best you can quibble with from what was a lengthy post, perhaps I wasn't doing too badly? 

[armaghniac]

You appear to be confused - today is Armistice Day, when we remember those who fell in war.

Thanks, for telling me something I already know. However the thread is about the misappropriation of the poppy, an international symbol of the Great War, and its paper representation being used as a symbol of British nationalism. I do not believe for one moment that all this carry on has anything to do with all of the victims of war. It does not commemorate the victims of the British only those who killed them.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

It represents the Canadian soldiers who died as well