British poppy: should the Irish commemorate people who fought for the British Empire?

Chuck Stone

Donkeys.

Eveyln Princess Blucher, an Englishwoman who lived in Berlin during the First World War, in her memoir published in 1921, recalled hearing German general Erich Ludendorff praise the British for their bravery and remembered hearing first hand the following statement from the German General Headquarters (Grosses Hauptquartier): "The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."

http://www.archive.org/stream/englishwifeinber00bluoft#page/211/mode/1up

It bemuses me how British politicians and British Generals of WW1 seem to emerge blamless for sending reams of young men to their almost certain deaths in foreign feilds.

Not only did they get away with it but they've managed to turn what was a horrific waste of life, by anyones standards, into some sort of national achievement.

A Dub in Glasgo

Far better way to remember the absolute stupidy and the sending of young men to their death that is a feature of WW1 is watching Blackadder Goes Forth. Remembers it much better than a red poppy ever can.

RichieC

Where's the "I don't give a Christ" option?

Curly Judge

To answer the OP, I don't see how either the First or Second World wars could be regarded as maintaining British Imperialism.
British survival certainly, but British imperialism?

KeithAFC

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Donkeys.



It bemuses me how British politicians and British Generals of WW1 seem to emerge blamless for sending reams of young men to their almost certain deaths in foreign feilds.

Not only did they get away with it but they've managed to turn what was a horrific waste of life, by anyones standards, into some sort of national achievement.

The 36th was the best on the opening day of the Somme but due to a complete lack of strategy, they got ripped apart when retreating from all sides.

Agricola

Fúck sake, has it been a year since this raggedy arse thread was stuck on the first page of AH for weeks on end............

Couldnt give a shíte. Commemorate opening a can of spaghetti for all I care.

Dionysus

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I just lack that chip on the shoulder

In fairness, you're in After Hours as usual - it's not like you're off in some zen yoga-flying forum chillin'. You wouldn't be here unless you had plenty of "chips" on your own shoulder.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

that'd allow me to conveniently blame much of this nations own failings on 800 years of blah blah blah.

Now, if you can show a single instance of that from me, it would be appreciated. Of all things, I am very cautious about making historical comments. Or are you just here to express the chip on your shoulder by using cliché after cliché and stereotyping posters with whom you disagree?

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Unfortunately, you often appear unable to exclude some piddling allusion which betrays an anti-British bias, whether that be something as trifling as someones plummy accent or the fact Tony O'Reilly accepted a knighthood from the Queen - when those matters are of little or no relevance to the topic under discussion.

That is your insecurity and your unspoken issues right there. Otherwise known as a "chip on your shoulder". The "chip on my shoulder" is generally against people who have been in power for too long, and have therefore abused that. This has included the Roman Catholic Church, barristers and judges who are determined to remain a ridiculously-paid elite with a British colonial culture of wigs and titles which is inappropriate to a modern liberal democratic Irish republic, the existence of Seanad Éireann and the sycophants who get into it, medical consultants with no bedside manner and numerous politicial and media figures. But you only start the personal attacks when I attack somebody/something which you support. It's like you expect that I'm going to hold back when it comes to elements of the British establishment. That's quite simply unrealistic. :P If you really think O'Reilly's politics hasn't a bearing on the type of low-brow agenda-driven tabloid tripe which emanates from the newspapers under his control, you are to be nice about it fundamentally mistaken. The guy has had far, far too much power in Irish society for far too long and people are afraid to question it because, well, his newspapers have a lot of spending power and potential employment opportunities. It's only when somebody questions that politics/control that your own "chip on the shoulder" goes into defensive mode and you launch an ad hominem.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Perhaps those topics above also dip under the radar, as they're less prone to provoke the oft-toxic, mean-spirited and dismally predictable bicker-fests, which stem from so many threads in AH which touch upon matters Anglo-Irish.

Perhaps, although nowadays you will get just as much if not more nastiness in threads on Ahern, Fianna Fáil, the Catholic Church and the EU among other things. But the idea that somebody who goes near threads like these and does not have a "chip on his/her shoulder" about something is hard to conceive of. When I get into zen mode some day the last thing I'll be doing is hanging out around Afterhours. It's just not that kind of place.

Dionysus

Curly Judge wrote: »

To answer the OP, I don't see how either the First or Second World wars could be regarded as maintaining British Imperialism.
British survival certainly, but British imperialism?

The very idea of Britain is based on imperialism, namely the English conquest of Scotland (cue well-honed posts of denial, mentioning Stuart kings) and unifying English and Scottish under the name of British. Sharing the fruits of the British Empire was the basis for the new state of Britain so I don't buy this idea that the survival of Britain was as separate from the survival of empire as you might imply.

Moreover, you are conflating two very different wars. World War One was first and foremost a war between imperial powers. The up-and-coming Germany was determined to upset the balance of power which Britain had secured following 1815. Britain didn't want that balance of power changed. It did not fight for "the rights of small nations", no matter how many British people at the time were told that. It fought for maintenance of the status quo because it benefited them most. That was the realpolitik of it. It was the largest empire in the history of the world; the last thing it would be doing is fighting for the rights of small nations.

Dionysus

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm sure that Dionysus is in here somewhere.

I'm sure that ejmaztec should be in here somewhere.

Dionysus

KeithAFC wrote: »

Totally ignored? That is to do with Russia and they celebrate the war effort. We celebrate ours.

But, but Keith, I thought the red poppy was being sold by many of its proponents as an international symbol commemorating all those people who died in war?

If it were merely being sold as a British symbol and not as an apolitical symbol then it would be a different matter. It would then be just an upfront honest-to-goodness tribal commemoration of a particular community's wars with no apolitical airs and graces. I would respect that honesty, if nothing else about it.

ejmaztec

Dionysus wrote: »

I'm sure that ejmaztec should be in here somewhere.

There's more chance of you being in the poppy field than my trusting my eyes to that shower.:P

gurramok

ejmaztec wrote: »

There's more chance of you being in the poppy field than my trusting my eyes to that shower.:P

Thats not you saying they're not pretty to the eye?:D Specs are sexy, thats the message from specsavers with the gorgeous models on their page

KeithAFC

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Dionysus wrote: »

But, but Keith, I thought the red poppy was being sold by many of its proponents as an international symbol commemorating all those people who died in war?

If it were merely being sold as a British symbol and not as an apolitical symbol then it would be a different matter. It would then be just an upfront honest-to-goodness tribal commemoration of a particular community's wars with no apolitical airs and graces. I would respect that honesty, if nothing else about it.

Who really cares? I don't see why so many people get the knickers in a twist on the poppy anyway.

Paparazzo

Would I wear one? Not a chance.
Would I be offended if someone wore one? Not a chance.

Dionysus

ejmaztec wrote: »

There's more chance of you being in the poppy field than my trusting my eyes to that shower.:P

That's anti-British! Specsavers for the cheapo cheapskate eye examination and online for all the dirt cheap contact lenes.

A Dub in Glasgo

KeithAFC wrote: »

Who really cares? I don't see why so many people get the knickers in a twist on the poppy anyway.

Apparantly those who wear a red poppy. A cursory look at this thread and previous threads will show that they are mainly started by people who want to know if they are morally, accurately or just plain right in wearing a red poppy to remember members of the British forces this time of year.

passarellaie

As some posters have said most of the Irish who served in the "British" army in world war 1 has no choice let their families starve or join up.This is emphasized today when i see West Dumbartonshire MP Ms Doyle is going to the "Falklands/Malvinas because no less than 17000 of her constituents work in the "British" Defence forces.This shows how the peripheral parts of the "Union" are still kept in poverty to ensure they serve her majestys forces.
So i reckon this debate will be going on in Scotland soon after Salmond acheives independence

KeithAFC

No (I'm British/not Irish)

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Apparantly those who wear a red poppy. A cursory look at this thread and previous threads will show that they are mainly started by people who want to know if they are morally, accurately or just plain right in wearing a red poppy to remember members of the British forces this time of year.

All I seem to find is people who don't want to wear one moaning about it. Wear one if you want. Free choice and all that.

A Dub in Glasgo

passarellaie wrote: »

As some posters have said most of the Irish who served in the "British" army in world war 1 has no choice let their families starve or join up.This is emphasized today when i see West Dumbartonshire MP Ms Doyle is going to the "Falklands/Malvinas because no less than 17000 of her constituents work in the "British" Defence forces.This shows how the peripheral parts of the "Union" are still kept in poverty to ensure they serve her majestys forces.
So i reckon this debate will be going on in Scotland soon after Salmond acheives independence

Most of those work in the WoMD site at Faslane

A Dub in Glasgo

KeithAFC wrote: »

All I seem to find is people who don't want to wear one moaning about it. Wear one if you want. Free choice and all that.

Look at the threads started on this site and you will see those who eant to wear the red poppy and ask is it Ok / why Irish people do not.

KeithAFC

No (I'm British/not Irish)

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Look at the threads started on this site and you will see those who eant to wear the red poppy and ask is it Ok / why Irish people do not.

Of course it is OK though. Why do these threads reach 50+ pages?

A Dub in Glasgo

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course it is OK though. Why do these threads reach 50+ pages?

I can only assume that

1. Wearing a red poppy is a personal decision that does not need the collective of Boards.ie to endorse therefore people assume the person asking if it is OK is grandstanding

2. The person is trolling

passarellaie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Most of those work in the WoMD site at Faslane

and

A Dub in Glasgo

passarellaie wrote: »

and

it would not be a great loss if it closed

Badgermonkey

No (I'm Irish)

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, you're in After Hours as usual - it's not like you're off in some zen yoga-flying forum chillin'. You wouldn't be here unless you had plenty of "chips" on your own shoulder.

I enjoy AH, fun and entertaining, guessing that's why most folks engage with it.

Some have a hard-on for the squabble, that's OK too.

You've said you forgot to include me in your OP, the inference surely being that I also

expect Irish people to accept their political symbols without question and get rather defensive when they don't.

Now, if you can show a single instance of that from me, it would be appreciated.

Dionysus wrote: »

Or are you just here to express the chip on your shoulder by using cliché after cliché and stereotyping posters with whom you disagree?

A cliche to me is like a red rag to a bull.

Avoid 'em like the plague.

Dionysus wrote: »

you launch an ad hominem

And that one's the thinking mans blast 'em..............

Dionysus wrote: »

But you only start the personal attacks when I attack somebody/something which you support.

Ah now, let's not engage in faux victimhood Dionysus.

You name-checked a number of fellow posters in your OP, presumably in an effort to belittle them. Had you simply wished to poo-poo their opinions, the name and shame would surely have been superfluous.

Dionysus wrote: »

nowadays you will get just as much if not more nastiness in threads on Ahern, Fianna Fáil, the Catholic Church and the EU among other things.

Where the majority of posters tend to be in agreement with one another. Contrasts more than somewhat with threads on the British Isles / Queens visit / Bobby Sands etc.

ejmaztec

Dionysus wrote: »

That's anti-British! Specsavers for the cheapo cheapskate eye examination and online for all the dirt cheap contact lenes.

With an optometrist in the family, one doesn't use conveyor-belt specs.:P

Anyway, if Specsavers were pro-British, they wouldn't be based in the Channel Islands, and paying as little UK tax as possible.

passarellaie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

it would not be a great loss if it closed

But tell me are there 17000 working for the defence ministry in the whole of London?
Does it not tell you why so many poor Irish people had to join the "British" armed forces in the days of "empire"

A Dub in Glasgo

passarellaie wrote: »

But tell me are there 17000 working for the defence ministry in the whole of London?
Does it not tell you why so many poor Irish people had to join the "British" armed forces in the days of "empire"

There are not 17,000 working for the defence ministry in West Dumbartonshire and no it does not explain why people had to join the British armed forces in the days of the empire

jpm4

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Donkeys.



It bemuses me how British politicians and British Generals of WW1 seem to emerge blamless for sending reams of young men to their almost certain deaths in foreign feilds.

Not only did they get away with it but they've managed to turn what was a horrific waste of life, by anyones standards, into some sort of national achievement.

This is an overly simplistic, Blackadder style view of the WW1 generals which few enough credible historians still subscribe to. "Their almost certain death"? Would it disappoint you to know that most of them would have come home alive?

Wolfe Tone

No, why would I want to commemorate that murderous, imperialistic scum?


Easter Lily for me.