Burning the Poppy - A thread.

storker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wasn't much of a change from the lovers either. Still refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Do you see any position apart from "lovers" and "haters"?

FrancieBrady

storker wrote: »

Do you see any position apart from "lovers" and "haters"?

Yes. I see one that asks that commemoration is respectful and inclusive of all who die or have died in war.

Is that not a reasonable ask of those who claim to be indulging in this poppy thing, in the interests of peace?

But that would mean wrenching control of this away from those in the military and those linked to it.
I don't think the UK is ready for that yet.
Personally I was very proud of how we commemorated our birth as a state. It was inclusive, respectful and non triumphalist, nor was there an emphasis or glorification of violence and the machines of war/conflict.

Feisar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. I see one that asks that commemoration is respectful and inclusive of all who die or have died in war.

Is that not a reasonable ask of those who claim to be indulging in this poppy thing, in the interests of peace?

But that would mean wrenching control of this away from those in the military and those linked to it.
I don't think the UK is ready for that yet.
Personally I was very proud of how we commemorated our birth as a state. It was inclusive, respectful and non triumphalist, nor was there an emphasis or glorification of violence and the machines of war/conflict.

How could it be, fuppin' tans are still here!

Letwin_Larry

as an aside to this discussion, just wondering if any of you guys watched the Historical Doc on the signing of the Armistice in 1918? BBC2 i think.

a facinating account of how the deal/surrender was done, the anger of the Foch, the opportunism of the Brits and ultimately how the humiliation of the Germans directly led to the rise of the Nazis & WW2.

Apologies Mods if this ought to be for the History forum.

martingriff

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

as an aside to this discussion, just wondering if any of you guys watched the Historical Doc on the signing of the Armistice in 1918? BBC2 i think.

a facinating account of how the deal/surrender was done, the anger of the Foch, the opportunism of the Brits and ultimately how the humiliation of the Germans directly led to the rise of the Nazis & WW2.

Apologies Mods if this ought to be for the History forum.

It wasn't just the Brits with the deal in fact the French hate of the Germans was a huge factor.

In relation to the poppy I have no problem who does or does not want to wear. The problem for me is some posters have a real difficulty separating soldiers with Britian and some who actually do love to tar them with the same brush if the worst of them

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

as an aside to this discussion, just wondering if any of you guys watched the Historical Doc on the signing of the Armistice in 1918? BBC2 i think.

a facinating account of how the deal/surrender was done, the anger of the Foch, the opportunism of the Brits and ultimately how the humiliation of the Germans directly led to the rise of the Nazis & WW2.

Apologies Mods if this ought to be for the History forum.

Probably is for a different thread, but one of the issues I have with the British portrayal of themselves is that they harp on about being the victims of the terrible Germans.
There is no admission that they themselves were hugely culpable for appeasing the Germans and turning a blind eye to Hitler in the 30's as they made money from their military build up.
It was a costly mistake and should and would humble any normal country. But still the hero worship of themselves goes on.

Letwin_Larry

martingriff wrote: »

It wasn't just the Brits with the deal in fact the French hate of the Germans was a huge factor.

In relation to the poppy I have no problem who does or does not want to wear. The problem for me is some posters have a real difficulty separating soldiers with Britian and some who actually do love to tar them with the same brush if the worst of them

same here people love to make an issue of that footballer who refuses to wear a poppy. McAndrews i think. good luck to him, that's his choice. he shouldn't be forced to wear one if he doesn't wish to. actually a man united player (serbian) also wont wear one, but his name is rarely mentioned.

on the documertary, what was interesting was the determination of Foch to punish the Germans as the French had suffered more than most.
he was then angry when the terms of the Treaty were finalised. not sure if he was angry cos he hadn't dismantled Germany sufficently, or cos he realised they had gone overboard?

c.p.w.g.w

I think there is an issue in what the poppy represents.

It covers those who fought in both World Wars, that's fair enough. Those folks gave their lives for a worthy cause(Including a large amount of Irish).

But it also covers members of the armed forces who were based in Northern Ireland during the troubles For example "Operation Motorman" in which a British solider is now being charged with murder...But in response the British Government want to pass a law to make the prosecution of veterans illegal(thankfully it doesn't apply to Northern Ireland)...

Thats the kind of folks the Poppy represents and its very hard to over look the history on the Ireland with what British soldiers have done(with the blessing of their government in many cases too)

martingriff

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

same here people love to make an issue of that footballer who refuses to wear a poppy. McAndrews i think. good luck to him, that's his choice. he shouldn't be forced to wear one if he doesn't wish to. actually a man united player (serbian) also wont wear one, but his name is rarely mentioned.

on the documertary, what was interesting was the determination of Foch to punish the Germans as the French had suffered more than most.
he was then angry when the terms of the Treaty were finalised. not sure if he was angry cos he hadn't dismantled Germany sufficently, or cos he realised they had gone overboard?

Irish player McLean, Serbian player Vidic he did get some grief.

Foch was angry as Germany still stood and the did not get more

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Probably is for a different thread, but one of the issues I have with the British portrayal of themselves is that they harp on about being the victims of the terrible Germans.
There is no admission that they themselves were hugely culpable for appeasing the Germans and turning a blind eye to Hitler in the 30's as they made money from their military build up.
It was a costly mistake and should and would humble any normal country. But still the hero worship of themselves goes on.

when I was at school, the treaty of Versailles and the rise of the Nazi party was a huge part of the curriculum. There was no mention of appeasement being anything but the obvious desperate acts of a country trying to avoid another war, but also in hindsight, how wrong it was. Have you not seen the derision Neville Chamberlain gets for his "Peace n Our Time" statement and waving of a bit of paper?

markodaly

To be honest, the over the top poppy haters in Ireland sound like the same people giving out about Gay Pride marches and stuff like that. It doesn't take long to see through their 'concerns'.

Birds of a feather flock together.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

when I was at school, the treaty of Versailles and the rise of the Nazi party was a huge part of the curriculum. There was no mention of appeasement being anything but the obvious desperate acts of a country trying to avoid another war, but also in hindsight, how wrong it was. Have you not seen the derision Neville Chamberlain gets for his "Peace n Our Time" statement and waving of a bit of paper?

Churchill, as culpable and bungling as anyone else of the period, manages to be conferred with 'Greatest Briton' of all time, again and again, while Chamberlain is portrayed as a gullible fool at best and as you say treated with 'derision'.

Methinks, that is the result of an educational deficit or a willful blindspot.

corner of hells

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Churchill, as culpable and bungling as anyone else of the period, manages to be conferred with 'Greatest Briton' of all time, again and again, while Chamberlain is portrayed as a gullible fool at best and as you say treated with 'derision'.

Methinks, that is the result of an educational deficit or a willful blindspot.

Churchill got lucky in the Battle of Britain with his airforce bolstered by Czech and Polish pilots along with Goering believing he could defeat the RAF in four days along with stopping attacking airfields and radar sites in favour of bombing cities.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Churchill, as culpable and bungling as anyone else of the period, manages to be conferred with 'Greatest Briton' of all time, again and again, while Chamberlain is portrayed as a gullible fool at best and as you say treated with 'derision'.

Methinks, that is the result of an educational deficit or a willful blindspot.

Churchill was probably the most outstanding critic of appeasement.

lawred2

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

same here people love to make an issue of that footballer who refuses to wear a poppy. McAndrews i think. good luck to him, that's his choice. he shouldn't be forced to wear one if he doesn't wish to. actually a man united player (serbian) also wont wear one, but his name is rarely mentioned.

on the documertary, what was interesting was the determination of Foch to punish the Germans as the French had suffered more than most.
he was then angry when the terms of the Treaty were finalised. not sure if he was angry cos he hadn't dismantled Germany sufficently, or cos he realised they had gone overboard?

McAndrews :rolleyes:

I know for a fact that you know his name.

You're kinda growing on me. Bit of lovable rogue thing going on with your trolling.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Churchill was probably the most outstanding critic of appeasement.

Again, there are alternate views on that. Churchill is one of the most airbrushed figures in the entire history of Britain. The nation's 'blindspot'. Curious tbh.

'History will judge us kindly', Churchill told Roosevelt and Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943; when asked how he could be so sure, he responded: 'because I shall write the history'. And so he did, in the six massive volumes of The Second World War.

Most historians have dismissed most of the supposedly secret information passed to Churchill as pretty worthless, but that is really beside the point - the central flaw in Churchill's version of events is that it amounts to no more than an exercise in self-promotion. The sheer unlikeliness that everyone was out of step but our Winston is obscured by his iconic status as the man who won the war and as 'the prophet of truth' before it.

... the central flaw in Churchill's version of events is that it amounts to no more than an exercise in self-promotion.

It is not just that Churchill was inconsistent in his criticisms of Hitler (whom he once hoped to see 'a kinder figure in a gentler age'); his whole reading of events leading up to World War Two was badly flawed, and looks good only with the advantage of hindsight.

markodaly

Well, there are alternative views on pretty much anything and anyone really. Sure there are alternative views that think Hitler was a great fella and that the Holocaust didn't occur. But all this is beside the point really.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Well, there are alternative views on pretty much anything and anyone really. Sure there are alternative views that think Hitler was a great fella and that the Holocaust didn't occur. But all this is beside the point really.

I don't think an examination of the facts against self promotion myths is quite the same as entertaining absurd conspiracy theories.

If you think that the 'holocaust not occurring' is an 'alternate view' view of what happened then I think you would be a perfect candidate to fall for self promotional views of history tbh.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think an examination of the facts .

No, what you are doing is cherry-picking facts to suit your 'alternative' view. Again, lots of people do this, as per my example above.

But please, don't come on here as some self-proclaimed truth seeker.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

No, what you are doing is cherry-picking facts to suit your 'alternative' view. Again, lots of people do this, as per my example above.

But please, don't come on here as some self-proclaimed truth seeker.

'Cherry-picking facts'.

So you agree there are 'facts' to pick. That's something I suppose.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Cherry-picking facts'.

So you agree there are 'facts' to pick. That's something I suppose.

Maybe, but again, what you do a lot of is taking a fact and use it in some loose correlation to try and prove some other point you are making.

e.g. Churchill liked to promote himself = he was just an appeaser as Chamberlin

It's dishonest and not at all truthful to the whole scope of the debate, or even the point you are trying to make but again, its who you are though, with your 25,000+ posts...

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe, but again, what you do a lot of is taking a fact and use it in some loose correlation to try and prove some other point you are making.

e.g. Churchill liked to promote himself = he was just an appeaser as Chamberlin

It's dishonest and not at all truthful to the whole scope of the debate, or even the point you are trying to make but again, its who you are though, with your 25,000+ posts...

Hardly a conversation of depth or great 'scope'. I just made an add-on point to Letwin Larry's one about WW2. A war the British like to present as 'good over evil'. In fact, it was much more nuanced than that, as all these things are.

*Nice to see you pivoting to the usual disparaging remarks, sign of an argument running out of steam...always.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, there are alternate views on that. Churchill is one of the most airbrushed figures in the entire history of Britain. The nation's 'blindspot'. Curious tbh.

if you are going to post an article about a book review, then don't cherrypick and at least provide a link, otherwise it just looks like you are trying to hide something. Like this

There is, in fact, nothing very controversial about the claim that Churchill was alone in his opposition to appeasement; it was one he made himself in 1948, and is generally acknowledged. If you want controversy, it must come in the form of an argument to counter the central thesis of The Gathering Storm, namely that Churchill was right and his critics wrong. This is a difficult task, because The Gathering Storm has been one of the most influential books of our time. It is no exaggeration to claim that it has strongly influenced the behaviour of Western politicians from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hardly a conversation of depth or great 'scope'. I just made an add-on point to Letwin Larry's one about WW2. A war the British like to present as 'good over evil'. In fact, it was much more nuanced than that, as all these things are.

Ah, so in other words, you are making it up as you go.

Everything is more nuanced Francie, but you are not interested in nuance, you are interested in revisionism to suit a particular political point of view.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

if you are going to post an article about a book review, then don't cherrypick and at least provide a link, otherwise it just looks like you are trying to hide something. Like this



http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml

I didn't claim he 'wasn't a critic of appeasement' Aegir. I presented an alternate view to the one you presented, that he was the ' most outstanding critc'

The 'most outstanding' bit seems to be a figment of Churchill's imagination.

The final paragraph of the article probably gets to the nub of the 'blindspot' the British have with Churchill and the reason why.

The fact that a film has now been made, bringing Churchill's version of events to a new generation, means that people will be able to say that they may not have read the book, but have at least seen the film. Thus will the myth go on into the new century and its millennium. Churchill was certainly right about one thing - history would indeed treat him kindly. In place of the multi-faceted, complicated flawed genius, there would be a cardboard cut-out hero who was always right. On reflection, perhaps that is not so very kind, after all.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, so in other words, you are making it up as you go.

Everything is more nuanced Francie, but you are not interested in nuance, you are interested in revisionism to suit a particular political point of view.

Ha ha, I just presented an alternate view of Churchill, and it is I that is making things up.

With all the FACTS we know about this man's mistakes, butchery, racism and self invention, do you not think people who confer 'greatest ever status on him are the ones 'making things up'?

Letwin_Larry

Aegir wrote: »

Churchill was probably the most outstanding critic of appeasement.

Sir Winston Churchill stood up to a bully when most others wilted. he saw through the Nazis when others were only too happy to accept hitler's lies & deceit.

certainly he was a man with flaws (who isn't?), but he was a TRUE WAR HERO and probably the greatest British PM of all time imo.


a man destined for greatness, and no amount of republican/sf/ira propaganda or revisionism will ever change that IMO.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't claim he 'wasn't a critic of appeasement' Aegir. I presented an alternate view to the one you presented, that he was the ' most outstanding critc'

The 'most outstanding' bit seems to be a figment of Churchill's imagination.

The final paragraph of the article probably gets to the nub of the 'blindspot' the British have with Churchill and the reason why.

This is what you said:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Churchill, as culpable and bungling as anyone else of the period, manages to be conferred with 'Greatest Briton' of all time, again and again, while Chamberlain is portrayed as a gullible fool at best and as you say treated with 'derision'.

Methinks, that is the result of an educational deficit or a willful blindspot.

Churchill was a critic of appeasement, something which you are trying (and failing miserably) to disprove.

partyguinness

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/nov/12/david-squires-on-football-and-the-poppy

Letwin_Larry

Churchill is on record of raising the level of German rearmament on several occasions in Parliament. he warned the British people while still a backbencher of the threat posed by a rearmed Germany, and called for action, but sadly he was ignored.