Red v white poppies

[Malhao]

AIBU to be unimpressed that the staff at school are trying to sell my kids red poppies without explaining the symbolism behind them?

I don't agree with the concept of war and am contemplating sending them in wearing white poppies (I've explained the difference to them and they both agree with the principles behind the white poppies) but wonder if they'll get picked on for standing out?

It's possible to oppose a government's decision to send our troops into conflict whilst being grateful to our servicemen at the same time, they don't make the decision to be put in harm's way. I would imagine those most strongly opposed to war are the people most at risk of dying in one and the people who care about them.

People are free to perceive poppies as political and divisive but they are not free to tell others what their motives are for wearing one. I will continue to support our servicemen even when I hate the decisions our government makes.

The UK is not going to be attacked by another state as long as it has nuclear weapons, the Second World War will not be repeated.

I'd take a look at developments in China.

it has instead been coopted by the far right

In your head. The 'white poppy' lot are the ones politicising the symbol

in the other 51 weeks of the year it is displayed by those very comfortable in expressing their pro establishment, pro military, pro Brexit, anti immigration, racist and misogynistic views

I don't see the red poppy displayed at other times other than on relevant monuments. I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly

@IntermittentParps

So why do you need a white poppy if you feel that a proper one expresses your feelings? Is it to deliberately cut out the charitable donation to the RBL, or to appear different?

A white poppy is not not 'proper'.

There is judgement of people who don't wear a red one, which I object to and which is the reason I would not wear one.

Ok, maybe 'original', 'conventional', 'RBL' even 'red'. Whatever term you'd prefer me to use.

I suspect I agree with you in terms of so called 'poppy fascism' where people/businesses feel obliged to show their support. I don't agree with that because it loses its meaning if you're forced into it. If people don't agree with the cause and the symbolism I would personally try to discuss the matter and win them over to my way of thinking with the history, the symbolism, and what it means to me and the veterans that I had the honour of knowing.

If not persuaded, then, well, the people we are honouring fought and died for your right to disagree. Just as I, and others have the right to feel, and express that we find white, or any other colour poppies disrespectful and inappropriate.

As a child of an army veteran I wear my poppy proudly. I’ve seen first hand many of my DH’s fellow veterans turn to alcohol, struggle with depression and PTSD and the monies raised from poppy sales have personally supported them. I hung in a few quid for them. They didn’t join the army because they loved war, for the most part they joined because they were guaranteed to be fed.

Wear a poppy, don’t wear a poppy, but everything else aside I suppose anyone who is helping these folks.

There is no expectation or obligation to wear a red poppy, that’s freedom of choice for you, something those who died in The world wars sacrificed themselves for.

Bet you anything though that if push came to shove and god forbid there is another war and we are invaded NI, and any other areas concerned, would be more than happy to have the support of the British Army to get rid of the invaders

@Chloemol

There is that expectation I'm afraid. Lots of the posters on here have said as much. The OP and her children will be judged if they don't wear red poppies and judged if they wear white ones instead.

As far as Ireland goes, the invaders were the British. And no, it's not ancient history.

If not persuaded, then, well, the people we are honouring fought and died for your right to disagree. Just as I, and others have the right to feel, and express that we find white, or any other colour poppies disrespectful and inappropriate.
OK, so there's your answer. I wasn't suggesting wearing a white poppy to 'deliberately cut out the charitable donation to the RBL, or to appear different'. I find those suggestions insulting and offensive.

I don't see the red poppy displayed at other times other than on relevant monuments. I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly

@mustlovegin are you not on any social media? A sizeable proportion of those sharing their quite odious views will have their profiles decorated with poppies.

What I find really, truly astounding here, is the number of people who seem to believe that their particular interpretation and use of the poppy symbol is the only interpretation and use of that symbol, or the only valid one.

The poppy's symbolism is complex, has changed a great deal over time and is read differently in different places.

Anyone who is not at least aware of that (not necessarily knowledgeable, just aware) is not really in a position to take part in a discussion on the symbolism of the poppy.

'I use it to show this'. Ok then. That's one person's anecdote. No less, no more.

I agree completely lottiegarbanzo.

[quote elbea]@PinkPlantCase today’s armed forces keep you safe every single day from threats that you have absolutely no awareness of.

Wearing a poppy isn’t just remembering the sacrifice of people that died 100 years ago, it’s about remembering people like Guardsman Matthew Talbot who died in Malawi whilst protecting elephants from poachers. It’s remembering Pte Watson-Pickering who died on Salisbury Plain just a few weeks ago. It’s acknowledging the sacrifices of soldiers currently serving in Estonia on a peacekeeping mission to stop Russia annexing Estonia. It’s acknowledging the sacrifices of the soldiers that left their families for months on end during the pandemic to serve this country in a time of need.

The white poppy belittles their sacrifices, on their website it says the white poppy is to ‘…challenge attempts to glamorise or celebrate war.’ Remembering and acknowledging people’s sacrifices isn’t celebrating war.[/quote]
today’s armed forces keep you safe every single day from threats that you have absolutely no awareness of

100% agree. So many people simply do not understand. And I say this as someone whose OH currently serves (though not army).

[quote Owlmeow]@SilverBirchWithout how do you think both world wars would have ended if no one was sent to fight? Do you think no one would have been maimed or injured?[/quote]
WW1 should never have been started, it was a pointless and unnecessary war. WW2 was an exception and I agree it was necessary, however historians believe that the rise of Hitler and the nazi party was a direct result of WW1.
Some wars are indeed necessary, but unfortunately time and time again politicians fail to understand the direct and indirect consequences of their actions, failing to consider what will happen after the war is ‘won’. War is very very rarely the correct answer to a political impasse.
Many of us could see the consequences of the Iraq war, and Afghanistan. If as much effort (& indeed remembrance) was put in to the aftermath and peace we would need far fewer wars.
Unfortunately Armistice and Remembrance days create a focus on the honourable side of wars (thinking about the sacrifice of those that die) and unfortunately a dangerous minority latch on to them as a symbol of false patriotism and jingoism. Which in itself encourages people to consider war as often necessary, which it very rarely is.

WW1 should never have been started, it was a pointless and unnecessary war.

The UK didn't start it. We could perhaps have stayed out of it, if we'd been prepared to ignore our treaty obligations to a small country that was invaded and its civilian population subjected to atrocities.

Unfortunately Armistice and Remembrance days create a focus on the honourable side of wars (thinking about the sacrifice of those that die) and unfortunately a dangerous minority latch on to them as a symbol of false patriotism and jingoism. Which in itself encourages people to consider war as often necessary, which it very rarely is.

So because a very very small minority of right wing nutters have allegedly used the symbolism of red poppies (not seen it myself) no one should bother? Behave.

@IntermittentParps

If not persuaded, then, well, the people we are honouring fought and died for your right to disagree. Just as I, and others have the right to feel, and express that we find white, or any other colour poppies disrespectful and inappropriate. OK, so there's your answer. I wasn't suggesting wearing a white poppy to 'deliberately cut out the charitable donation to the RBL, or to appear different'. I find those suggestions insulting and offensive.

I find the white poppy offensive, but there we go. There is no right to not be offended.

I don't advocate forcing you to wear a poppy, or donate to the RBL, I don't have that right. Nor do I have the right to force you to remove your white poppy if you choose to wear one, or silence your voice expressing why you make that choice.

But I do have the right to tell you that I think you're wrong, and that I disagree with your views and choices, and that I find them highly disrespectful, ungrateful and inappropriate. And I'm using this forum to do so.

I don't really know what you're arguing about now but OK, fine, that's nice.

@Plan
Russia certainly poses a range of challenges for the UK but it is extremely unlikely to ever launch a large-scale attack or invasion of the UK because 1) it does not have the capability to launch an amphibious conventional invasion, 2) the UK has second-strike capability thanks to its submarines, i.e. even if Russia nuked the UK it could not destroy all the subs and these would launch nukes at Moscow and St Petersburg, 3) I mean why?? Why would Russia invade the UK? It’s completely different to anything Russia is doing in its historical sphere of influence. All of the small-scale things that Russia is now doing to the UK are designed to push back against what it sees as British interference, they are not prelude to invasion.

Apologies for the derail but I do think it’s important to push back against the idea that Britain faces the same kinds of threats and potential wars as in 1914 or 1939, and that the armed forces will have to respond in a similar way. The world has changed

[quote dreamingbohemian]@Plan
Russia certainly poses a range of challenges for the UK but it is extremely unlikely to ever launch a large-scale attack or invasion of the UK because 1) it does not have the capability to launch an amphibious conventional invasion, 2) the UK has second-strike capability thanks to its submarines, i.e. even if Russia nuked the UK it could not destroy all the subs and these would launch nukes at Moscow and St Petersburg, 3) I mean why?? Why would Russia invade the UK? It’s completely different to anything Russia is doing in its historical sphere of influence. All of the small-scale things that Russia is now doing to the UK are designed to push back against what it sees as British interference, they are not prelude to invasion.

Apologies for the derail but I do think it’s important to push back against the idea that Britain faces the same kinds of threats and potential wars as in 1914 or 1939, and that the armed forces will have to respond in a similar way. The world has changed[/quote]
Russia’s attack on Europe and the U.K. is and will be in the future, with cyber warfare. And that doesn’t just mean hacking government and infrastructure but targeting social media campaigns using bot factories to influence opinion and stir up anger. The U.K. and Europe is a threat to the current administration, if we are divided we are weaker.

Targeted*

My grandmother was a life long committed pacifist and one of the most caring and compassionate people I know. She turned 18 during the final months of the 2nd world war and volunteered in Germany afterwards in the "clean up" of concentration camps. I remember her telling me even that didn't change her beliefs, even to stop that there needed to be a peaceful solution.

The only time I ever remember seeing her angry was the year my mum bought us white poppies. She was deeply, personally, offended by them, to her they dismissed the memory of those she lost. It's been 30 years and I still remember her reaction.

That's true @dropitlikeitsloth but you don't need a large standing army to defend against cyber warfare.

I’m a veteran, married to a serving soldier and come from a long line of soldiers before me.
The notion of “pro-war” in my eyes is utter bollocks in itself. No one who finds themselves in the position to be looking war directly in the face is “pro-war” - personally I was pro-“let’s just get out of this in one piece”.
I have my own difficult emotions surrounding my service, the things I did, the things I saw, the friends and colleagues I lost back then, and the friends who’ve taken their own lives since. It’s a clusterfuck of emotions and thoughts that I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to straighten out so that they make sense. But all of that has no relevance to the basic principles of wearing a red poppy and Remembrance Day in general. It’s not about political leanings, morals or personal feelings about war. It’s about remembering the people who died in horrendous ways, far away from home so that you and people like you can sit and spout of about pacifism on the internet without a care in the world
So yeah. In short: YABVU.

“(Russia) is extremely unlikely to ever launch a large-scale attack or invasion of the UK because 1) it does not have the capability to launch an amphibious conventional invasion, 2) the UK has second-strike capability thanks to its submarines, i.e. even if Russia nuked the UK it could not destroy all the subs and these would launch nukes at Moscow and St Petersburg, 3) I mean why??”

1. They have been closing the gap on amphibious assault since 2008 and new ships and equipment will be completed by 2026. In addition, their airborne assault capability is very strong. Invasion can be done by sea and air.

1. Everyone (who matters) has second strike capability, which is why no country is going to use a nuclear bomb. Which is why wars and invasions still have happened since WWII but with only conventional weapons. My point is that nuclear capability is not a deterrent for war, it’s a deterrent for nuclear strikes only.

1. Why? Does it matter? Usually the reasons for a war are written by the winners afterwards to justify it. Don’t forget Russia also assassinated people on English soil with the Salisbury poisonings.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1373865/russia-news-vladimir-putin-world-war-3-royal-navy-rusi-defence-english-channel

Im not saying Russia is currently likely to attack Britain. Merely that the threat exists and that if U.K. had zero military, zero defence and if NATO had collapsed...they would then be likely to. The British Armed Forces are absolutely necessary as a deterrent protecting the U.K. from conventional wars. Finally, Putin is expansionist by nature, he has annexed the Crimea and is in the midst of doing the same in the Ukraine...90,000 Russian troops are massed on the border right now. Putin is also doing massive expansion into the arctic.

@SlamLikeAGuitar Very well put. I couldn't agree more.
I wear a red poppy in rememberance of all the fallen and I'm German. ( My DH is British and a veteran )

SlamLikeAGuitar

If you are going to keep bringing the Russian threat into it then it’s worth being aware militarily The Soviets “pushing” at the borders, even the UK ones, with flights and other assets has gone on since the fifties, there was a lull post the wall coming down but I gather it has slowly ramped up again in recent years…

The Warsaw Pact has gone, the risk of one of the Soviet Shock Armies charging over the IGB all bombed up on a Friday night are, putting it gently, much reduced..Putin will keep niggling away with his proxies on places like the Polish Border and will no doubt exert political pressure, and can apply pressure though things such as energy supply. ..agree with the comment about cyber attack..He’s not going to be invading the Uk anytime soon.

Now, whether the UK has a standing army, airforce or navy large enough to actually provide protection against any credible threat is another matter…I think one for another thread.

And finally with regard to “nukes”, there’s a danger of over reliance on them and the lack of a large standing army/navy/Air Force means a chance of having to go back to the days of NATO’s trip wire strategy..and that doesn’t bear thinking about….