Why I No Longer Feel Comfortable Wearing a Poppy

[Geckos48]

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/madeleine-fry/poppy-day_b_4169581.html

very eloquently put. Exactly how I feel about the whole debacle.

November 11th should be for those who selflessly gave their lives in the World Wars, not those who chose to fight dubious campaigns abroad.

Morethanpotatoprints. You are wrong, mistaken or lying. Take your pick.

Poppy selling donations DO NOT go to British Leigion Clubs. The clubs are run very much the same way as British Military Messes are run. The money the club has comes from its members subscriptions, and every penny is scrupulously accounted for.

Ok, perhaps I could have phrased it better: the most recent trends in the historiography of WW2, based on newly-available archival sources and benefiting from increased linguistic skills among historians, support the view that the war in the east was the decisive turning point in WW2, not the Battle of Britain.

I didn't think they went to clubs.

If I bothered to go into it I could find historians with different views. Luckily they can think and print whatever they like and we are free to agree or disagree.

Haven't read the entirety of the thread I admit, but whether or not you agree with the Government's position on 'dubious foreign campaigns', none of thos soldiers who fight and die far away from home and family have a choice in what they do. When they sign up they write a blank cheque to the government for their lives. They die in their hundreds every year and the Royal British Legion does an amazing job in supporting bereaved families, wounded and retired soldiers when the government washes it's hands of them. We need the Legion, we really do.

That's why I wear a poppy.

I won't worry about non-poppy wearers if you don't bother me i.e. shut up and do what you do without bashing us over the head about it

No-one's bashing you over the head. Nobody even forced you to read this thread. The subject matter was clear enough from the title :)

This is a discussion forum where people exchange their views about things that are happening in the outside world. It's perfectly natural to have an opinion on a news article like the one linked to in the OP and to want to discuss it with others. I don't see why anyone should be told to shut up.

The Cold War distorted much of the earlier histories of WW2, and older historical work has been fundamentally revised in light of new material.

I don't personally agree with the military campaigns in the Middle East and Afganistan. But as a voting member of a democratic country, I feel partially culpable - both for our armed forces and their actions - even if personally didn't vote for war/the political party (ies) who sanctioned it.

So I wear a poppy. And give money to humanitarian charities who help civilians caught up in the fighting. And feel a bit crap over the whole thing tbh but I don't think not wearing a poppy, all by itself, achieves anything.

skylerwhite

Ok, perhaps I could have phrased it better: the most recent trends in the historiography of WW2, based on newly-available archival sources and benefiting from increased linguistic skills among historians, support the view that the war in the east was the decisive turning point in WW2, not the Battle of Britain.

I have shelves of books on WW2 history, thank you, and there will be complaints if I buy any more on the subject.

I didn't say that the BoB was the decisive turning point in WW2. I said that Hitler's failure to negotiate or bomb Britain out of the war guaranteed the defeat of the Axis.

If Britain is still in the war, that means the USA is going to turn up at some point. It means Lend-Lease happens, sending 400,000 trucks to Russia. It means that, by 1944 a million German men are serving in the Luftwaffe as AA gunners to try to defeat the vast aerial armadas bombing (to limited effect) the Reich - a million men who were needed on the Eastern Front.

The BoB isn't a turning point, because there aren't really that many turning points in WW2. Lots of stuff is cited as a turning point (Alamein, Stalingrad) but in reality the turn had already been taken.

If you're looking for one, then Hitler's decision to move his Panzers from Army Group North to the Ukraine in Sep '41 is a good one. At that point, Hitler loses the war because he loses the chance to take Moscow and Leningrad in '41.

PS - Historiography is bunk.

I AM PROUD to wear my poppy.

I support all those from the WWs. I support all those injured in recent British skirmishes. I support all our soldiers.

If your in service I personally wish u well.

flatpack I'm interested in your thoughts, but historiography is bunk - I'm afraid that merely demonstrates that you don't understand what historiography is.

skylerwhite

flatpack I'm interested in your thoughts, but historiography is bunk - I'm afraid that merely demonstrates that you don't understand what historiography is.

Never heard of the phrase 'history is bunk'?

Henry Ford, 1916.

It was meant to be an amusing reference to Ford's comment rather than the denunciation of an area of research. But never mind, you're clearly more interested in demonstrating your intellectual superiority without actually demonstrating any knowledge.

There would be no war if people refused to fight them.

Peaceful nations Rarely get targeted, after WW11 it was Very unlikely that we would be targeted, we have proven that when pushed we will stand up and fight

Running into countless wars under the guise of 'human rights' (which it never is, the economic reasons for the Falklands run very deep) is a complete insult to the people (not just armed forces PEOPLE) who gave their lives for our safety.

Safety which has been nothing but destroyed by our 'ministry of defence'

Its awful and in no way, shape or form do I support it. Not the people who engineer it (politicians) nor the people who CHOOSE to go and fight in it (soldiers) because there would not be war without either of them.

Not in the slightest, flatpack I'm not claiming to be a specialist in WW2. Some of my colleagues are, I heard a paper this week by on of the historians I've mentioned above, and I'm simply reporting what appears to be the emerging consensus based on the most cutting-edge research. But if you're determined to cling to older, more occidentalist versions, that is, of course, your prerogative.

This is an interesting survey of opinion on these issues, actually.

So how do propose to differentiate between the conscripted soldiers of the first and second world wars, and those who were professional soldiers?

I think that the sacrifices in the WW's were so great, took so many lives and changed so many lives that they deserve there own day.

I dont think we need to muddy the waters with other soldiers involved in other conflicts. 11th November should be about those two wars.

But an earlier point you made was that some modern day soldiers CHOSE to fight.
This was true in WW1 and WW2.

Some people then thought that those conflicts were pointless operations on foreign soil too.

They do have their own day. Nov 11th.

There would be no war if people refused to fight them

Idealistic and NEVER gonna happen.

Like the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. The British Military and it's NATO counterparts HAD to go in and show force, because the UN were powerless. If NATO had gone in first, as it did in Kosovo it would have been over in months rather than years and millions of deaths later.

So the young soldiers, young enough to be my dads sons,, that died as my dad held them don't have the right to be remembered because they joined up during peace time? Or the young soldier who was shot in the head, next to my brother in Bosnia shouldn't be remembered because he chose to join the Army? Is that what you're saying op?

"There would be no war if people refused to fight them"

And Caco would be running Sarajevo, and the rest of Bosnia. Those trying not to fight were massacred. Refusing to fight might mean no war, but that's not synonymous with a happy or secure peace.

Hear, hear LtEve.

Please read a little about the Balkans and Kosovo, OP.

and coco and scare.

If people refused to go to war what state do you think the world would be in? It would be over run by despots.

I mean hear, hear. Not read up on the Balkans

I'm on holiday and have had a