Remembrance Sunday = PoPpY DaY

Latchy

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do you feel it is a bad thing to commemorate the lives of men who fell in a war that was not their doing? Its not a statement in support of war, its showing solidarity with the men who died for a pointless cause, telling them that their lives were not in vain. How much do you actually know about the poppy and how much is tied to "poppy British-british bad,grrr"? Despite my links to actual facts on the the poppy symbols origins you seem intent on labelling it a british symbol. Why is that?

Hold on , i think your dancing to the wrong tune here .Are you reading my post correctly ? Were on this thread have i said it was wrong to commemorate the lives of men who fell into a war not of their doing ? When has a war ever being the the ordianary soldiers doing Were is the poppy British -british bad reference in my posts ? As for your educating me on the history of the poppy.I march and wear the poppy in the London parade ever november 9th .i dont need to open your link (in an unknown file) Millions of ordinary british people and ex-veterans ,as well as many other around the world wear it as a reference to remember all who died not just in the great war but all wars and conflicts .We are all capable of looking up google for an indepth reference to the poppy or anything else .

When have you marched in a poppy day parade ? are you confusing me with gandalf ?

Edit - my reference to the absurities of war ,all wars is true .Wars are arranged by politicians and madmen .We remember the men who had to fight these horrible wars, not the bastards who started them

LordSutch

gandalf wrote: »

Given that the country had undergone a rising, a war of independence and a civil war I think that De Valera was to be commended for keeping the republic out of World War 2. It's one of the few things that I believe he did right.

I beg to disagree with you on that one Gangalf, I mean to say, hundreds of Allied ships were lost as a direct result of the Ports not being in the loop! (thanks to Dev) who in my opinion was at best awkward & blinkered.

gandalf wrote: »

He made a major gaff with the letter of condolence but then again the full extend of what the Nazi's perpetrated was not clear at that stage.

Ah come on now Gandalf, I would have thought that by the time of Hitlers death the full extent of what the Nazi's did was apparent for all to see (even in Ireland)?

gandalf wrote: »

As for the poppy issue I would consider it a pro war symbol even if its not intended as one. I went to a Protestant Secondary School and I would not condemn someone if they wanted to wear one especially if members of their own family fell in either of those conflicts. I have the same feeling towards the lily as well.

No no no Gandalf, the wearing of the Poppy is not to glorify War but to remember those who never came Home & who fell on the Poppy fields of Flanders - 'Pro War' does Not come into the equation, for it is a sad & solemn time of the year, a time to reflect on Death & the futility of War, and in the context of myself, the wearing of the Poppy is to remember my own Grandfather from Dun Laoghaire.

gandalf wrote: »

Unfortunately in this country both North and South symbols that are supposed to represent something good and honourable are normally hijacked for the purposes of triumphalism of one type or another.

Sorry Gandalf, but you & I are not seeing eye to eye on this one, as I have just said in the previous paragraph 'Pro War' or Triumphalism does not come into it - please see above ^.

bobbysands81

Camelot,

Do you wear an Easter Lily to remember the dead of the Easter Rising?

ardmacha

The poppy has been hijacked by the ultra-unionist lobby over decades and do not represent a host of nationalities who died in Belgium in WW1, the likes of the French for example

The wearing of paper poppies is a statement of British imperialism and has no place in this country which has been the major victim of this imperialism. The West British faction in this country have prevented Ireland taking its rightful role in the commemoration of the First World War by conflating this imperialist poppy usage with the idea of the commemoration. French, Belgians, Italians, Austrians, Czechs, Hungarians and a dozen other nationalities commemorate a European war without British imperialist paper poppies and we should do likewise.

gandalf

Camelot wrote: »

I beg to disagree with you on that one Gangalf, I mean to say, hundreds of Allied ships were lost as a direct result of the Ports not being in the loop! (thanks to Dev) who in my opinion was at best awkward & blinkered.

Well we are going to have to disagree, but a country that lost so many men in WW1, went through a rising, a war of independence and then a civil war. was a new country on the world stage trying to assert her identity would have been swallowed up in the quagmire of WW2 and lost whatever identity they were trying to mould.

I believe it was the right decision and I hold to that view and its a view of a lot of people in this country.

Ah come on now Gandalf, I would have thought that by the time of Hitlers death the full extent of what the Nazi's did was apparent for all to see (even in Ireland)?

Well you think that then, but unlike today you didn't have Sky News to give you 24 hours coverage of the war. I am sure that information was there but the scale of the crimes of the third reich would have only become apparent after VE day.

No no no Gandalf, the wearing of the Poppy is not to glorify War but to remember those who never came Home & who fell on the Poppy fields of Flanders - 'Pro War' does Not come into the equation, for it is a sad & solemn time of the year, a time to reflect on Death & the futility of War, and in the context of myself, the wearing of the Poppy is to remember my own Grandfather from Dun Laoghaire.

I am sorry you are wrong. I am talking about peoples perception here. My perception is the wearing of the poppy or lily is glorifying war and wallowing in the past. Its obviously different from yours but it is none the less a valid point and I know I share this perception with a lot of people as well.

Sorry Gandalf, but you & I are not seeing eye to eye on this one, as I have just said in the previous paragraph 'Pro War' or Triumphalism does not come into it - please see above ^.

Well we shall agree to disagree then.

Mad Finn

Camelot wrote: »

“So why don’t Irish people (Protestants aside) not wear the Poppy as a mark of respect on or around Armistice Sunday”? .......
In the first World War Three hundred & fifty thousand Irish men died in the field of battle,

Why don't we?

Maybe it's because people like you who want others to see things your way prefer a romantic, skewed and inaccurate version of the past to the facts. Because the facts can paint an inconvenient truth.

For a start, your numbers are way out. Even the Islandbridge War Memorial only claims that about 50,000 Irishmen died in the first world war. So you're only out by a factor of 700 per cent!

But even that figure is inaccurate. The Islandbridge memorial, to the best of my knowledge, only refers to men who died while serving with named Irish regiments. Although the majority of these were indeed "from the island of Ireland" a significant proportion were from the rest of the UK. Nor is it the case that eveybody serving in, say, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers was an Englishman of Irish origin as you might think. Why was this? Well that's debatable and I'm happy to debate it but for the moment I'll decline the temptation to sidetrack.

Of course this is offset to some degree by the fact that many Irishmen, especially those living in England, served in other non-Irish regiments. There was a batallion of the Northumberland Fusiliers who were known informally as the Tyneside Irish because so many of them were Irish or of Irish origin. And many Irishmen served in specialist units like the Artillery and the Medical corps.

It is hard to get an exact figure of how many Irishmen actually died in WWI. Some researchers now are converging on a figure of about 35,000 but all are agreed that this is merely an estimate.

But that's just an estimate of the facts. What we are really talking about is how, nearly a 100 years later, we should look at the war and our role in it?

Wearing the poppy is to take, in a general sense, the benign British view of the war. It was a war for the "rights of small nations", or "to make the world safe for democracy" or "against German militarism". Although people concede that the causes of the war for complex, few in Britain would ever admit that they were in any way culpable.

But in my view, they were. The First World War was an explosion caused by the rivalry between the traditional empires, Britain, France, Austria and Russia and the emerging ones Germany and Italy.

Each of these countries was jockeying for position, trying to maintain and extend their posessions and influence or trying to grow it from scratch.

As the stakes grew higher, they were each afraid of the other and were forced into marriages of convenience with empires that had earlier been their enemies.

Complicating the matter further was the growing national consciousness of each empire's subject peoples. As the world as a whole gradually completed the move to a modern industrial society, with its attendant needs for greater universal education and freedom of trade, national movements grew. Ireland was no exception.

All empires were keen to encourage the independence of subject peoples--as long as they were in their rivals' empires. The British got very hot under the collar at the thought of Belgium being overrun; the Germans generously donated arms to both sides of the quarrel in Ireland.

At the end of the war, a load of new states were created--all from the remnants of the Austrian, German, Ottoman and Russian empires. What happened to Germany's possessions in Africa? Independence for small nations? I don't think so. They were divided up between the British, French and Belgians.

What happened to the Ottoman Empire? Carved up initially between the British and French and gradually handed over to puppet minorities who were widely despised by their people. We're still living with the consequences of that.

People who wear the poppy can pretend that they are remembering an earlier generation of IRishmen united in a great cause. The phrase "catholic and protestant standing shoulder to shoulder against a common enemy" is often mentioned. In fact, those same catholics and protestants had been willing a few months before the start of the war to tear at each other's throats and showed subsequently that they were well able to do so again.

I take no pride in a generation of Irishmen that were treated as cannon fodder by another country's empire. Even though several of them were my forebears and relatives. Instead I am angry about the terrible waste and cynical manipulation of their sense of duty and patriotism.

And I have nothing but contempt for those who want to encourage a similar mindset in our children's generation for this era's nebulous "great cause" variously described as the "war on terror" or the "fight against Islamo Fascism". You'll find that many of those will be wearing poppies around about now and sniffing at the rest of us for "writing our men out of history".

We're not writing them out of history. On the contrary, we know more about the real history than the charlatans who want to distort the facts.

Serenity Now!

gandalf wrote: »

Given that the country had undergone a rising, a war of independence and a civil war I think that De Valera was to be commended for keeping the republic out of World War 2. It's one of the few things that I believe he did right

Yes, you could use that as an excuse for toeing-the-water to see who would come out on top before any form of commitment at a decisive time, no worries. And he did.

gandalf wrote: »

He made a major gaff with the letter of condolence but then again the full extend of what the Nazi's perpetrated was not clear at that stage

At that time, the Nuremberg Race Laws were known and the methodology of the Nazi Party in German life was known. It was also very well "known" that Poland was annexed by Germany and the USSR. In 1940, France and Norway had fallen. By 1942 the gating in of Jews into crowded ghettos was "known".

tbh

I proudly wear the poppy to remember the waste of all the lives of my countrymen (and all the others who were butchered), some of whom died at half my age, who were lied to and tricked by the governments of the day, and who sacrificed their lives thinking they were doing the right thing. It's got nothing to do with the Brits, or the Irish, or the Germans, or the Free State or any of that. It's to remember the sacrifices of normal guys, who went to their death, rightly or wrongly, for me. It's my way of thanking them, and I couldn't give a bollocks what anyone thinks, I'll wear it all November, every November.

gandalf

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Yes, you could use that as an excuse for toeing-the-water to see who would come out on top before any form of commitment at a decisive time, no worries. And he did.

Well if by that comment you mean that Ireland stayed Neutral then yes we did. However it was a biased neutrality.

As can be seen from these extracts from Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who wrote a letter to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939-1945

1. They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off the Lough.
2. They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
3. They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative’s Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
4. They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
5. They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
6. They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
7. They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
8. They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
9. They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
10. They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
11. Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
12. They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
13. They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
14. They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a Radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.


In 1944 the number of members of the British Army who were born in the Republic was 27,840.

Looks like they were toeing on one side of the fence there.

At that time, the Nuremberg Race Laws were known and the methodology of the Nazi Party in German life was known. It was also very well "known" that Poland was annexed by Germany and the USSR. In 1940, France and Norway had fallen. By 1942 the gating in of Jews into crowded ghettos was "known".

Actually a lot of it was not known as you say again I submit that they didn't have the ability to get information as quickly as we do today. Also it was admitted by Michael McDowell "that a culture of muted anti-semitism in Ireland" and that the government of the time "at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews" unfortunately they were not the only government with this attitude.

Look at the British treatment of the Jewish refugees from Nazi held territories during the war.

However, when World War II broke out, Britain banned all emigration from
Nazi-controlled territories. Throughout the rest of the war, only some 10,000
Jewish refugees managed to find their way into Britain. In addition, the British
White Paper of 1939 further limited European Jewry's chances of finding
refuge in that it restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, which was under
the control of the British Mandate authorities.

For the lucky Jews who had successfully reached Britain before it closed its
doors at the beginning of the war, life was not easy. Many highly educated
people could only find work as domestics. After Germany invaded and
conquered several Northern and Western European countries in mid-1940,
the British public began to panic. Fearing that anyone with a German accent
might be a spy, the British government began imprisoning Germans and
Austrians who had settled in Britain, calling them "enemy aliens." This
included Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Germany and Austria. About
30,000 were interned in camps in Britain itself (where in some cases Jews
and pro-Nazi Germans were put together), while 8,000 were deported to
Canada and Australia (some of whom died when their ships were hit by
torpedoes). As the threat of a German invasion passed, the prisoners were
released and some of the deportees were returned to Britain.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206312.pdf

Mad Finn

tbh wrote: »

It's my way of thanking them.

Thanking them for what?

Fratton Fred

Mad Finn wrote: »

Wearing the poppy is to take, in a general sense, the benign British view of the war. It was a war for the "rights of small nations", or "to make the world safe for democracy" or "against German militarism". Although people concede that the causes of the war for complex, few in Britain would ever admit that they were in any way culpable.

wow, that view of WWI went out the window around 50 years ago. The way it is taught in schools now is pretty much how you described, a clash of imperial nations, the arms race etc etc.

To summerise from a British perspective, Britain fancied its chances against the german empire, the French or any other european empire. what it didn;t fancy was the thought of Germany taking over France and controlling the might of both armiea, that would have been too much especially with the rush to build Dreadnoughts.

The Poppy came from this war to symbolise the futility of it all and the mass slaughter that was the western front. It is a classless non political symbol to commemorate those that died.

If people don't want to wear one because they believe it carries other meanings, such as glorifying war etc then fine, as long as they respect the reason's why I do (and am currently) wear one.

tbh

Mad Finn wrote: »

Thanking them for what?

for going. For their sacrifice. For doing what they saw as their duty. I would have thought that was pretty clear.

Mad Finn

Serenity Now! wrote: »

At that time, the Nuremberg Race Laws were known and the methodology of the Nazi Party in German life was known.

By the standards of the time, what was so terrible about the Nuremberg Laws?

Many US states, I think about half of them at the time, still had "Anti Miscegenation Laws" which were identical in character to one of the two Nuremberg Laws, the "Law for Protection of German Blood and Honour". These laws forbade marriage or sexual relations between whites and various other races, specifically "blacks" in all cases and also "Hindus" in others.

Should we have gone to war against the US because of these discriminatory and awful laws?

The other Nuremberg Law stripped Jews of German citizenship. So they weren't able to do things like vote, or hold elected office. And in some cases they were not allowed eat or go to the toilet in the same place as "real" Germans. An identical state of affairs existed in southern US states until the 1960s. Why didn't we go to war against America in the 1950s?

After all, Germany got rid of her race laws in the 1940s. America kept hers until 1967. That is in the life time of two of the current candidates in the US election, Obama and Palin.

Methinks there were other reasons for WWII than concern for our Jewish Brethern.

gandalf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If people don't want to wear one because they believe it carries other meanings, such as glorifying war etc then fine, as long as they respect the reason's why I do (and am currently) wear one.

I would never condemn someone for their own personal held views and I respect people who wear it in remembrance of their relatives who made the ultimate sacrifice.

My problem is with the symbolism of it and they way some warp it for their own political means.

Fratton Fred

Mad Finn wrote: »

Methinks there were other reasons for WWII than concern for our Jewish Brethern.

the small matter of Hitler invading every and any country he could may have played a small part as well

tbh

gandalf wrote: »

I would never condemn someone for their own personal held views and I respect people who wear it in remembrance of their relatives who made the ultimate sacrifice.

My problem is with the symbolism of it and they way some warp it for their own political means.

fair enough - but why don't you take the symbol back? Wear the poppy, and when someone asks you why you wear it, tell them.

Lauder

I will be wearing mine as usual. There are becoming a more familiar site on Irish streets every year, and donations have gone up threefold since 2004.


If people want to buy a poppy they will be sellers on in Dublin: Grafton Street (St.Stephens Green SC), Clontarf (Vernon Avenue Village), Malahide Village, Donnybrook Village in the run up to Armistice day.

Cork, Limerick and Galway likewise and some other locations. (Most CofI Churches as wells and a few RC ones.

Liam Byrne

Camelot wrote:

for several generations it has been a tradition that only the Protestant Churches & their Congregations wear Poppies

Camelot wrote:

they are also readily available in all Protestant Churches on the 11th/ or nearest Sunday

Based on the above two posts, aren't you answering your own question ?

Mad Finn

Camelot wrote:

Yes folks its that time of the year again – a time to Remember – a time to reflect – a time to wear a Poppy - (& if you live in Ireland) a time to forget all those who died in past conflicts, a time for confusion – a time for Political division - a time to pretend past generations didn’t fall on the PoPpY fields of Flanders & in the trenches of two World Wars & beyond.

The pompous presumptuous self-righteous self-congratulatory tone of your opening post is despicable. You assume that because people don't share the same view of history as you that they have forgotten it.

Rubbish!!

I will bet my bottom dollar that I know a damned sight more about the first world war and the Irishmen who fought in it than you do. Your opening howler about 350,000 Irish fatalities shows that you are indeed careless with your facts.

I just don't look back on it with the same chest-swelling sense of pride that you do, and neither should I.

You sneer that in Ireland, looking back on the war is "a time for Political Division" Why shouldn't it be? None of us have the same view on the events of the present--why should we be expected to share identical interpretations about the past?

There is much to learn about World War One:

The way in which it mutated from a vengeful local expedition to punish a terrorist outrage to a conflagration which consumed most of Europe and many parts of the world controlled by European powers.

The way in which the Great Powers realigned themselves for reasons of pure expediency with countries against whom they had fought murderous battles little over a generation before. There would have been many people alive during the first world war, for example, who remembered the Crimean war, when the British fought with the Turks to prevent Russian encroachment on the Balkans and the Bosphorus. (In 1915, they invaded Turkey for just the opposite reason)

The way in which it completely destablised Europe and rushed into existence a load of new countries that were not resilient enough in their own right to withstand the ethnic, economic and strategic turbulence that they faced. I concede that it would probably have been very much better for Ireland if home rule had come in by act of law and that we proceeded democratically from there. We would probably be pretty much where we are now, but with a lot less bitterness and "division" as was caused by our internecine struggles.

We have the first world war to "thank" for that.

If you want to "Give thanks" to the men who tried to do that by standing in common cause and common attire with the successors of the very people who ordered them into that hellhole, be my guest. But don't expect me to share your sentiments.

We don't forget the First World War, mate. Some of us are only too clear about its causes and its consequences.

tbh

I found your post very interesting and well-written, but I don't understand what you mean by the following:

Mad Finn wrote: »

If you want to "Give thanks" to the men who tried to do that by standing in common cause and common attire with the successors of the very people who ordered them into that hellhole, be my guest. But don't expect me to share your sentiments.

.

could you explain for me? (I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, genuinely interested in hearing more)

LordSutch

Mad Finn wrote: »

For a start, your numbers are way out. Even the Islandbridge War Memorial only claims that about 50,000 Irishmen died in the first world war. So you're only out by a factor of 700 per cent!

You are indeed correct Mad Finn - I got my numbers in a mucking fuddle, still 50,000 dead Irish men in the Great War is still a lot of dead Irish men! specially when you put the number into the context of the Rising when about three hundred died (rough approximation)!...............

I shall go back & fix the original post.

Mad Finn

tbh wrote:

found your post very interesting and well-written, but I don't understand what you mean...

Thanks.

What I mean by that is that present at the main commemoration will be the Queen, the Government, members of the top army brass and the whole political appartus in whose interest and at whose command those men were ordered into battle.

It is, to my mind, utterly dishonest to say that wearing the poppy is anything less than a retrospective endorsement of the cause, or causes, for which they fought and a continuing loyalty to the regime that commanded them. If you're wearing a poppy, you are saying "They were our boys. We ordered them into battle, through our leaders whom we elected. They were fighting our fight and will do so again, in defence of our rulers."

Only they weren't. How was invading Turkey, for example, Ireland's fight? By my own researches, nearly 2,000 Irishmen died at Gallipoli. Why?

Some here are implying that wearing the poppy is a reproach to those rulers, a gesture of defiance as if to say "You manipulated and abused those men and we're not going to forget it." That it's an apolitical symbol. That is utter rubbish.

I wouldn't expect anybody wearing an Easter lily to be anything other than a Republican, in the Irish sense of the word. I wouldn't expect anybody other than a loyalist to wear the poppy.

It is true that people joined the British Army for different reasons. Some were indeed keen to prove their undying loyalty to King, Country and Empire. Others were attempting to build up a debt of honour that would be repaid by the grant of freedom.

Wearing the poppy recognises none of those complex and subtle variations. It simplifies everything down to an ongoing loyalty to king, or queen, and country.

That's perfectly appropriate for British people, but we've moved on from that.

tbh

Mad Finn wrote: »

Thanks.

What I mean by that is that present at the main commemoration will be the Queen, the Government, members of the top army brass and the whole political appartus in whose interest and at whose command those men were ordered into battle.

It is, to my mind, utterly dishonest to say that wearing the poppy is anything less than a retrospective endorsement of the cause, or causes, for which they fought and a continuing loyalty to the regime that commanded them. If you're wearing a poppy, you are saying "They were our boys. We ordered them into battle, through our leaders whom we elected. They were fighting our fight and will do so again, in defence of our rulers."

Only they weren't. How was invading Turkey, for example, Ireland's fight? By my own researches, nearly 2,000 Irishmen died at Gallipoli. Why?

Some here are implying that wearing the poppy is a reproach to those rulers, a gesture of defiance as if to say "You manipulated and abused those men and we're not going to forget it." That it's an apolitical symbol. That is utter rubbish.

Thanks. I understand where you are coming from.
I agree with you on a lot of points. I believe that 99% of the men (Irish, English, German, whatever) that died in 1 had absolutely no influence of the chain of events that brought them there. They took all of the risks, but were never in the running for any of the reward. I believe that the majority of men who underwent such unimaginable suffering did so simply because they were asked. They felt it was their duty, and they believed the powers -that-be who told them that their futures depended on it, when really, in one sense, the only futures at risk were those of the powers-that-be.
I think it's very important that their lives are remembered. Realistically, wearing the poppy is the most visible reminder people will see during the year, especially in Ireland, regretfully. I don't think we should spend our whole lives mourning them, but I do think it's important that at least once a year, people should spend a couple of minutes thinking about the sacrifices that every soldier has made over the years, and hopefully firm their resolve that nothing like that should ever be allowed to happen again.

I take your point about the association with the ruling classes, and I concede that it could be argued that the poppy serves as a sop to the families of the fallen, possibly to ensure a constant line of fresh blood into the machine. But you know what- I don't care. It's not why I wear it, and if anyone asks me about it, I'll tell them why, like I'm doing now (although no-one asked ).

LordSutch

Wow, you do have strong opinions on the Poppy & the wearing of such Mad Finn, but to say that people who wear the Poppy in the Republic are "Loyalists" is a stretch of the imagination, & indeed I would go as far as to say that those who mark Remembrance Day & (wear the Poppy in the Republic) are certainly not Loyalists!

I was in St Patrick's Cathedral (Dublin) last year for the annual Remebrance Day Service, so too was Mary McAleese + several Government Ministers, some wearing poppies, some not - none of them Loyalists I guess.

Anyway Mad Finn, I dunno why you are so aggravated & annimated about this topic, it really has given you the needle for some reason? I started off this thread because of a letter within the pages of the Irish Times, which got me thinking . . . . . .

Sorry if I have upset you Mad Finn, but the subject just seemed begging to be discussed, (specially at this time of year), oh & by the way, I still stand by my perceptions in my opening paragraph in my first post.

Anyway - the original question from the pages of the Irish Times has still not been answered.

Serenity Now!

Mad Finn wrote: »

How was invading Turkey, for example, Ireland's fight? By my own researches, nearly 2,000 Irishmen died at Gallipoli. Why?

Same reason as many others for joining up.

As a slight aside, the number of Irish who died at Gallipoli was more than double that number according to the seminal historian of the event, L.A.Carlyon. Its remembered as an ANZAC operation and this misconception is further enforced with the ridiculous slant on Peter Weir's movie, Gallipoli. There were more British casualties and mortalities at Gallipoli than Aussie or Kiwis.

Mad Finn wrote: »

I wouldn't expect anybody wearing an Easter lily to be anything other than a Republican, in the Irish sense of the word. I wouldn't expect anybody other than a loyalist to wear the poppy

Ridiculous though you're, of course, entitled to think like that.

Many here seem to just associate the Poppy with the 1914-1918. This is also incorrect as the day commemorates everybody who died fighting with those forces. Not all of that of them died or were wounded for an 'empire'.

getz

when you buy a poppy you are also giving money for the upkeep of the graves of the soldiers --i think you will find that on poppy day in the irish national war memorial gardens [over 49.400] irish men died in the first world war,a lot of poppys will be put in honour of the dead

Latchy

Camelot wrote: »

Wow, you do have strong opinions on the Poppy & the wearing of such Mad Finn, but to say that people who wear the Poppy in the Republic are "Loyalists" is a stretch of the imagination, & indeed I would go as far as to say that those who mark Remembrance Day & (wear the Poppy in the Republic) are certainly not Loyalists!

Indeed , why do people always want to put people in little box's like that ie, '' they wear poppies because they are loyalists '' .Hasnt occured to Mad Finn that the person wearing the poppy had a father or grandfather who died in the war of topic ? You might ask and get several versions of what a ' Loyalist ' person is but somebody from southern ireland wearing a poppy hardly falls into that box unless thay have strong NI protestant backgrounds, which would then suggest they would travel north to the poppy day rememberence day there.

Very schoolboyish comment

Serenity Now!

Mad Finn wrote: »

By the standards of the time, what was so terrible about the Nuremberg Laws?

Utterly sick comment. Belittle all you like the dehumanisation (and afterwards, constitutional dehumanisation) of an entire demograph and the widespread mass hysteria which preceded 1935 where Jews are banned from all kinds of professions, possessions plundered or smashed up and prohibited from areas of society they were already assimilated into.
Not surprising you'd pinch this through, though.

I never said it was the main cause of the second world war so no need for the patronising bilge you just posted. And contrary to the belief of another poster, it was widely known what was happening even with blanket media bans prevalent.

At the end of the day, deValera's Ireland still bludged its way out of the war while waiting to see who would win it and enjoyed the comfort of no Nazi or Soviet landing of their shores with an intent.

Yutzim.

gandalf

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Utterly sick comment. Belittle all you like the dehumanisation (and afterwards, constitutional dehumanisation) of an entire demograph and the widespread mass hysteria which preceded 1935 where Jews are banned from all kinds of professions, possessions plundered or smashed up and prohibited from areas of society they were already assimilated into.
Not surprising you'd pinch this through, though.

I actually agree with your assessment of that comment. It does make light of disgusting and dehumanising state incited behaviour that led to the blight on the human soul that was the Holocaust.

I never said it was the main cause of the second world war so no need for the patronising bilge you just posted. And contrary to the belief of another poster, it was widely known what was happening even with blanket media bans prevalent.

Again that is subject to interpertation but even a country that had all the facts (Britain) treated the few jewish refugees it did allow across its borders in the most deplorable fashion possible. Unfortunately at that time alot of countries acted in an anti-semitic fashion.

At the end of the day, deValera's Ireland still bludged its way out of the war while waiting to see who would win it and enjoyed the comfort of no Nazi or Soviet landing of their shores with an intent.

Yutzim.

Ireland was still recovering from a civil war whose echo's politically can still be heard until today. You had a very strong facist element with the Blueshirts, an extremely strong Anti-English element with the IRA and going into the war on the British side could have kicked off the civil war again. The history of the state is a little more complex than you give it credit for.

I have listed how slanted the actual neutrality was in this response

Also is it just me or weren't the Soviets on the allied side in the war?

Heroditas

Why do we have to hang onto the coat tails of Britain like a needy child all the time?
We have a memorial service in July for all fallen Irish soldiers who died in wars and also serving in the UN. Why can't we make more of that instead of appearing to cry for attention from the UK, appearing to be as "PC" as possible by wearing poppies. "Hey guys, look, all is forgiven, we're wearing poppies now."