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

For Paws

No (I'm Irish)

The 'Poppy' is a small, artificial flower given to those who contribute financially to the collections for The Royal British Legion.
The Legion is a charity providing financial, social and emotional support to those who have served or are currently serving in the British Armed Forces, and their dependants.

The Legion fight nearly 36,000 ongoing War Disablement Pension cases for war veterans and make around 300,000 welfare and friendship visits every year.
Ongoing Legion campaigns include calls for more research into: Gulf War syndrome and compensation for its victims; upgrading of War Pensions; the extension of endowment mortgage compensation for British military personnel serving overseas; and better support for British military personnel resettling into civilian life.

The wearing of the 'Poppy' indicates that you support the aims and campaigns of the Legion. It does not necessarily indicate that you support war, or the aims and ambitions of those who start and engage in wars.

The Legion's motto is 'Service, not self'.

Jimoslimos

KeithAFC wrote: »

But the people of the 16th Irish division didn't do that. I think it is completely irrelevant.

Strike me down, for once I agree with Keith AFC. This IS irrelevant to the current discussion.

Toby Take a Bow

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I salute anyone who prevented me and mine speaking German.

The only person who prevented you speaking German was bad teachers in your secondary school.

talkinyite

'The Irish' implies the Irish nation/people, so no... and the British government should pay for their soldiers care and stop putting the responsibility on the British public.

Dionysus

Badgermonkey wrote: »

OK, here goes.

Get a blog - It'll allow you expand your weekly philippic and fully indulge your twin preoccupations with Perfidious Albion and Sir Tony O'Reilly.

Ah Badgermonkey, I knew I forgot somebody in the op. I also have quite a number of other regular targets - Ahern; publicans; social injustice, for starters - but you appear to be, well, "less sensitive" to them. Hmmm.

Chuck Stone

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I salute anyone who prevented me and mine speaking German.

You're an Irish person who's written that in English.

Micky Dolenz

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

The only person who prevented you speaking German was bad teachers in your secondary school.

And the battle of Britain.

stovelid

Not really fair to have a little dig at other posters in the OP when the question could just as easily be phrased more politely.

Many Irish people fought in the British army. If people want to remember their relatives who died in the great wars, that's fine by me. I can see why republicans or people, say with relatives in the north may not like it but for me I can accept that remembering those who fought in the great wars - for whatever reasons - is not necessarily supporting the British Army per se or their recent actions in the north.

I take the point about glorifying war but people are just honouring dead relatives a lot of the time.

Micky Dolenz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're an Irish person who's written that in English.

Would you prefer if I wrote in Irish?

Kranium

No (I'm Irish)

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Would you prefer if I wrote in Irish?

no we all know how one uses google translate

Biggins

Christ - are we having this thread again?
I'm outa here.

Exits stage left...

Micky Dolenz

Biggins wrote: »

Christ - are we having this thread again?
I'm outa here.

Exits stage left...

Cheerio.

gurramok

For Paws wrote: »

The 'Poppy' is a small, artificial flower given to those who contribute financially to the collections for The Royal British Legion.
The Legion is a charity providing financial, social and emotional support to those who have served or are currently serving in the British Armed Forces, and their dependants.

This part for the pro-poppy brigade is the reason why its rejected. British soldiers welfare should be supported by the British govt, not an Irish issue. And thats before anyone mentions NI or wars

Toby Take a Bow

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

And the battle of Britain.

Nope. Battle of Britain didn't prevent you speaking German.

Trotter

No (I'm Irish)

My great grandfather and his father fought in WW1 because the men around them were joining. None of them had much money and it was the chance to send some cash home to the family.

From listening carefully to stories my Grandfather has told me, I honestly think that we can't transplant today's standards, knowledge or situation onto a day in 1913/14 and say its comparable.

Most joined for money, food, clothing, and many younger men for a sense of adventure. I doubt any of them knew what they were actually getting into.

Micky Dolenz

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Nope. Battle of Britain didn't prevent you speaking German.

If Nazi Germany had taken Britain, we would have folded, neutral or not.

I've lived and worked in Britain, they are a grand ould bunch, well certainly the ones I meet on a daily basis. I can acknowledge the brave things their people did and the not so good things.

I'm worldly like that.

Tiocfaidh Armani

No, but you personally wanna do it, fire away.

Judgement Day

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Nope. Battle of Britain didn't prevent you speaking German.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? If Britain had been overrun do you really think Hitler would have left neutral Ireland to its own devices? Maybe he would have, and installed a puppet FF/Nazi government instead of wasting resources invading. :rolleyes:

Toby Take a Bow

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If Nazi Germany had taken Britain, we would have folded, neutral or not.

I've lived and worked in Britain, they are a grand ould bunch, well certainly the ones I meet on a daily basis. I can acknowledge the brave things their people did and the not so good things.

I'm worldly like that.

Oh, so can I. I, too, am worldly.

You still wouldn't be speaking German though.

Chuck Stone

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If Nazi Germany had taken Britain, we would have folded, neutral or not.

I only get involved in conjecture when someone else kicks it off because it's fun and you can make up the alternative future that suits you.

Had the Germans taken Britian they may or may not have invaded Ireland. Even if they did how long would the occupation have lasted? 2/3 years?

The Soviets were kicking ass in the east and would probably have captured Berlin by perhaps 1947/8 if the Americans didn't have the UK as a launching point for D-Day.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If Nazi Germany had taken Britain, we would have folded, neutral or not.

I've lived and worked in Britain, they are a grand ould bunch, well certainly the ones I meet on a daily basis. I can acknowledge the brave things their people did and the not so good things.

I'm worldly like that.

Brits as people are the same as us. We're not British though, don't see why we should commemorate people who died for them. Going down that road we should commemorate the Irish who fought to free America. It's silly really.

Jimoslimos

Judgement Day wrote: »

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? If Britain had been overrun do you really think Hitler would have left neutral Ireland to its won devices? Maybe he would have, and installed a puppet FF/Nazi government instead of wasting resources invading. :rolleyes:

Oblig FF/IMF/EU reference here if anyone wants it;)

Toby Take a Bow

Judgement Day wrote: »

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? If Britain had been overrun do you really think Hitler would have left neutral Ireland to its won devices? Maybe he would have, and installed a puppet FF/Nazi government instead of wasting resources invading. :rolleyes:

If it was in his interests to take over Ireland, then he might have installed a puppet government.

The battle of Britain saved Britain (and perhaps Ireland) for four years. Germany lost the war the day they invaded the USSR.

Dionysus

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If Nazi Germany had taken Britain, we would have folded, neutral or not.

I've lived and worked in Britain, they are a grand ould bunch, well certainly the ones I meet on a daily basis. I can acknowledge the brave things their people did and the not so good things.

I'm worldly like that.

And one of the most odd things about the supposedly "international" commemoration symbol which is the red poppy is that the people who gave most in fighting Nazi Germany, namely the Russians and their conquered lands in the Soviet Union where up to 20 million people died in WW II, are totally ignored. In contrast, around 40,000 people died in the Battle of Britain and Blitz combined.

If people want to commemorate the dead of that war inclusively, they could create some genuinely inclusive symbol rather than contending that the poppy is an inclusive international commemoration, when it's clearly a national symbol commemorating only those who fought in British forces.

AnamGlas

Wouldn't supporting British war fatalaties be opposing those who fought for our freedom?

A Dub in Glasgo

You will find the same arguments here

White Poppy for Peace

For Paws

No (I'm Irish)

gurramok wrote: »

This part for the pro-poppy brigade is the reason why its rejected. British soldiers welfare should be supported by the British govt, not an Irish issue. And thats before anyone mentions NI or wars

Any particular reason why the words 'and their dependants' escaped being emboldened by you ?

Should the Republic not support the welfare of non-Irish soldiers, and their dependants, who serve or have served in the Irish Army ?

Tiocfaidh Armani

AnamGlas wrote: »

Wouldn't supported British war fatalaties be opposing those who fought for our freedom?

Eh?

Should the Republic not support the welfare of non-Irish soldiers, and their dependants, who serve or have served in the Irish Army ?

Bit of a daft point that.:rolleyes:

KeithAFC

No (I'm British/not Irish)

Dionysus wrote: »

And one of the most odd things about the supposedly "international" commemoration symbol which is the red poppy is that the people who gave most in fighting Nazi Germany, namely the Russians and their conquered lands in the Soviet Union where up to 20 million people died in WW II, are totally ignored. In contrast, around 40,000 people died in the Battle of Britain and Blitz combined.

If people want to commemorate the dead of that war inclusively, they could create some genuinely inclusive symbol rather than contending that the poppy is an inclusive international commemoration, when it's clearly a national symbol commemorating only those who fought in British forces.

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

gurramok

For Paws wrote: »

Any particular reason why the words 'and their dependants' escaped being emboldened by you ?

Should the Republic not support the welfare of non-Irish soldiers, and their dependants, who serve or have served in the Irish Army ?

Did the Irish state employ them? No. Its up to their employers to support them in hard times, that is the UK govt. Likewise for any soldiers serving in other foreign armies.

You just put a new emphasis on the Irish welfare state, yes lets support a foreign army and its dependents!

Niles

No (I'm Irish)

FetchTheGin wrote: »

I would rather not commemorate an empire responsible for the destruction of my country and oppression of my ancestors.

Neither would I, it's the individual Irish people who fought that I think should be the focus of the commemoration. If that's the case then I have no problem.

AnamGlas wrote: »

Wouldn't supporting British war fatalaties be opposing those who fought for our freedom?

Not necessarily, it's not as though the British used Irish regiments during Easter 1916.

Galwayguy35

If someone wants to wear the poppy it wouldnt bother me but i would never wear one myself. Im Irish not British and its a British symbol.

ejmaztec

I'm sure that Dionysus is in here somewhere.

A Dub in Glasgo

Niles wrote: »

Not necessarily, it's not as though the British used Irish regiments during Easter 1916.

The fight for Irish independence did not start or end with the Rising

Badgermonkey

No (I'm Irish)

Dionysus wrote: »

Ah Badgermonkey, I knew I forgot somebody in the op.

Thanks, weren't they British though?

Perhaps I've been naturalised in absentia for services to the Crown.

I just lack that chip on the shoulder that'd allow me to conveniently blame much of this nations own failings on 800 years of blah blah blah.

That guff has always smacked of bullsh1t to me.

Dionysus wrote: »

I also have quite a number of other regular targets - Ahern; publicans; social injustice, for starters - but you appear to be, well, "less sensitive" to them. Hmmm.

I've read some, also agree with some of what you have to say.

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.

Just seems to me, some of what you put out there is rendered of less worth by that small kind of carry on.

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.

charlemont

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

And the battle of Britain.

Your knowledge of history is outstanding :rolleyes:


Although if the BoB was lost I'm sure Hitler would have needed our treaty ports but I cant see the jackboots stopping us speaking English, anyhow Hitler didn't want to subjugate Britain, He basically wanted them to F off and stop interfering in his stupid plans, So any notions of peoples on the British Isles speaking German as a 1st language are far fetched.

Niles

No (I'm Irish)

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The fight for Irish independence did not start or end with the Rising

I was just using that as an example, but my point still stands. Commemorating Irish people who fought in WWI does not equate to opposing those who fought for Irish freedom. Nor does it necessarily equate to supporting the British Army in general, just the Irish people who served in it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Niles wrote: »

I was just using that as an example, but my point still stands. Commemorating Irish people who fought in WWI does not equate to opposing those who fought for Irish freedom. Nor does it necessarily equate to supporting the British Army in general, just the Irish people who served in it.

The red poppy is about more than WW1

Fratton Fred

OP, I don't expect the Irish to commemorate British war dead, although I would expect them to have some respect for their own.

The only thing I ask (and dare I say expect) is that those who do wish to respect British war dead are shown a bit of respect, something which is a tall order possibly for the OP.

gurramok

charlemont wrote: »

So any notions of peoples on the British Isles speaking German as a 1st language are far fetched.

Yeh, the English, Scots and Welsh wouldn't stand for it in the British isles. On the otherhand, the Irish isle...

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.