what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[Sasaferrato]

I really don't see what you're on about Sas.

Since when was it necessary to post "neutral", "non-partisan" questions In P&P? And if you think any of my posting has "hectored" or implied "stupidity" and "idiocy", you'd be able to support that by pointing out where exactly.

Those things aside, my opening contribution to the thread was, what I perceive to be a "neutral" question posed in a perfectly "mannerly" way. It was this....


To which you replied....


Thereafter I've seen a few "unmannerly" replies to my questions about the oath and it's implications for the armed forces....including....










...so you'll understand if I politely decline to take any advice about my posting style; thanks.

Seen in the round, I'd say that those speaking as ex-forces appear overly defensive when questioned about the oath and its possible implications. Shame, really.

The above have been in RESPONSE to your 'questions'. I truly despair sometimes. I have bitten my tongue, up to now, and tried to remain relatively polite. Any further ill mannered attempts at interrogation by you will result in you being told to 'GO and fuck yourself'. There is a limit to my civility, and you are way past it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yes, there is a clear protocol, and failure to carry out that order would result in trial before Court Martial. However, Court Martial is consonant with extant UK law, so a number of defences can be rendered for the failure.



Threat to whoever/whatever the soldiers are tasked to defend. My point is that the Guardsmen at Buck House wouldn't open fire and wouldn't be ordered to open fire unless threat to life and limb of who they're defending is imminent. I'm fairly sure it still pertains (it did in my day) that while live ammo is carried, it isn't loaded. An empty mag is loaded, and a live mag kept in an ammo pouch. Disciplinaries for carrying a loaded weapon when you're not supposed to are harsh. Even carrying a lone live round on your person can see you put away.



As a whole, no. As individual units, yes. Several individual units during "The Great Strike" refused to strike-break, and were threatened with mutiny charges. The one I know most about (which isn't much, because this stuff was kept under wraps) was a company of infantry whose personnel were assigned to drive trains, and refused to do so, on the sensible grounds that while the army had some of its' own trains that they were trained to operate, most of the rolling stock they were being expected to handle was outside their competence, as was operating a train with passenger carriages, rather than goods vans.

'I have no live rounds, pyrotechnics or empty cases in my possession (Sir)'.

We had a lad walk off the ranges with a box of 50 9mm rounds in his pocket. He'd been loading mags when he got called to the firing point, and had stuck them in his pocket rather than leave them on the ground. Luckily we had a good Squad Sgt, who quietly returned them to the Weapons Instructor. I remember being absolutely amazed at the time, that there was no count of rounds supplied, rounds fired and rounds left. I dare say it's different now.

 

[brogdale]

The above have been in RESPONSE to your 'questions'. I truly despair sometimes. I have bitten my tongue, up to now, and tried to remain relatively polite. Any further ill mannered attempts at interrogation by you will result in you being told to 'GO and fuck yourself'. There is a limit to my civility, and you are way past it.

 

[dylanredefined]

'I have no live rounds, pyrotechnics or empty cases in my possession (Sir)'

We had a lad walk off the ranges with a box of 50 9mm rounds in his pocket. He'd been loading mags when he got called to the firing point, and had stuck them in his pocket rather than leave them on the ground. Luckily we had a good Squad Sgt, who quietly returned them to the Weapons Instructor. I remember being absolutely amazed at the time, that there was no count of rounds supplied, rounds fired and rounds left. I dare say it's different now.

Not really still happens. While ranges should be tighter controlled. Live fire exercises it would be difficult to work out who has what and who dumped excess ammo in the nearest convenient river or bush. . The declaration now includes the words And I will inform on anyone I know who has rounds on him or words to that effect.

 

[brogdale]

So those serving in the Navy haven't sworn the oath, then? How does that work? They could be godless republicans ffs.

 

[dylanredefined]

So those serving in the Navy haven't sworn the oath, then? How does that work? They could be godless republicans ffs.

60 years ago RN folk did not swear an Oath of Allegiance; ratings wre considered potentially mutinous as a hangover from impressment; officers were considered to be loyal and an oath was not necessary.
Nowadays they swear the same oath due to the armed forces act.

 

[Dowie]

'I have no live rounds, pyrotechnics or empty cases in my possession (Sir)'.

We had a lad walk off the ranges with a box of 50 9mm rounds in his pocket. He'd been loading mags when he got called to the firing point, and had stuck them in his pocket rather than leave them on the ground. Luckily we had a good Squad Sgt, who quietly returned them to the Weapons Instructor. I remember being absolutely amazed at the time, that there was no count of rounds supplied, rounds fired and rounds left. I dare say it's different now.

nah tis still easy to get buckshee rounds on ops... and useful too given there is a penalty for every round missing

weapons have to be zeroed, ranges used fairly frequently... usually the date on the rounds used for this is separate to the date used on the rounds you've been issued for the operation... sometimes it isn't... when you notice it isn't then it is prudent to perhaps keep hold of a few of those. You now have some spares to replace the issued rounds you have to account for, just in case you lose some.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck me, this thread misses all the points now.

 

[LiamO]

Just the same old British hating pacifist bile. What about the Germans? Give me strength!

This has been niggling me a wee bit, dylanredefined.

What exactly is your problem with "What about the Germans"? Millions of Germans died in WW1 in a war they had fuck all to do with (essentially a fall-out between in-bred cousins over the Berlin-Baghdad railway). Why should we not remember them?

As for WW2, I suppose it doesn't sit too well with the "WW2 was an anti-Fascist crusade" schtick if it's pointed out that the first victims of the Nazis were German workers (mostly Communists and Anarchists) - targeted and neutralised as Hitler's supporters in Britain, France and the US cheered them on.

 

[Lo Siento.]

This has been niggling me a wee bit, dylanredefined.

What exactly is your problem with "What about the Germans"? Millions of Germans died in WW1 in a war they had fuck all to do with (essentially a fall-out between in-bred cousins over the Berlin-Baghdad railway). Why should we not remember them?

Not to mention the fact that it was German soldiers who helped end the war and as a consequence saved many British, French and American lives.

 

[dylanredefined]

Not to mention the fact that it was German soldiers who helped end the war and as a consequence saved many British, French and American lives.

Bollocks they mutinied as the end was near not the other way round

This has been niggling me a wee bit, dylanredefined.

What exactly is your problem with "What about the Germans"? Millions of Germans died in WW1 in a war they had fuck all to do with (essentially a fall-out between in-bred cousins over the Berlin-Baghdad railway). Why should we not remember them?

As for WW2, I suppose it doesn't sit too well with the "WW2 was an anti-Fascist crusade" schtick if it's pointed out that the first victims of the Nazis were German workers (mostly Communists and Anarchists) - targeted and neutralised as Hitler's supporters in Britain, France and the US cheered them on.

As I said do republicans commemorate the British dead of the easter uprising?
Why should we remember the enemy dead other than in the vaguest terms. While I'll acknowledge they suffered too they started it.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Bollocks they mutinied as the end was near not the other way round

They mutinied when German troops were still on French soil and when the German Commander in Chief was still issuing orders to continue fighting. Without German civilians and soldiers refusing to accept more war it could easily have dragged on longer.

 

[dylanredefined]

They mutinied when German troops were still on French soil and when the German Commander in Chief was still issuing orders to continue fighting. Without German civilians and soldiers refusing to accept more war it could easily have dragged on longer.

The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.

 

[Lo Siento.]

The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.

Yeah, they quit rather than obey an order to fight. Many German soldiers then joined in, seizing major cities, making further continuation of the war impossible and forcing the abdication of the Kaiser. Then the war ended.

 

[LiamO]

While I'll acknowledge they suffered too they started it.

WTF are you rattling on about now? German soldiers and civilans started WW1?

waddaloddabollocks.

 

[LiamO]

The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.

I think you might find that it was all a little more nuanced than that but then you do like your brush strokes to be broad - and your history Imperial.

 

[butchersapron]

The German Army didn't quit it was the navy that mutinied knowing only death awaited in a pointless battle if they set sail again.

The soldiers had quit and was setting up soviets all over Europe - check out the belgian communes.

The top brass - which in your mind = army, not so powerful. In fact, define army in your terms/post.

 

[Lo Siento.]

WTF are you rattling on about now? German soldiers and civilans started WW1?

waddaloddabollocks.

Technically (not that it matters), I wouldn't actually take the point that the German state "started WW1" either.

 

[LiamO]

Technically (not that it matters), I wouldn't actual take the point that the German state "started WW1" either.

Course they did ... it all kicked off over that Archduke Ferdinand geezer didn't it? Or so we were told in school. Nothing about the Berlin-Baghdad railroad threatening the british empire at all. Looks like DR could never be bothered to get past schoolboy history.

I remember reading bits of one of them poncy books ('Howard's End' I think) where two charaters had a row over who would win the upcoming/imminent war between britain and germany.

It was published in 1910.

 

[butchersapron]

The german state did engineer ww1.

 

[Idris2002]

Course they did ... it all kicked off over that Archduke Ferdinand geezer didn't it? Or so we were told in school. Nothing about the Berlin-Baghdad railroad threatening the british empire at all. Looks like DR could never be bothered to get past schoolboy history.

I remember reading bits of one of them poncy books ('Howard's End' I think) where two charaters had a row over who would win the upcoming/imminent war between britain and germany.

It was published in 1910.

There was a whole genre of "Germany invades UK" books in the decades before 1914, they were the Tom Clancy novels of their day. The Riddle of the Sands is probably the only that's still read today.

butchersapron - you're thinking of the Fischer thesis, right?

 

[frogwoman]

wouldn't actual take the point that the German state "started WW1" either.

Remember reading some utterly stupid stuff from when the balkan wars were going on, blaming Serbia for WW1 with the idea that this proves something about the country today.

I thought that WW1 was a pointless waste of life for all countries involved and saying that any country started it is completely missing the point tbh.

 

[butchersapron]

There was a whole genre of "Germany invades UK" books in the decades before 1914, they were the Tom Clancy novels of their day. The Riddle of the Sands is probably the only that's still read today.

butchersapron - you're thinking of the Fischer thesis, right?

The fischer thesis is correct. It identifies the way that capitalist competition works and then tagged it to imperial German state policy. Only silly lefites deny it's truth.

 

[frogwoman]

The german state did engineer ww1.

Do you have anything to recommend about this Butchers? I keep meaning to read more about this as it's an area of my knowledge that's a bit lacking.

Also I recently saw a new autobiography of Gavrilo Princip out, is it worth getting?

 

[Idris2002]

The fischer thesis is correct. It identifies the way that capitalist competition works and then tagged it to imperial German state policy. Only silly lefites deny it's truth.

Interestingly, mainstream bourgeois histories - like that Sleepwalkers book - try to downplay that angle of the story.

Poor show, chaps.

Spoiler

 

[Idris2002]

Do you have anything to recommend about this Butchers? I keep meaning to read more about this as it's an area of my knowledge that's a bit lacking.

Also I recently saw a new autobiography of Gavrilo Princip out, is it worth getting?

Yeah, read Fischer's World Policy or Decline I think that's what it's called.

 

[frogwoman]

Also a lot of the 'hun raped' nun' sort of stories from Belgium were later proven to be true after long being thought to be an example of war propaganda.

 

[Idris2002]

Also a lot of the 'hun raped' nun' sort of stories from Belgium were later proven to be true after long being thought to be an example of war propaganda.

But they did commit some crimes against humanity in occupied Belgium, that's also true. As did "gallant little Belgium" itself did in Congo, of course (or the Belgian ruling class I should say, before Butchers shouts "ramming speed" and aims his wheelchair at me).

And as did "plucky little Serbia" in the areas it seized from Austro-Hungary. The Sleepwalkers book is good on that detail.

The important thing to never lose sight of in relation to 1914 is that all the ruling classes really were all as bad as each other. No matter what they imply to the contrary.

 

[frogwoman]

But they did commit some crimes against humanity in occupied Belgium, that's also true. As did "gallant little Belgium" itself did in Congo, of course.

And as did "plucky little Serbia" in the areas it seized from Austro-Hungary. The Sleepwalkers book is good on that detail.

The important thing to never lose sight of in relation to 1914 is that all the ruling classes really were all as bad as each other. No matter what they imply to the contrary.

Yeah, my point is that those stories were actually true, despite being claimed as false for the apologists of the German state.

Exactly, that's basically what I thought about world war 1. Bizarre that people are still trying to claim Britain was in the right.

 

[frogwoman]

But they did commit some crimes against humanity in occupied Belgium, that's also true. As did "gallant little Belgium" itself did in Congo, of course (or the Belgian ruling class I should say, before Butchers shouts "ramming speed" and aims his wheelchair at me).

And as did "plucky little Serbia" in the areas it seized from Austro-Hungary. The Sleepwalkers book is good on that detail.

The important thing to never lose sight of in relation to 1914 is that all the ruling classes really were all as bad as each other. No matter what they imply to the contrary.

For sure. Although it was a bit distasteful to see the idea that serbs started ww1 used as a way to promote nato's/the more recent actions tbh. Weirdly I remember seeing a poster from WW1 celebrating 'plucky Serbia' and advertising a celebration of the battle of Kosovo!

The Belgian ruling class was fucking grim in the Congo.