Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

poppy?


  • Total voters
    120
Properly principled pacifism, such as that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is hard.

I do not equate pacifism, or conscientious objection, to cowardice. When I was a youngster (when I born, it was six years after the end of WWII, it wasn't history then.), I commented to my father about the 'cowards' that wouldn't fight. He told me about the Quakers, who operated an ambulance service, generally right up to the front line. He was brought into a Field Hospital in Italy, after being a bit close to an incoming mortar round. He had the highest praise for them.

Those who wear a white poppy, that is their choice, ditto those who wear none. A few bob into the tin is welcome though, whether you take a poppy or not. Broken soldiers need the help. They shouldn't, but they do.
 
On this point, you and I disagree. I see the mothers beaming with pride at their sons' passing out parades as part of the problem.

I don't want a bunfight with you on this, though. I think you already know that's what I think.

I do. Whether I agree or not is immaterial, you have an immutable right to your view.

An immutable right, protected by those of my father's generation, who fought and died to preserve it.
 
And this year, it coincides with withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cue talk of a difficult job achieved, etc etc. Not 'they killed and died for less than nothing'. tbh Coley, I see rather the opposite at this time of year - comfortable types who have never been near war acting tough and war-mongering.

Today in fact. We handed over Camp Bastion today.

I have a colleague at work, a Rock Ape reserve, he should be back in a couple of weeks. He's been in Iraq three times and Afghanistan four times. He's a wee bit vague on what his trade is. 'Comms' is his answer. I suspect with all the time he's been away, he's a bit more than a Radio Op. :D
 
Its more serious than that = post Neuremburg "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. To my mind it is now more than ever down to the conscience of each solider to decide if the war they are being sent to is legal or not.

Not really. There is no prospect Of Pte Bloggs standing at Nurnberg. (Anybody know how to do a 'u' with an Umlaut?)

As to the legality of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Bush, Blair, Brown or Cameron will ever stand trial for it, or indeed the sainted Obama.

Anyone care to bet on the number of weeks before countering IS will require 'boots on the ground'? And if ever anything needed boots, it is there. However, you either form a coalition, and send an appropriate number of troops, (who would be there on garrison duty for ever) or, you stay the fuck out.
 
try thinking about why there was such a campaign against those people

Appeasement of Nazi Germany

Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement, believing that Nazi Germany would cease its aggression if the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty were undone.[8] It backed Neville Chamberlain's policy at Munich in 1938, regarding Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland as legitimate. Peace News editor and PPU sponsor John Middleton Murry and his supporters in the group caused considerable controversy by arguing Germany should be given control of mainland Europe. In a PPU publication, Warmongers, Clive Bell said that Germany should be permitted to "absorb" France, Poland, the Low Countries and the Balkans. This position drew criticism from other PPU activists such as Vera Brittain and Andrew Stewart.[9] At the time of the Munich crisis, several PPU sponsors tried to send "five thousand pacifists to the Sudetenland as a non-violent presence", however this attempt came to nothing.[2]
Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.
 
Not really. There is no prospect Of Pte Bloggs standing at Nurnberg. (Anybody know how to do a 'u' with an Umlaut?)

As to the legality of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Bush, Blair, Brown or Cameron will ever stand trial for it, or indeed the sainted Obama.

Anyone care to bet on the number of weeks before countering IS will require 'boots on the ground'? And if ever anything needed boots, it is there. However, you either form a coalition, and send an appropriate number of troops, (who would be there on garrison duty for ever) or, you stay the fuck out.
Or you provide air support and let those who it affects sort it out.
 
Appeasement of Nazi Germany
Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement, believing that Nazi Germany would cease its aggression if the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty were undone.[8] It backed Neville Chamberlain's policy at Munich in 1938, regarding Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland as legitimate. Peace News editor and PPU sponsor John Middleton Murry and his supporters in the group caused considerable controversy by arguing Germany should be given control of mainland Europe. In a PPU publication, Warmongers, Clive Bell said that Germany should be permitted to "absorb" France, Poland, the Low Countries and the Balkans. This position drew criticism from other PPU activists such as Vera Brittain and Andrew Stewart.[9] At the time of the Munich crisis, several PPU sponsors tried to send "five thousand pacifists to the Sudetenland as a non-violent presence", however this attempt came to nothing.[2]
Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.

nicely selective quoting there. read the bit after, about how the campaigns against them were led by the daily mail
 
nicely selective quoting there. read the bit after, about how the campaigns against them were led by the daily mail
No, the whole article is available to read, it's just the bit I highlighted I found hard to believe, as for the daily mail, I know its history and have never read it. Though bringing them in is a bit of a strawman.
 
No, the whole article is available to read, it's just the bit I highlighted I found hard to believe, as for the daily mail, I know its history and have never read it. Though bringing them in is a bit of a strawman.

no it isn't.

you have a policy of appeasement that was supported by most of the British establishment.

when the establishment abandoned that policy, some of those who were shouting most in it's favour are the ones who led the campaign against those didn't abandon it. to try and cover up their about face by trying to associate that policy only with pcifist groups rather than as something they had cheered on
 
Red Poppys are an act of remberance and the money goes to looking after ex servicemen
White poppy sonly turn up during november and get spent on the peace pledge union
read the rest of the thread, cant be arsed to repeat what we have already gone through. But in your original comment you could easily now replace white with red poppies these days... it was just somewhat of a cretinous and pointless comment without explanation and tbf your further reasoning was pretty shit considering what has already been discussed.
 
My late dad was a soldier in WWII, which he miraculously survived unscathed as did some of his colleagues, many of their pals did not survive or were horribly injured. He wore a red poppy on the 11th of the 11th and remembered the soldiers sailors and airmen who did not come home, on both sides. I am happy to do the same.
 
Appeasement of Nazi Germany
Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement...
...Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.

Some of those involved in the PPU back in the 30's may well have been dodgy*, I don't know enough about them to dismiss that idea out of hand. But I think you should ask yourself who the many others mentioned in that piece you've quoted are.

I think you'll find that toggle's outline of who they were (ie a range of members of the establishment) and why their role in appeasement is downplayed in favour of suggesting it was a bunch of generally well meaning if rather naive pacifists who were actually leading the calls for appeasement (ie because when the establishment finally decided their interests were to oppose Nazism rather than cosying up to Hitler, they were keen that the earlier position many of them had taken should be forgotten as quickly as possible) is pretty much spot on.

And this is why many of us are uncomfortable about giving support to things like wearing red poppies on Remembrance Day, not because we don't think it's worth remembering those who died, or even because we question the motives of many, like you, who want to remember people in that particular way, but because we regard the establishment's cynical use of Remembrance Day and the genuine feelings you have about those who have lost their lives as being part of their manipulation to encourage unquestioning support for British war mongering in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan much more recently.

ETA* and as your quote mentions, there were some within the PPU who challenged that position
 
Some of those involved in the PPU back in the 30's may well have been dodgy, I don't know enough about them to dismiss that idea out of hand. But I think you should ask yourself who the many others mentioned in that piece you've quoted are.

the one i've looked into in particular was Nancy Astor (she of the infamous exchange with Churchill) . her first election campaign was shortly after ww1, and that involved some fairly sustained attacks on her opponent Isaac foot for having been lawyer to many of the conscientious objectors during the war. not because he opposed it, but because he believed thy had a right to competent representation.

by the 30's she was one of the leading voices for appeasement, so much so that she became known as 'mr hitler's representative in westminster'' for her unquestioning support of german interests

by the end of the war, she had rewritten her own history into the patriot, opposing the germans and giving moral support to the town. the heroine of the home front who gave the wown's women the courage to continue. so much so that locals with a strong interest in their history, who hold her up as the groundbreaking first woman MP (an error in itself), often know absolutely nothing about her activities in between her first election and ww2. mentioning it is something best not done in person, i've faced some quite aggressive responses to that.
 
the one i've looked into in particular was Nancy Astor (she of the infamous exchange with Churchill) . her first election campaign was shortly after ww1, and that involved some fairly sustained attacks on her opponent Isaac foot for having been lawyer to many of the conscientious objectors during the war. not because he opposed it, but because he believed thy had a right to competent representation.

by the 30's she was one of the leading voices for appeasement, so much so that she became known as 'mr hitler's representative in westminster'' for her unquestioning support of german interests

by the end of the war, she had rewritten her own history into the patriot, opposing the germans and giving moral support to the town. the heroine of the home front who gave the wown's women the courage to continue. so much so that locals with a strong interest in their history, who hold her up as the groundbreaking first woman MP (an error in itself), often know absolutely nothing about her activities in between her first election and ww2. mentioning it is something best not done in person, i've faced some quite aggressive responses to that.

I'm sure you know far more of the detail than I do, but the general theme is clear, even to someone with as sketchy a grasp of that detail as me. Thanks for filling in some of the gaps.

Interesting what happens when people start throwing claims about white poppies and appeasement around though, I'm not sure likesfish was quite expecting that...
 
I'm sure you know far more of the detail than I do, but the general theme is clear, even to someone with as sketchy a grasp of that detail as me. Thanks for filling in some of the gaps.

Interesting what happens when people start throwing claims about white poppies and appeasement around though, I'm not sure likesfish was quite expecting that...

i don't know much about groups like the ppu. i know the story of the boer war pacifists better. emily hobhouse, who exposed the horrors of the concentration camps to the world, leonard courtney, who continued to support her when she travelled to germany during ww1 to try to negotiate for peace. Save the Children was founded at a meeting in his home, a result of his and his wife's ongoing campaigns to try to minimise the consequences of war to civilians. they also got portrayed as traitors, cowards. reality is much more complex than the jingoists propeganda
 
Last edited:
i don't know much about groups like the ppu. i know the story of the boer war pacifists better. emily hobhouse, who exposed the horrors of the concentration camps to the world, leonard courtney, who continued to support her when she travelled to germany to try to negotiate for peace. Save the Children was founded at a meeting in his home, a result of his and his wife's ongoing campaigns to try to minimise the consequences of war to civilians. they also got portrayed as traitors, cowards. reality is much more complex than the jingoists propeganda

Yeah, reality is generally more complex than propaganda. Doesn't take that much effort to start peeping behind the curtain though ;)
 
Appeasement of Nazi Germany
Like many in the 1930s, the PPU supported appeasement, believing that Nazi Germany would cease its aggression if the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty were undone.[8] It backed Neville Chamberlain's policy at Munich in 1938, regarding Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland as legitimate. Peace News editor and PPU sponsor John Middleton Murry and his supporters in the group caused considerable controversy by arguing Germany should be given control of mainland Europe. In a PPU publication, Warmongers, Clive Bell said that Germany should be permitted to "absorb" France, Poland, the Low Countries and the Balkans. This position drew criticism from other PPU activists such as Vera Brittain and Andrew Stewart.[9] At the time of the Munich crisis, several PPU sponsors tried to send "five thousand pacifists to the Sudetenland as a non-violent presence", however this attempt came to nothing.[2]
Aye, I can see why they were regarded as dodgy.
What I read from that is that 5000 people attempted something massively courageous before war had even started. And that there was dispute within the group as to what the correct response should be - ie the PPU wasn't some top-down monolith. These were engaged, committed people attempting to avert war. Some made bad judgements. Others less bad.

Sorry, what was your point again?
 
Thing is, coley, don't quote Clive Bell and what he said without also knowing what others were saying in response. You yourself admit in your quote that his proposition drew criticism. You're quoting one part of a debate, it would appear.

tbh I think you should just withdraw that post altogether. You don't know enough to comment, I reckon. I think you're also falling into the trap of thinking that an organisation like the PPU was, or was intended to be, a Stalinist group with a pre-agreed dogmatic position on everything.

That is what appears to me to have happened here: someone from the PPU said something and this is taken by their detractors as their official position. But not all organisations work like that.

Let's have a look at what the PPU is. It is open to everyone who agrees with this:

I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war

No talk of appeasement or giving things to Hitler in there. Massive room for argument and disagreement. Not a monolith at all.

i think everyone trotting out the lazy 'PPU supported appeasement' line needs to have a good read about what actually happened, tbh. And then stop doing it.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get all argumentative on your arse - you clearly feel strongly about this issue, whereas I, TBH, do not.

But how is wearing a white poppy hijacking anything? The British Legion (or whoever it is) don't own the image of all poppies, they use a red poppy. Other people have chosen to use a white poppy to symbolise something else (just as the red ribbon originally used to symbolise AIDS/HIV has now been adapted in various other colours to symbolise various other illnesses).

Just as it's up to you and all the red poppy wearers to chose to do your thing, surely it's equally up to the white poppy wearers to chose to do their thing, to chose their own symbol to convey their message.
The white poppy goes back to the 20s I don't see how that is hijacking anything! Almost as old as the red poppy!
 
The white poppy goes back to the 20s I don't see how that is hijacking anything! Almost as old as the red poppy!

Red poppy raises money for veterans etc.
White poppy raises money to stop war. And a great success that has been hasn't it?:facepalm:

George Orwell, writing in the October 1941 issue of Adelphi magazine: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
 
Last edited:
Thing is, coley, don't quote Clive Bell and what he said without also knowing what others were saying in response. You yourself admit in your quote that his proposition drew criticism. You're quoting one part of a debate, it would appear.

tbh I think you should just withdraw that post altogether. You don't know enough to comment, I reckon. I think you're also falling into the trap of thinking that an organisation like the PPU was, or was intended to be, a Stalinist group with a pre-agreed dogmatic position on everything.

That is what appears to me to have happened here: someone from the PPU said something and this is taken by their detractors as their official position. But not all organisations work like that.

Let's have a look at what the PPU is. It is open to everyone who agrees with this:



No talk of appeasement or giving things to Hitler in there. Massive room for argument and disagreement. Not a monolith at all.

i think everyone trotting out the lazy 'PPU supported appeasement' line needs to have a good read about what actually happened, tbh. And then stop doing it.
Actually I agree with you I was just amazed at the statement I highlighted.
Let's leave the subject with another quote from the Wiccy article.

"and in the words of member Derek Savage, "an amorphous mass of ordinary well-meaning but fluffy peace-lovers".
 
Back
Top Bottom