The_Kincardine Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Over the top for king and country and they didn't even get past the barbed wire or fire a shot at the enemy. And that is, of course, the whole point of the poppy bollocks. It's about tragedy rather than triumph. Sadly, 'lest we forget' seems to have been forgotten. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I believe the appropriate response in these circumstances is "Mind your fucking business you nosey c**t" followed by a swift headbutt to the nose, irrespective of age or gender. I just laughed and said its not the law to wear it. Unfortunately these mouthbreathers are the ones to campaign for it to be mandatory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I just laughed and said its not the law to wear it. Unfortunately these mouthbreathers are the ones to campaign for it to be mandatory. I wear a poppy, but if it ever became mandatory to wear one I would stop wearing it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Exactly this. I only found out a couple of years ago my great grandad was killed at the Somme. I did some research for my mother and discovered where and when it happened. Turns out it was the last day of the battle and of course it was a totally futile, unnecessary attack. He is buried in a very small cemetery with around another forty Scottish troops from the Black Watch, Seaforths and Gordon highlanders. He was the oldest soldier at 37 years old and he left a wife and four sons. The rest of the boys were between 19 and 21. Over the top for king and country and they didn't even get past the barbed wire or fire a shot at the enemy.The 'public information' campaigns as well as the vilification of conscientious objectors at the time look outrageous today. Had the publishers of the day acknowledged homosexuality as a thing then they'd have almost certainly attached that to men who didn't volunteer to be shot to pieces as well. It seems difficult to work out why people volunteered until you actually think about how the same group-seethe operates on social media today. And there hasn't even been a serious issue at stake for decades. Edited November 7, 2015 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I wear a poppy, but if it ever became mandatory to wear one I would stop wearing it I've been up since 4am, give a guy a break 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I used to always were a poppy until the current buns hijacked it and I would now not wear one in case of being mistaken for one of them. The bad thing about wearing a poppy is that it's something that Rangers minded fuckwits do. The bad thing about not wearing a poppy is that it's something that Celtic minded fuckwits do. It's a dilemma which must be all the more thorny if you happen to inhabit a community with lots of old firm minded fuckwits. Luckily P&B is the only such community I'm part of. Those of you in shitty no mark towns in the west of Scotland have my sympathies on this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 The 'public information' campaigns as well as the vilification of conscientious objectors at the time look outrageous today. Had the publishers of the day acknowledged homosexuality as a thing then they'd have almost certainly attached that to men who didn't volunteer to be shot to pieces as well. It seems difficult to work out why people volunteered until you actually think about how the same group-seethe operates on social media today. And there hasn't even been a serious issue at stake for decades. Bullshit. People then were much less educated and swallowed the for king/queen and country line, thinking they were doing the right thing, sadly, thus consigning themselves to mass slaughter. It is for that reason that I feel obliged to spare a few moments remembering their wasted lives and horrendous injuries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Bullshit. People then were much less educated and swallowed the for king/queen and country line, thinking they were doing the right thing, sadly, thus consigning themselves to mass slaughter. It is for that reason that I feel obliged to spare a few moments remembering their wasted lives and horrendous injuries. Group seethe (as vton puts it) definitely played it's part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Group seethe (as vton puts it) definitely played it's part. Et tu, Pandy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Et tu, Pandy Surely a question mark was needed there kinky? Are you denying that thousands of young men were caught up in group think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I would concur that they were, but hardly a "seethe". It was as much a result of poorer education and a different sense of nationhood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Bullshit. People then were much less educated and swallowed the for king/queen and country line, thinking they were doing the right thing, sadly, thus consigning themselves to mass slaughter. It is for that reason that I feel obliged to spare a few moments remembering their wasted lives and horrendous injuries. Erm no - check the actual 'public information' sources champ. 'King and country' was soon surpassed in the British campaign by more subtle, John-Lewis-esque posters of doe-eyed children asking 'Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?'. Because patriotism - thankfully in all countries concerned - didn't actually see through a year's worth of casualties. It was there at the beginning, but couldn't accommodate the industrial carnage of a great war. So governments resorted to pressurising campaigns and the wider social shaming of non-volunteers and conscientious objectors to fill the ranks. That's how it worked. That's also the only credible explanation explaining why the rate of enlistment was so high in the First World War. 'Better education now' doesn't cover it, because state education doesn't actually involve a significant grasp of geopolitics, philosophy, or anything of importance when deciding to enlist. Vaguely knowing the process of osmosis changes nothing when it comes to signing up for a military campaign. Social pressure underwrote the enlistment campaign, and the impact of outraged crowds is now easier to grasp today than in the past. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Erm no - check the actual 'public information' sources champ. 'King and country' was soon surpassed in the British campaign by more subtle, John-Lewis-esque posters of doe-eyed children asking 'Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?'. Because patriotism - thankfully in all countries concerned - didn't actually see through a year's worth of casualties. It was there at the beginning, but couldn't accommodate the industrial carnage of a great war. So governments resorted to pressurising campaigns and the wider social shaming of non-volunteers and conscientious objectors to fill the ranks. That's how it worked. That's also the only credible explanation explaining why the rate of enlistment was so high in the First World War. 'Better education now' doesn't cover it, because state education doesn't actually involve a significant grasp of geopolitics, philosophy, or anything of importance when deciding to enlist. Vaguely knowing the process of osmosis changes nothing when it comes to signing up for a military campaign. Social pressure underwrote the enlistment campaign, and the impact of outraged crowds is now easier to grasp today than in the past. Education about the horrors of war has went a long way though. War would not be greeted with the same reaction today (obviously (for many reasons)). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I would concur that they were, but hardly a "seethe". It was as much a result of poorer education and a different sense of nationhood. If "nationhood" had to do with it then different states would have different enlistment rates. Austria-Hungary had at least eight nations, with no common "nationhood" claim operating. All the major powers recruited their equivalent strength though, regardless of national identity. The education claim has yet to be built up never mind torn down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Surely a question mark was needed there kinky? Are you denying that thousands of young men were caught up in group think? I was thinking more about the poor wee apostrophe. My grandfather joined The Royal Scots Fusiliers before conscription on the basis that 'It was something to do and better than being at home'. He served in France and Belgium before being shot through the hand. After the war he (and and a friend who was a policeman from Chapelhall) joined the Black and Tans and was in South Ireland for a couple of years before coming back and working in the pits in Lanarkshire. Group think? Aye sure......hence the 'pals regiments' etc etc but it isn't the full story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not saying that there wasn't such a campaign, but surely the poor education of the time and an entirely different sense of belonging also played a huge part in the mistaken belief that they were doing the right thing by fighting for king/queen and country? I'm sure many bowed to pressure, but I also believe that many thought they were doing the right thing when enlisting. We are better educated now insofar as social norms have changed and different views are tolerated more readily, except when in debate with yourself of course. My limited conversations with my grandfather, who fought at the Somme, engendered a sense of duty on his part, not to mention many regrets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I was thinking more about the poor wee apostrophe. My grandfather joined The Royal Scots Fusiliers before conscription on the basis that 'It was something to do and better than being at home'. He served in France and Belgium before being shot through the hand. After the war he (and and a friend who was a policeman from Chapelhall) joined the Black and Tans and was in South Ireland for a couple of years before coming back and working in the pits in Lanarkshire. Group think? Aye sure......hence the 'pals regiments' etc etc but it isn't the full story. You've pulled me up for the 'its' apostrophe before! Stop it. I'm working on it (ish). Actually, don't stop - keep me on my toes. None of these issues cover the full story. This is a needless argument as both points are right to an extent - and the extent is impossible to work out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Education about the horrors of war has went a long way though. War would not be greeted with the same reaction today (obviously (for many reasons)). Well no, it really hasn't. This 'horrors of war' speel doesn't actually form part of formal education anyway, so isn't linked to the 'education' of the population. Only a minority think about that on a regular basis. Massacres like the Holocaust are actually detached from the history of the surrounding war. And the oldies were reeling off the back of the Boer War, so the enthusiasm for a good fight is exaggerated. The difference, as I've stated, is that the UK hasn't had a credible issue at stake since 1945. Despite that, you can clearly see similar social forces at work over complete non-events: the original topic being a good example Place that attitude alongside a credible security threat to the UK and you'd get a comparable 1914 effect. There'd be more open criticism as well, but significant enough to shout down an official line? Highly doubtful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 None of these issues cover the full story. This is a needless argument as both points are right to an extent - and the extent is impossible to work out. Neither does 'group think' nor 'white feather' shaming/pressure. If you had subsistence-level living in a Lanarkshire mining village (like my grandfather) or on a Sutherland croft (like my great uncle) then joining the army wasn't such a bad option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Well no, it really hasn't. This 'horrors of war' speel doesn't actually form part of formal education anyway, so isn't linked to the 'education' of the population. Only a minority think about that on a regular basis. Massacres like the Holocaust are actually detached from the history of the surrounding war. And the oldies were reeling off the back of the Boer War, so the enthusiasm for a good fight is exaggerated. The difference, as I've stated, is that the UK hasn't had a credible issue at stake since 1945. Despite that, you can clearly see similar social forces at work over complete non-events: the original topic being a good example Place that attitude alongside a credible security threat to the UK and you'd get a comparable 1914 effect. There'd be more open criticism as well, but significant enough to shout down an official line? Highly doubtful. What do you mean 'doesn't play a part in formal education'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.