The James McClean Sponsored Poppy Thread

[RedRob72]

What is it you are defending here Rob?
Is it the argument or the poster making it?

As I said, most would recognise the point 8Mile was making, VT did his usual trolling pish!

I'm not trying to defend anyone, back to the footie now, Mon The Rangers!!

[pandarilla]

Look mate, this all very informative, good information but on the whole, irrelevant to the original argument. The original argument was based on VT's claim that there has been no threat to the British State since WW2, which I disagree with. So anything prior to WW2 is irrelevant to what I was getting at.

Most of this just seems like another case of me having something to say and an opinion on something (right or wrong!), but folk just desperate to jump on it, take small snippets of what I've said and try derail the thread in a bid to petty-point score and play the smart-ass.

My issue with all this (for various beliefs and personal reasons) is the cretinous, gutter remarks from VT in respect of the army, even though he's clearly trolling. If they are his true beliefs, then he's much thicker than I thought.
I'm under no disillusion that the army are no angels but I'm also under no disillusion that we'd be in a far worse place without them.

Another case of you having an opinion and numerous posters pointing out that you made a nonsense claim yet you dig in - making a bit of an arse of it.

Opinions aren't equal, and certainly aren't all valid (I personally blame the rise of social media for this irritating phenomenon).

[pandarilla]

No what's happened here is you've taken what you will from my posts and arrived at your own incorrect conclusion. As I've just discussed with another poster, the issue is too many folk like to jump in when they see me having a dispute with someone before questions are answered and therefore it just becomes an utter shambles.

Do you ever wonder why this happens (as you've suggested this isn't the first time)?

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

No not really.

I'm making light of the fact this time of year seems to now be poppy watch starting with TV presenters getting their poppy on at the end of September, various events and the whole "debate" carrying for that time.

I thought that was what you were getting at (put on your poppy last week of October/first week of November imo) but sometimes it's hard to tell what you are trying to put across.

[Dee Man]

Sounded like James McLean's family and friends were in the crowd during the Leicester v WBA attempted minutes silence.

[dorlomin]

On 04/11/2016 at 23:46, Redstarstranraer said:

It is a widely-accepted historical fact

"I watched Blackadder goes forth"

Quote

that between the wars a very large section of the British population, most likely a majority,

"Some number I plucked out of thin air"

Quote

were entirely cynical about the motivation, conduct and outcome of the Great War.

Very different things. The conduct of the war? Certainly in the well read on military matters sections of society there was a lot of reassessing the conduct of the war. How common was this view in 1925 or 1935 among the majority. Difficult to tell. 

The motivation? I have seen little to say that people rejected the idea of defending Belgium. Certainly people were willing to go to war to defend Poland. So clearly things are not as black and white as your hand waving suggests.

The outcome? The view that we won and prevented a Prussian take over of Europe. 

 

Quote

The pacifists who opposed intervention in the Spanish Civil War for example or allowing Mussolini to occupy Albania and Abyssinia weren't the lone voices crying in the wilderness;

"Not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier"

The famed pacifist Otto von Bismark on the Balkans. Its hardly proof of widespread pacifism that people were not willing to get involved in every war. You are deliberately smashing the whole graduation between raging belligerence and outright pacifism. There was a major effort to change the way the world worked, to demilitarise and use more diplomacy. But then again Ronald Reagan signed arms reduction treaties and used diplomacy. Shades not just black and white. 

 

Quote

it was the more what we would term today 'hawkish' politicians who advocated a military confrontation with the fascist regimes

Many "hawks" supported fascist regimes. There was a lot of support on the right for their confrontation with communism. Hardly news, why are you deliberately ignoring this? Hmmmm more reducing complexity to fit a narrative? 

 

Quote

he very fact we embarked upon a policy of appeasement speaks to the entrenched anti-militarism of the interbellum period.

Strongly declarative but what? The British people not wanting a general European war over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland means "anti-militarism"? That the British were not mad keen for a war over what appeared to be a popular unification with Austria means they were all pacificsts? Appeasement ran for about 3 years from 36 with the remilitarisation of the Rihneland to 39 when we went to war over Poland. 

Dont feel burdened by a need for nuance. 

 

[Mark Connolly]

3 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

"I watched Blackadder goes forth"

"Some number I plucked out of thin air"

Very different things. The conduct of the war? Certainly in the well read on military matters sections of society there was a lot of reassessing the conduct of the war. How common was this view in 1925 or 1935 among the majority. Difficult to tell. 

The motivation? I have seen little to say that people rejected the idea of defending Belgium. Certainly people were willing to go to war to defend Poland. So clearly things are not as black and white as your hand waving suggests.

The outcome? The view that we won and prevented a Prussian take over of Europe. 

 

"Not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier"

The famed pacifist Otto von Bismark on the Balkans. Its hardly proof of widespread pacifism that people were not willing to get involved in every war. You are deliberately smashing the whole graduation between raging belligerence and outright pacifism. There was a major effort to change the way the world worked, to demilitarise and use more diplomacy. But then again Ronald Reagan signed arms reduction treaties and used diplomacy. Shades not just black and white. 

 

Many "hawks" supported fascist regimes. There was a lot of support on the right for their confrontation with communism. Hardly news, why are you deliberately ignoring this? Hmmmm more reducing complexity to fit a narrative? 

 

Strongly declarative but what? The British people not wanting a general European war over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland means "anti-militarism"? That the British were not mad keen for a war over what appeared to be a popular unification with Austria means they were all pacificsts? Appeasement ran for about 3 years from 36 with the remilitarisation of the Rihneland to 39 when we went to war over Poland. 

Dont feel burdened by a need for nuance. 

 

It's unusual to get such a large helping of telt for free.

[Redstarstranraer]

15 hours ago, dorlomin said:

"I watched Blackadder goes forth"

So once again you've decided to ignore most of the substantive points made by two separate posters in preference for a glib dismissal of their views as 'uneducated waffle'.

"Some number I plucked out of thin air"

I very deliberately didn't provide any 'number' as we both know that in the absence of any available reliable statistical surveys of the population at the time no definitive figure could ever be placed on what number of British people 'thought' what exactly of the war.  It is my interpretation of the historical evidence that British society was in general of the opinion that the Great War had been a fairly pointless endeavour that was not worth the human cost.  My interpretation happens to be actually much nearer the general historical consensus than yours.

Very different things. The conduct of the war? Certainly in the well read on military matters sections of society there was a lot of reassessing the conduct of the war. How common was this view in 1925 or 1935 among the majority. Difficult to tell. 

The motivation? I have seen little to say that people rejected the idea of defending Belgium. Certainly people were willing to go to war to defend Poland. So clearly things are not as black and white as your hand waving suggests.

The outcome? The view that we won and prevented a Prussian take over of Europe. 

You see the thing that really doesn't sit with me here and completely undermines your entire argument is that YOU started out this debate by completely and utterly decrying the idea that there was a feeling amidst the general British populace that the war had been futile and indeed made sweeping general claims about the British feeling the war had been a worthwhile moral duty.  By your logic claims you couldn't possibly substantiate either.  

I would absolutely dispute that the conduct of the war was only criticised by the 'well read on military matters sections of society'; there was as demonstrated by the evidence you have already been given and are determined to ignore a widespread discontentment with the way the war had been handled and the human price paid.

Who is 'hand-waving'?  I find it bizarre you choose to totally ignore the fact we didn't get involved in Abyssinia, Albania, Czechoslovakia or Manchuria as evidence of unwillingness to get involved to on the 'moral basis' of protecting a nation's independence but trumpet the fact we DID in Poland as supposedly demonstrating nothing had really changed in the British willingness to act on said basis throughout the inter-war period.  In both wars in any case there was clearly much more motivating our intervention that the mere fact of defending either Belgium or Poland's independence; in both we were clearly also concerned about Germany becoming the dominant power in continental Europe and in the case of Poland clearly there was also some concern about the nature of aggressive fascist militarism.  So you know nuances, those things you were looking for from others but don't apparently do yourself when it becomes time to defend absolutely everything about the manner in which the UK fought a war. 

That's your view of the outcome without any evidence that it was the majority view during the 20s-30s. But then you don't apparently need to provide any evidence for your interpretations of historical fact, you just demand it from everyone else.

 

"Not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier"

The famed pacifist Otto von Bismark on the Balkans. Its hardly proof of widespread pacifism that people were not willing to get involved in every war. You are deliberately smashing the whole graduation between raging belligerence and outright pacifism. There was a major effort to change the way the world worked, to demilitarise and use more diplomacy. But then again Ronald Reagan signed arms reduction treaties and used diplomacy. Shades not just black and white. 

Who 'smashed' a whole 'graduation' between jingoistic warmongering or pacifism?  I quite clearly stated pacifism was incredibly popular and the majority position, speaking to the frustration with the Great War, but I never claimed absolutely everyone in Britain was a pacifist or the only alternative was some kind of insatiable hunger for war; you're the one doing that.  Sad lack of nuance.  In any case the increased desire for diplomatic rather than military solutions surely counts as added evidence of the very fact you're arguing against: the strong anti-war feeling of the inter-war period attributable to the widespread discontent with the price paid for military victory in the Great War.  There was a (rather naive perhaps) consensus post 'The War to End All Wars' that such a horrific waste of life would never again be permitted by civilised nations.  Now of course we can't actually go back in time and survey millions of  Brits to ask them a straight 'yes or no' question as to did they think WW1 was 'futile', but adding up the evidence I'm much more confident in my assessment of the political and social climate of the period than yours.  You are essentially trying to pretend that aside from a few 'well-read' military experts everyone else was ok with the way the war had been handled and yeah, there was a lot of pacifism suddenly cutting about but that was for other reasons.  What other reasons we don't know.  Stuff is complicated.  

 

 

15 hours ago, dorlomin said:

Many "hawks" supported fascist regimes. There was a lot of support on the right for their confrontation with communism. Hardly news, why are you deliberately ignoring this? Hmmmm more reducing complexity to fit a narrative? 

Why would I ignore something that is a bit of an irrelevance to the point I was making?  Evidently not all 'hawks' wanted to take on Hitlerite Germany.  Some did want to take on the USSR instead.  That hardly disproves the fact the majority didn't want to take on either.  As you surely know our intervention in the Russian Civil War in the 20s was stymied in part due to huge popular unease at being involved in yet more fighting after the carnage of the Great War and the anti-intervention stance of the majority of the British population, including those who were not necessarily enamoured of the Bolshevik regime.  It was this widespread antipathy to military involvement that scuppered Churchill's fond desire to "strangle Bolshevism in its cradle".  

 

Strongly declarative but what? The British people not wanting a general European war over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland means "anti-militarism"? That the British were not mad keen for a war over what appeared to be a popular unification with Austria means they were all pacificsts? Appeasement ran for about 3 years from 36 with the remilitarisation of the Rihneland to 39 when we went to war over Poland. 

Again the fact that people are 'not mad keen for a war' is more evidential of pacifism that it is an argument that, erm, it didn't exist.  Of course there were a number of reasons why we didn't involve ourselves in a war over Austria or the Rhineland (I see you're only picking the more 'reasonable' examples of fascist expansion rather than the outright annexation of Albania for example).  Indeed I never claimed that pacifism was the only reason we didn't involve ourselves in those conflicts.  Once again you're putting words in my mouth and attacking arguments I never made.  

Still a great deal of evidence for the pacifist sympathies of a large part, probably the majority of the British populace, that you've done nothing to refute (and indeed have inadvertently bolstered).  Still a great deal of evidence for a hostile attitude amongst the British populace to the conduct and outcome of the Great War that you haven't provided a better argument against than an appeal to 'complexity' and flat denials.

I will add, seeing as you love 'nuance', that there were clearly differing strands of opinion on the 'pacifist/anti-war' spectrum, ranging from outright hostility to any involvement in any future war and to those desperate to avoid one but who could, in limited circumstances, condone armed conflict.  Indeed as the inter-war period went on evidence (such as the increasingly more 'military-friendly' policy of the League of Nations Union for example) suggests that the extreme pacifist position of resistance to any kind of military action gradually eroded in favour of the more interventionist position as the threat from Italy and Germany increased. Taken as a whole however the huge growth in anti-war feeling, including the promotion of the League of Nations as a diplomatic 'alternative' to conflict are highly suggestive of the visceral negative reaction to the Great War of a huge proportion of the British people.

Dont feel burdened by a need for nuance. 

Don't feel burdened by the need for actual arguments or evidence.

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by Redstarstranraer

[bob the tank]

What was wrong with a plastic bag in the corner shop? I was in Stirling earlier and the poppy stall with its two officially dressed sales assistants were trying to flog a whole tacky range of goods which nobody was buying. I was totally bemused by the " new range" of Gaelic poppies.

[BuddieInDundee]

Going back a couple of pages, why would anyone actually give a f**k if we 'lost' Northern Ireland?

Anyway to the whole theatrical poppy pish, was walking from the Wellgate to the Overgate in Dundee and between that Donught*(?) stand and H&M there is quite a narrow bit of pedestrian walkway. Naturally, two arseholes from what I presume was the Royal British Legion saw this as a prime spot to do some 'collecting'.

Between both of their lardy arses they managed to make it nearly impossible for a couple of people to walk through at the same time, so whilst shouting at the top of their voices 'support for the troops', they were clearly trying to be as obstructive as possible and/or guilt morons into coughing up.

Fairly sure the poor b*****ds from WW1 and WW2 weren't sat in the mud, wishing to be remembered in decades time by all this absolute nonsense.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I'm not going to quote it all again, but well said, redstarstranraer.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Fairly sure the poor b*****ds from WW1 and WW2 weren't sat in the mud, wishing to be remembered in decades time by all this absolute nonsense.

It's hard to generalise but some were more concerned with comedy photoshoots

[Dee Man]

That dorlomin is a bit of a walloper.

[williemillersmoustache]

7 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

That dorlomin is a bit of a walloper.

Always good to be reminded that there is only 1 decent sevco poster on here.

[trainspotter]

Sportinglife.com rarely strays into "political" comment, but there's little in this piece I could disagree with

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/2/10649208/dave-tickner-column-englands-fight-with-fifa-over-the-poppy-an-unbecoming-farce

[pandarilla]

It's unusual to get such a large helping of telt for free.

And get it back in spades. Dorlomin is in the ad lib category of poster. He argues well but only up to a tedious point. Most folk can't be arsed going through every single point.

I'm glad he's been put back in his box here but we'll see if he's got the stomach to continue his Max Hastings shtick.

[Jacksgranda]

12 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

I saw a car today which had six large poppies attached to its front.

That's some hardcore remembering right there.

Or they've killed 6 pedestrians...

[Cerberus]

I am going to eat a poppy seed bagel in remembrance.

[welshbairn]

28 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

I am going to eat a poppy seed bagel in remembrance.

Light weight, I'm going to become a heroin addict in memory of the fallen.

[Latino Lover]

Just seen this on twitter