Red or White poppy

AlterEgo · 21 Oct 2016

How sad that some people wish to dismiss the wearing (or not) of poppies of whatever colour.

Ultimately, war is war, and human conflict is part of the human condition. The main reason I don't wear a poppy is the idea of the "glorious dead". There is not much glorious about drowning in mud, or being shot in the face, or burning to death on a battleship. It is horrific, and euphemisms like "the fallen" grate with me.

We have an unhealthy obsession with remembrance in this country as if it is some sort of national pastime. It does seem in these times that remembrance goes hand in hand with supporting current servicemen on their sometimes poorly advised adventures around the globe (no, the soldier doesn't get a choice, of course). Remembrance is a wholly private matter. Wear whatever poppy you like, it is your choice and don't allow anyone to dictate to you what you can and can't wear.

RailUK Forums

RichmondCommu · 21 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
Looking around Hamburg, especially the Nikolaikirche, where the Allied forces killed as many people in a week during Operation Gomorrah as the Germans did in the entire Blitz, is eye-opening. All sides in wars commit atrocities and I'm not always sure the symbolism of the red poppy really addresses this.

I don't think its either fair or accurate to describe the bombing of Hamburg in the summer of 1943 as an atrocity or indeed anything of the sort. At that time although the Germans had suffered a series of damaging losses the war was far from won and Hamburg was a hugely important industrial city not to mention its port. There is no doubt that the bombing of Hamburg had a severe impact on its industrial capacity and the morale of the population, which was the whole point of the bombings.

That said, the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 is much harder to justify in my eye's. By that time the war was effectively over and on the eastern front the Germans were in full retreat. Dresden was full of refugees fleeing the Russians plus the retreating German army but the fact that it had been left alone until February 1945 tells you that it wasn't an important target. And yet the Allies were determined to destroy the city out of all recognition.

Harbornite · 21 Oct 2016

RichmondCommu said:
I don't think its either fair or accurate to describe the bombing of Hamburg in the summer of 1943 as an atrocity or indeed anything of the sort.

.....

Agreed.

DarloRich · 21 Oct 2016

RichmondCommu said:
That said, the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 is much harder to justify in my eye's. By that time the war was effectively over and on the eastern front the Germans were in full retreat. Dresden was full of refugees fleeing the Russians plus the retreating German army but the fact that it had been left alone until February 1945 tells you that it wasn't an important target. And yet the Allies were determined to destroy the city out of all recognition.

it was a transport/communication centre through witch supplies were moving to fight the Russians. The military forces there were retreating but were not broken and nor had they surrendered. It was a legitimate target.

Plus the Germans needed to see and feel the horror they were quite happy exporting to other countries. Let us not forget that they, at best, all looked the other way while millions of people were exterminated and Europe subject to naked aggression.

I understand that isnt the touchy feely lefty response I should offer but I honestly have no trouble with this decision. Had the Germans the ability they would have devastated our cites and our people in similar ways.

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"

EDIT: It is also worth noting that studies by many parties ( including the city council) have put the death toll at about 25000 which is terrible and awful but not the 500000 some suggest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AlterEgo said:
We have an unhealthy obsession with remembrance in this country as if it is some sort of national pastime. It does seem in these times that remembrance goes hand in hand with supporting current servicemen on their sometimes poorly advised adventures around the globe (no, the soldier doesn't get a choice, of course).

Of course - the money goes towards helping injured servicemen and their families from many conflicts. The Legion do some very good work in this field and deserve support.

AlterEgo said:
Remembrance is a wholly private matter. Wear whatever poppy you like, it is your choice and don't allow anyone to dictate to you what you can and can't wear.

Exactly - I would not criticise someone for not wearing a poppy - it is a personal choice and a personal act.

RichmondCommu · 21 Oct 2016

DarloRich said:
it was a transport/communication centre through witch supplies were moving to fight the Russians. The military forces there were retreating but were not broken and nor had they surrendered. It was a legitimate target.

However the Allies would have done a lot more damage to the German war machine if they'd targeted the edge of the city where there were workshops and industry. Instead they went for the city centre which was crammed full of people. Obviously the Germans had not yet surrendered but if Dresden was such an important rail centre why had it not been targeted before?

DarloRich · 21 Oct 2016

RichmondCommu said:
However the Allies would have done a lot more damage to the German war machine if they'd targeted the edge of the city where there were workshops and industry. Instead they went for the city centre which was crammed full of people. Obviously the Germans had not yet surrendered but if Dresden was such an important rail centre why had it not been targeted before?

agreed - however the accuracy of WW2 bombing techniques and equipment perhaps did not really allow for such targeted strikes on a regular basis. The city centre is easy to find from 30000 feet and allows for a nice large target area into which you can tip your dumb bombs. I assume Dresden wasn't hit before as it was a long way from the front lines & for a long time a long and dangerous journey from bases in the UK .

Despite what the Amercians might say their "precision" bombing attacks were merely daylight versions of our nighttime "area" attacks.

I am not saying it is tasteful just that I don't consider it some kind of war crime or an unjustified attack on defenseless civilians despite them being the main victim.

Trog · 21 Oct 2016

DarloRich said:
Exactly - I would not criticise someone for not wearing a poppy - it is a personal choice and a personal act.

In some ways people not wearing poppies, validate those who do by demonstrating that it is a voluntary act.

Tetchytyke · 21 Oct 2016

RichmondCommu said:
I don't think its either fair or accurate to describe the bombing of Hamburg in the summer of 1943 as an atrocity or indeed anything of the sort.

I disagree. Bombing civilian targets- regardless of the motive- is an atrocity. People were happy to label the bombing of Coventry, for instance, as an atrocity. I think the firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden were atrocities; I also think the two nuclear bombs in Japan were too.

If we'd bombed the dockyards in Hamburg with traditional bombs I wouldn't be saying this. But the firestorm was deliberately designed to kill indiscriminately, and the firestorm was intended; it was named Operation Gomorrah for a reason.

I understand why Operation Gomorrah was done, and why it was done in the way that it was. But I consider it unjustified, just as I consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjustified, and just as I consider the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam to be unjustified.

DarloRich · 21 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
I disagree. Bombing civilian targets- regardless of the motive- is an atrocity. People were happy to label the bombing of Coventry, for instance, as an atrocity. I think the firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden were atrocities; I also think the two nuclear bombs in Japan were too.

If we'd bombed the dockyards in Hamburg with traditional bombs I wouldn't be saying this. But the firestorm was deliberately designed to kill indiscriminately, and the firestorm was intended; it was named Operation Gomorrah for a reason.

I understand why Operation Gomorrah was done, and why it was done in the way that it was. But I consider it unjustified, just as I consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjustified, and just as I consider the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam to be unjustified.

I will disagree - I think they were justified in the circumstances despite being horrific and barbarous.

Does the end justify the means?

Tetchytyke · 21 Oct 2016

DarloRich said:
Does the end justify the means?

That's the age-old conundrum, isn't it.

FWIW I think the cliche about history being written by the victors applies here more than anything.

We justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Operation Gomorrah, to ourselves because we won the war. But if the Germans or Japanese, as losers, had done it to us I'm sure it would have been prosecuted as a war crime. And I'm sure they, as victors, would have prosecuted us for war crimes if they'd won the war.

I don't think torching a city and killing 45,000 people is ever justified.

DarloRich · 21 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
That's the age-old conundrum, isn't it.

FWIW I think the cliche about history being written by the victors applies here more than anything.

So do I but didn't want to lower the tone to that level as it sounds glib but is obviously correct.

Arctic Troll said:
We justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Operation Gomorrah, to ourselves because we won the war. But if the Germans or Japanese, as losers, had done it to us I'm sure it would have been prosecuted as a war crime. And I'm sure they, as victors, would have prosecuted us for war crimes if they'd won the war.

I don't think torching a city and killing 45,000 people is ever justified.

I do agree entirely but feel there was very little choice at the time and in the circumstances.

Speer said, speaking about Hamburg, that "if you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse" - is there an argument that doing so would have ended the war sooner and saved more lives? (appreciating the circumstances of Hamburg were "difficult" to manufacture?)

I know that is a gruesome calculation but even so.............................

newbie babs · 21 Oct 2016

I wear Red, to remember my friends that died for their country.

fowler9 · 21 Oct 2016

Talking of the accuracy of bombing in the second world war it should be remembered that the only time Prague was heavily bombed was when the Americans apparently mistook it for Dresden. Kind of makes bombing the wrong part of Dresden a moot point

RichmondCommu · 21 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
I disagree. Bombing civilian targets- regardless of the motive- is an atrocity. People were happy to label the bombing of Coventry, for instance, as an atrocity. I think the firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden were atrocities; I also think the two nuclear bombs in Japan were too.

If we'd bombed the dockyards in Hamburg with traditional bombs I wouldn't be saying this. But the firestorm was deliberately designed to kill indiscriminately, and the firestorm was intended; it was named Operation Gomorrah for a reason.

I understand why Operation Gomorrah was done, and why it was done in the way that it was. But I consider it unjustified, just as I consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjustified, and just as I consider the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam to be unjustified.

What you have to understand is that it was important to break the German spirit and shatter their morale and that's precisely what the bombing achieved. Hitler himself said after the Hamburg bombing that if those kind of attacks continued Germany would be forced out of the war. You might consider it unjustified but ultimately it helped to win the war and sitting here tonight that is all that matters. And for what it's worth the bombing of Coventry should never be considered an atrocity, it was just war plain and simple.

fowler9 · 21 Oct 2016

RichmondCommu said:
What you have to understand is that it was important to break the German spirit and shatter their morale and that's precisely what the bombing achieved. Hitler himself said after the Hamburg bombing that if those kind of attacks continued Germany would be forced out of the war. You might consider it unjustified but ultimately it helped to win the war and sitting here tonight that is all that matters. And for what it's worth the bombing of Coventry should never be considered an atrocity, it was just war plain and simple.

I agree. It was total war. You can't make nice little rules for it. The people I deal with on a daily basis are people who are trained to kill other people in the most efficient way. Not many jobs in the UK where you will get trained and paid to kill people.

ainsworth74 · 21 Oct 2016

RichmondCommu said:
What you have to understand is that it was important to break the German spirit and shatter their morale and that's precisely what the bombing achieved.

Did it? It took a ground invasion of Germany by the Allies to win the war in Europe.

Harbornite · 21 Oct 2016

ainsworth74 said:
Did it? It took a ground invasion of Germany by the Allies to win the war in Europe.

Germany's capabilities at producing armaments and waging war were reduced by those aerial bombings, which in turn aided the invasion.

RichmondCommu · 21 Oct 2016

ainsworth74 said:
Did it? It took a ground invasion of Germany by the Allies to win the war in Europe.

Yes it did. The Germans kept fighting for various reasons but many of them knew the game was up long before the war was finished. From what I know it was the fear of the Russians (especially in East Prussia) that was the main motivation to carry on fighting.

ainsworth74 · 22 Oct 2016

Harbornite said:
Germany's capabilities at producing armaments and waging war were reduced by those aerial bombings, which in turn aided the invasion.

Yes they were (though it's always been fascinating to me how the reduction was nowhere near as massive as you might expect) but it didn't take them out of the war.

RichmondCommu said:
Yes it did. The Germans kept fighting for various reasons but many of them knew the game was up long before the war was finished. From what I know it was the fear of the Russians (especially in East Prussia) that was the main motivation to carry on fighting.

And yet they kept fighting in the west until almost the very end. Sure there were plenty of Germans who went west to try and surrender to the Western Allies rather than the Russians but even then that didn't start happening until we were well into 1945.

I am far from convinced that the bombing had any significant impact, beyond practical (i.e. damaging war production, disrupting supply lines and similar), as Germany still had to be defeated in the field by ground forces before they would surrender.

Arglwydd Golau · 22 Oct 2016

ainsworth74 said:
Yes they were (though it's always been fascinating to me how the reduction was nowhere near as massive as you might expect) but it didn't take them out of the war.
And yet they kept fighting in the west until almost the very end. Sure there were plenty of Germans who went west to try and surrender to the Western Allies rather than the Russians but even then that didn't start happening until we were well into 1945.

I am far from convinced that the bombing had any significant impact, beyond practical (i.e. damaging war production, disrupting supply lines and similar), as Germany still had to be defeated in the field by ground forces before they would surrender.

Of course they had a plentiful supply of slave labour, and from my reading of that time much of the production of military hardware actually increased for a considerable period during the bombing campaign due to the above and the dispersal of the factories. Historians have argued long over the usefulness of bombing, but I tend to think that it was the loss of the oil supply that finally killed off much resistance. Not much use having the latest jet fighters if they could only fly for about 15 minutes!

As for the poppy debate, in the past - I would always go out of my way to find an old veteran selling poppies on the street. That was the important factor in my case...obviously due to my age it was 1st WW veterans at first and 2nd WW later. Today, I don't feel the same when I see a tray of poppies on the counter in Spar or wherever, and whilst I would especially remember the British war dead in my younger years, today I would think of all victims - military or civilian and from any nationality.

...and regarding British atrocities, interesting article in the Guardian over a month ago 'Britain's secret Wars' an extract from a book 'The History Thieves' by Ian Cobain - which does outline atrocities which did have official backing. One sentence stood out 'For more than a hundred years not a single year has passed where Britain's armed forces have not been engaged in military operations somewhere in the world'. That's not something I now feel proud about.

fowler9 · 22 Oct 2016

Arglwydd Golau said:
Of course they had a plentiful supply of slave labour, and from my reading of that time much of the production of military hardware actually increased for a considerable period during the bombing campaign due to the above and the dispersal of the factories. Historians have argued long over the usefulness of bombing, but I tend to think that it was the loss of the oil supply that finally killed off much resistance. Not much use having the latest jet fighters if they could only fly for about 15 minutes!

As for the poppy debate, in the past - I would always go out of my way to find an old veteran selling poppies on the street. That was the important factor in my case...obviously due to my age it was 1st WW veterans at first and 2nd WW later. Today, I don't feel the same when I see a tray of poppies on the counter in Spar or wherever, and whilst I would especially remember the British war dead in my younger years, today I would think of all victims - military or civilian and from any nationality.

...and regarding British atrocities, interesting article in the Guardian over a month ago 'Britain's secret Wars' an extract from a book 'The History Thieves' by Ian Cobain - which does outline atrocities which did have official backing. One sentence stood out 'For more than a hundred years not a single year has passed where Britain's armed forces have not been engaged in military operations somewhere in the world'. That's not something I now feel proud about.

Regarding your last paragraph that is always a difficult one for me. I am proud to do my bit to help Britains armed forces, but when they aren't getting what they want I will often be told that they have been to some of the biggest **** holes in the world to protect me. It is hard to stop myself telling them that whilst I respect them and see why we need our armed forces I really didn't want them to be in the **** holes they were in. I'm not there to chat politics with soldiers though.

tony_mac · 22 Oct 2016

You can justify any atrocity by saying it 'reduces morale' - that's exactly what various terrorist groups are aiming for with their atrocities.

Amongst everything else, tens of thousands of innocent children were killed because of the crimes of the country they were born in. To justify this for simple retribution (or so that they could 'feel the horror'), I think is barbaric (and is certainly in breach of the Geneva conventions).

I find it hard to easily accept that every single one of the allied bombings in 1945 was done out of military necessity, and not for retribution. I understand that people have different opinions, but to take any firmer position would take far more research than I would like to do on the matter.

fowler9 · 22 Oct 2016

It is really difficult to justify any war in my opinion. Most are started by either the very rich trying to expand their influence or the very mad trying to expand their influence.

backontrack · 22 Oct 2016

TheKnightWho said:
So you took umbrage at someone arguing against someone who said white poppies were bad and meant you supported those who died in ISIS, and you still want to argue it has nothing to do with white poppies?

What is it with the staunchly right-wing and your obsession with manipulation and word games on this forum?

Oh, no fair! I wanted to be able to trash him this time round!

I do agree that there's a great deal of manipulation from certain members on here; deliberately taking things out of context or denying things because they feel it makes them superior. Give us a break. Does anyone here actually admire you for what you're doing? Do you think it endears you to people?

fowler9 said:
It is really difficult to justify any war in my opinion. Most are started by either the very rich trying to expand their influence or the very mad trying to expand their influence.

Indeed this is so. WW2 is the only 'recent' example of a conflict where I didn't think we had any choice. The white poppy is about humanity, not just the UK, preventing war.

DarloRich · 22 Oct 2016

backontrack said:
Indeed this is so. WW2 is the only 'recent' example of a conflict where I didn't think we had any choice. The white poppy is about humanity, not just the UK, preventing war.

But it is an incredibly laudable yet preposterously naive viewpoint - While jealousy, envy, pride, insanity, desire, hatred and a million other things still exist we can never stop war, sadly.

backontrack · 22 Oct 2016

DarloRich said:
But it is an incredibly laudable yet preposterously naive viewpoint - While jealousy, envy, pride, insanity, desire, hatred and a million other things still exist we can never stop war, sadly.

You're right. Maybe not.

But we can try.

ainsworth74 · 22 Oct 2016

backontrack said:
WW2 is the only 'recent' example of a conflict where I didn't think we had any choice.

Falklands? Bosnia? Kosovo? Sierra Leone?

J-2739 · 22 Oct 2016

ainsworth74 said:
Falklands?

What about that Suez crisis?

backontrack · 22 Oct 2016

ainsworth74 said:
Falklands?

TBH I don't know much about that one. :lol:

But as British territory was invaded than I think that goes in there too. That and WW2.

If it directly threatens our people or land then we could be justified in taking action, I think.

J-2739 said:
What about that Suez crisis?

Nah.

ainsworth74 · 22 Oct 2016

J-2739 said:
What about that Suez crisis?

I suppose it depends on what you think the aim and purpose of British foreign policy should be.

If you're view is that we should act to further British interests wherever possible and by any means necessary then sure it was probably a fight we needed to have. At that time we were still very active in the Far East and so any threat to the Suez Canal could infringe upon that.

If your view is that British interests should be furthered by diplomatic means with war as a last resort only when directly threatened then its hard to justify our attempt to restore control of the Suez Canal.

Certainly it reeks of colonialism to me and a drastic misreading of the international situation (invading a nation at the same time as the Soviet Union was suppressing an uprising in Hungary was hardly a politically astute move) and of course, ironically considering the first position above, did enormous damage to our prestige and confidence. Arguably something which was not restored until the Falklands War.

Red or White poppy

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff