Poppy hypocrisy

It's that time of year when the wearing of a poppy becomes de rigeur on TV, where any public figure or, indeed private individual not wearing one is subject to questioning, often of an insulting or bullying nature, and where the news media are full of stories of perceived or actual slights to the Poppy.

The British Legion was founded in 1921, following the First World War. That war was a watershed in modern warfare. From a British perspective, it was the first in modern times where so many men were conscripted (without choice). It was also notable for the large numbers killed - many leaving widows and dependent children -  and seriously injured, many too seriously to earn a decent living, hence the need for a charity to support the destitute and needy. The Poppy became the symbol of their annual appeal, remembering the poppies that grew in the fields on the Western Front.

The First World War gave rise to a thought - a hope - that it mustn't happen again, it was 'the war to end all wars'. But as we know, the Armistice was only an Armistice, and hostilities resumed within 21 years - barely a generation later. And again, ordinary men (and women) were called up to serve in the army, having little choice unless they were in a reserved occupation (or physically unfit).

Conscription - or National Service - carried on after the Second World War until it was abolished in 1960, and the British Army/Navy /Air Force became volunteer forces. Highly trained, with a professional officer corps and highly skilled tradesmen and women. No one is conscripted into the British Forces, all are there by choice.

The reasons for the two world wars are complex, but I think we all know the 'headline' reasons. The First World War was started by disastrous macho posturing by the men in charge; in the Second World War it was to counter the disastrous effects of the Nazis, who had risen partly (largely?) as a result of the macho posturing in the Treaty of Versailles.

The Poppy Appeal, and the Remembrance Festival, had been set up to remember those who had died so pointlessly in World War I, and was extended to include the dead of World War II - it is often said that they gave their lives so we could be free.

One characteristic that appals me most whenever I read about World War I is the jingoistic fervour whipped up by the British population, egged on in no small way by the media, labelling anyone who didn't wish to fight as a coward or traitor. The reaction to that included poems by writers such as Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, which I think are pretty much compulsory reading at school.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and we have our volunteer forces fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the fine point of International Law, it is at best doubtful whether they have any moral right to be there.

In Afghanistan, for example,  the war aims are unclear - and seem to alter whenever the wind changes. The civilian deaths and casualties are covered up - how often do you read about them in the broadsheet let alone the tabloid press. Those who take up arms to defend their country - as every good Englishman should do, apparently - against a foreign invader are labelled as 'insurgents', guerrilas or Taliban.

Meanwhile, every year the British Legion, nowadays with a Royal prefix, holds a Festival of Remembrance at the Albert Hall, which is televised. I watch it most years, for reasons that need not detain us now, and each year I am appalled by the lies and propaganda that are peddled. Small children, too young to read Owen and Sassoon, are fed lines about the soldiers (etc) fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan 'to protect our freedoms' or 'so that we can be free'.It is so wrong, wrong that these lies are being put out on national TV, and wrong that children are being brainwashed with inaccurate information.

We have come a long away from the legacy of the First World War, where people vowed never again to be fooled by jingoistic propaganda started by the Press and spread by their unthinking readers.

Most of us have little difficulty in understanding how the Second World War was about fighting for our freedom (even if we may debate the detailed causes and sequence of events).

I simply see no justification for the hysteria being whipped up now, the snide hints that anyone not wearing a poppy is somehow not 'patriotic', or the crazy situation where a shop that enforces its general policy of no charity badges becomes national news. We are forced to accept that the Poppy Appeal is different from any other charity.

And yet, what is it mainly about?

Providing support, probably much needed support - to former volunteer soldiers (etc). If people wish to donate, and display the emblem of giving, that's great. But I can think of no other charity - or their supporters - who are so strident and so insisting that every body joins in.

A far more fitting memorial to those slaughtered and maimed in 1914 -1918 would be to vow never to go to war except in self-defence, never to get caught up in jingoistic bullying.

This is why I shall never again donate money to the British Legion nor shall I ever wear a poppy - if I did wear a poppy nowadays, it would be with shame.

Comments

[Nonie]

If only more people could be this honest with themselves .

[Andrew]

When I see the publicity for the poppy appeal, I always think: what about the people who died fighting for the other side? what about the service people who were killed in accidents, by disease in the squalid conditions of war, or by "friendly fire"? What about the civilian casualties? The British Legion doesn't usually mention them.

Even if you feel it is important to remember those who gave their lives fighting Nazi Germany, you should acknowledge that most of them were citizens of the then Soviet Union.

The only way to acknowledge the appalling loss of lives in war in the last 100 years is to work towards making sure it never happens again. Whatever the official line, the message of the poppy appeal never says that to me.

[Jane Ennis]

I always wear a white poppy. Actually I wear both, and so does my partner...our idea is that the red poppies commemorate the victims of war,and the white poppies indicate a committment to peace for the future, You can buy them from the Peace Pledge Union, or from Housman's bookshop. I must say I am struck by what you say (and Mark Steel's article in the Guardian), but for me, I've never PERCEIVED the idea of red poppies as glorifying war, but as commemorating the victims...that does include all the conscripts on both sides who died in the trenches of the 1st World War, and all the victims of the Holocaust.
But I would never NOT wear a white poppy.

[P-Dingo]

I live in Canada-- poppies are everywhere now-- and I always refuse to wear one, for many of the reasons you and Andrew above mentioned, and a couple more.
I tend to notice a different street demeanor of those wearing poppies this time around compared to those who don't.