This week there is a bit more pressure on all of us to conform. You would think, watching the telly, that wearing a poppy is compulsory, it isn’t. Of course, the expectation to conform by wearing a symbol in a lapel is nothing to the expectation placed on young men 100 years ago.
This year I discovered a letter from my great grandfather, Wesley Church, published in his local paper, the Northampton Echo, in 1917, condemning people for throwing stones at a conscientious objector who was on his way to attend a tribunal. He wrote: ‘There are hundreds who are suffering imprisonment rather than submit to militarism in any form, and, I believe, are fully justified in the stand they have taken against the mad spirit of brutal war now being carried on by so many nations- so called Christian nations- of the earth.’ At the same time the paper was reporting daily slaughter across the channel, the names of hundreds of young Northampton men appeared day after day in the paper as they lost their lives on the battlefield. It must have been hard for parents reading about the death of their sons to read such a letter.
Wesley Church was too old to fight by then, but he had two sons, both resisting the call up on grounds of their opposition to war. One of them, my great uncle, finished up in Dartmoor prison because he refused to fight, the other, my grandfather missed the same fate only because he had a young family and a business, and was prepared to be a hospital porter instead. Because of the stand of all three of them, the business was boycotted and they suffered hate mail and abuse.
With the centenary of the First World War approaching, is it not time to think again about the language and the symbolism we use when we commemorate war? I’m not a pacifist, but I flinch when I hear it said that these poor young men who fell on the battlefield ‘gave their lives’ for us, they had little choice in the matter, the social pressure, let alone the call-up, was irresistible. They were no more brave then my ancestors were cowards, but both were victims of the failure and ambition of their political leaders.
Remembrance day should be about much more than the military. It should be about millions of people who die in war without wearing a uniform. Prejudice of all kinds grows during war, people suffer for their race, their religion, their beliefs and their sexuality. Those are the thoughts I have at this time of year, and they are far more important than the colour of poppy people expect me to be wearing.
* Richard Church is a former Councillor in Northampton, now living in Montgomeryshire
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
There really is no getting out of this fiscal corner
Former sheriff candidate to face trial for allegedly registering cats to vote
Our West End ward surgeries #dundeewestend
Reform u-turn after tasting reality of power
Peter Martin
Craig Levene
David Evans
Simon R
30 Comments
A very thoughtful post Richard.
Very well said, Richard. If only more people put such thought into things.
You can do as many do and wear a white poppy…
Whilst many do question the validity of the white poppy, it does provoke questions and helps remind people of the wider victims of war.
Richard
First, let me say that I fully support your forebears stance on going to war. I believe that everyone has a personal decision to make on military service for whatever reason, and should not be punished for refusing to fight.
However, I believe you are mistaken in the psychi of servicemen (and of course, latterly, of servicewomen) at war. Yes, they were given no choice about their service and some would have balked about enllisting. But it is well documented that once they had spent time in the war zone the majority of servicemen undertook a change. In service life there are a myriad of different ways to place oneself into positions of minimum danger but the vast majority of soldiers (and here I use the term ‘soldiers’ to include all serving personnel) would not take them. This not through some jingoistic sense of honour (although I accept it was peddled by the politicians and lackeys back home) but because of the collective sense of responsibility for the safety of their comrades. Men went to extraordinary lengths in their desire to protect the people they fought alongside. If they were lucky someone in authority saw their bravery and they were rewarded, Most were not.
This is the reason for many acts of heroism, both singularly and collectively, the thin red line of the 93rd at Balaclava, the fighting back to back of the 28th at Alexandria or the extraordinary courage shown at the Battle of the Tennis Courts at Kohima. Not just descipline, or bravery, but an overiding sense to look after their mates – to do their bit. Sassoon displayed this when he gave up his refusal to fight in order to go back to the battlefields and won the bar to his MC.
Whilst war takes mens (and again, I use the term as mankind as to type men/women multiple times would make this post even more belaboured) sense of protection to its most basic – looking after each other. They knew all too well that they were fighting for the people back home too. Not to protect them from the baby pitchforking hun (the Christmas 1914 ceasefire showed what they thought of that idiotic scaremongering) but their way of life, the protection of British trade. Yes, you may sneer at such reasons, but the results of German Imperialism would have been a collapse in much trade, mass unemployment and subsequent suffering. You may think that it is not sufficient to deny the Germans their goal by force of arms, the collective wisdom of the day was otherwise.
So I deny your accusation that the soldiery of the Great War did not lay down their lives for us, They did, both personally to their comrades and generally for the sake (as they saw it) of the nation.
Finally, I must deny your assertion that Remembrance Day be for all who suffered and died in war. We are not remembering just their deaths but their service and their sacrifice – willingly given. Those others you would have included suffered and died, indeed, but did so because of the prejudice inflicted on them. Whereas those servicemen died trying to protect those who could not, cannot, protect themselves.
Well, yeah, you can wear whatever you like within reasonable limits (e.g. no Steve Gough outfits, as you’re liable to be arrested, sorry but I don’t make these rules). Of course you don’t have to wear a red poppy. Of course poppy-wearing isn’t compulsory, unless, that is, one is attempting to project a certain image in some sort of hellish holier-than-thou media sandpit, at which point it still isn’t compulsory but is part of the game in which one has chosen to participate, much like pretending to care about the donors’ concerns and pretending to belive that your leader isn’t an imbecile in a sharp suit.
Personally I buy poppies (or donate) because the Legion happens to be one charity that hasn’t embarrassed itself sufficiently visibly that I’ve had to notice. I lived on a military base, I spent time around the military, I have serving soldiers in my family and have lost people to war and the memories of war (PTSD makes people do strange things, like hiking down train lines). So for me it’s somewhat personal and I donate if I feel so inclined, but my motivation isn’t drawn from McCrae’s awful doggerel. Wilfred Owen and Kipling wrote far better poetry. And Read’s Short Poem for Armistice Day says it better, too:
“these flowers have no sweet scent/no lustre in the petal no increase/from fertilizing flies and bees.
No seed they have no seed/their tendrils are of wire and grip/and buttonhole the lip/and never fade
And will not fade through life/and lustre go in genuine flowers/and men like flowers are cut/and wither on a stem”
Ultimately I guess I feel about the way this guy does about the whole thing. To me, it’s not wearing a poppy that implies jingoistic tendencies. Seizing every available opportunity throughout each year to demand that world events are met with an immediate explosive response, on the other hand… that’s missing the point of Remembrance Day in a big way. Remembrance is for life, not just one day in November. More important than the poppy is to think, as Owen might’ve put it had he suffered from a 21st century education: ouch, that was awful. Woah, this is serious stuff. Hey, let’s think really hard before we do that again, eh, whaddya say? If the millions of people who bought and wore poppies every year happened to be paying attention, they “would not” as Owen wrote ” tell with such high zest/To children ardent for some desperate glory,/The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est/Pro patria mori.”
White poppies can be obtained from the Peace Pledge Union on http://www.ppu.org.uk/
Thank you for bringing balance back in. It takes real courage to be a conscientious objector.
The real cowards in this war (WW1) were the British generals, who in the face of military tactics that were clearly failing to advance any real military objective, consigned young men to a grisly, untimely and pointless death. Such poor leadership was criminally negligent, certainly manslaughter (if not murder) on a grand scale.
When I see a first world war memorial (there is one in my little village of Launton in Oxfordshire) my reaction is not to feel proud for people who gave their lives for the country, but deep sadness, and yes real anger, that so many people died in such a gruesome and needless way. For the record, I feel the same for the Germans and all other nationalities who died – I say this not as a pacifist, but a Christian, who realizes that lamentably there are “just wars” – where failing to fight is worse than fighting. All war is horrendous, so we must always exhaust all other channels first.
One of my grandfathers was sent to prison for being a conscientious objector. The other committed suicide in 1940 and so avoided having to kill others. Both their families suffered in horrific ways as a direct consequences of their actions – perhaps more so than those who lost soldiers.
However for me wearing a red poppy seems deeply right. It’s not a symbol of celebration of the glories of war. It’s a reflective symbol which draws our attention to the need to remember those who died and reflect on our shared history. It think both my grandfathers would want us all to do that.
I will be laying a Liberal Democrat wreath this Sunday and will continue to support my husband as he approaches 35 years of service to his country.
I agree. You shouldn’t have to wear a poppy, and no-one should have to go to war. The pressure in the media is appalling.
That said,
“I flinch when I hear it said that these poor young men who fell on the battlefield ‘gave their lives’ for us, they had little choice in the matter, the social pressure, let alone the call-up, was irresistible. They were no more brave then my ancestors were cowards, but both were victims of the failure and ambition of their political leaders.”
Totally disagree. They DID give their lives for us, whether they chose to or not. And they may not have been individually braver than your ancestors but there is still the fundamental difference that they got killed and your ancestors didn’t. That alone is worth buying the poppy and wearing the poppy, both as a visible mark of remembrance and to contribute money to support veterans and their families.
I agree with Stephen W. I was taught by a veteran of the 1st World War; his son told us that life expectancy in the trenches was about two weeks at the height of the fighting, and the teacher was just lucky. My father fought in the 2nd World War. I don’t mind if conscientious objectors feel they have to object, but I have no time at all for anyone who thinks they are superior as a result of doing so.
You would think, watching the telly, that wearing a poppy is compulsory,
This impression no doubt results from BBC staff who stick a poppy on anyone who is in their studio and about to appear on TV. It has nothing to do with a proper spirit of remembrance and everything to do with BBC enforcers. One year (possibly last year) we had the ludicrous spectacle of the costumes on Strictly Come Dancing being adorned with poppies.
My father was in the army from 1930 until 1952. He signed up as a bugle boy having lied abut is age he was pretending t be two years older than he actually was. He fought in North Africa and Burma. He was in India at the time of independence trying to keep waring factions apart. He was on troopships and was torpedoed twice and was lucky enough to survive. Many of his close friends were not so lucky. The jobs he took after leaving the army required him to turn out for every remembrance day at the local memorial until 1973. So he did about 40 years at memorials every November wearing poppies and doing what was required. As soon he was no longer required to turn out his comment was “Thank God – no more bloody church parade for me.”.
He respected those who had fought in the war or had genuinely served their cause but he had a sceptical eye for the pomp and ceremony that people like the BBC or the Royal Family wrap themselves in every November.
Wearing a poppy has meaning for some but worn by others it is a hollow charade, or “showbiz”.
As a Methodist Local preacher, I have led worship in a church on Remembrance Sunday each year for the last several years and I always wear both a red poppy and a white poppy. That reflects my message that we need to respect differences of view on this matter, together with remembering not only those who believed they were doing the right thing to go to war but also those who have in various scenarios sacrificed their lives in non-violent protest or resistance against what they believed to be evil.
In recent years however, I have also referred to a speech Tony Blair made in Plymouth about 6yrs ago in which he proposed the legitimate use of war as a means of dealing with evil regimes. His analysis was not in line with the traditional ‘Christian’ thinking that war is a last resort and requires certain strict conditions for it to be considered. It is vital Tony Blair’s kind of thinking is condemned.
There’s an interesting article on the BBC website on the same topic http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24610481
When I look at war memorials my thoughts tend towards, what a great pity that we are still adding names to them.
Thanks Richard. I wrote an article on the subject a couple of weeks ago – http://mantonite.weebly.com/1/post/2013/10/thoughts-on-remenberence-sunday.html
I agree that there should be no moral compulsion on anybody to persuade them to wear a RBL poppy.
Because there are 800 names of the dead from the two world wars on the war memorial at my secondary school, I have always taken both November 11th and Remembrance Sunday very seriously – just as the school did. This was reinforced by oil paintings of seven VC winners and one who won the GC which I saw every day in the school’s Lower Hall.
For many years, I have worn both red and white poppies in my button hole. I did so when, for five years, I laid my former council’s Remembrance Sunday wreath at St Paul’s church in Langleybury, Herts. Only once was I asked about the white poppy. My reply was that the red poppy symbolises my prayer for the dead of all nations in all wars; the white poppy is a symbol of my daily prayer for peace throughout the world.
There are some truly worthy contributions here. I agree with the sentiments so eloquently expressed. But I do take exception to the selling of anything in direct competition with the British Legions red poppies which are for a specific charity and purpose. Have a white poppy “season” by all means, but not around Nov 11th. In any case, I thought the symbol of peace was/is the cherry blossom.
I’m afraid I do not recognise how the press is being described here. I have not seen any overt or covert coersion to wear the poppy.
Perhaps somone could enlighten me as to how this coersion is manifested
Richard Church .How was Germany going to be removed from Belgium, N France and Russia ? Germany in WW1 forced Belgians into labour camps. Germany had been planning invasion of France for about twenty years before WW1. The Gestapo of WW2 was descended from the Prussian secret police of the 1850s. Prussian/German militarism had been on the rise since the 1850s . In 1919, General Pershing(USA) said Germany had to be invaded and the German army defeated , otherwise there would be another war. In 1918 The German army retreated to the borders but was not defeated. A Comprehensive defeat may have prevented WW2- that was why the Allies demanded unconditional surrender at the end of WW2.
Rebecca . No CO in either war had to endure the same pain and suffering as those tortured by the Gestapo and Kempei and then suffer in the the death camps. No CO in the UK had family members and neighbours arrested and tortured to death. Germany murdered , tortured and raped it’s way to Moscow and Stalingrad . The only way Germany was defeated was through violence .
In recent years, Tanzania invaded Uganda and removed Amin and Vietnam invaded Cambodia and removed The Khymer Rouge . What do the Ugandans and Cambodians think of these actions?
In recent years , the murder of thousands of Bosnian muslims by Serbs after all the effort was made to free Kuwait from Iraq has helped to fuel muslim terrorism. The threat of Jugolavia descending into civil war was present from1989 onwards . The lack of military intervention when Croatia and Serbia fought in 1991 led to greater disaster. The inability of European countries to prevent Srebrenica massacre dams the EU.
Should we do nothing to prevent people inflicting violence on others? If someone walks past while someone inflicts violence on another, especially if they are weaker what are they? If someone is on the ground and the assailant is about to jump upon their head, the only way to save the victim may be an act of violence . If one calls the Police it may be too late.
A person being attacked may offer no violence to the aggressors but if they do nothing to help someone else being attacked, what does that make them ?
Charlie- As I said in my article, I am not a pacifist. I am anti conscription. A debate about how the first world war or WW2 might have been avoided is for another thread.
A Social Liberal. Find a senior politician or public figure or a TV presenter who refuses to wear a red poppy, or wears a white poppy, and see how they are treated. I can’t define any coercion, because it is not overt.
Richard- Conscription was not needed until about 1916 and then coercion was needed. The problem was that in WW1 and 2, the U-Boats nearly starved Britain into submission. If one is CO then one must not use any materials brought into the UK by people who have risked their lives. In WW2 , the highest percentage of fatalities by any Allied Service was the British Merchant Navy who lost 33% of it’s sailors between 1939 and 1945. Some convoys were losing over 50% of the sailors .
@Charlie – I don’t see any logic in your point that “If one is CO then one must not use any materials brought into the UK by people who have risked their lives.” Why? A CO could for example work in medical areas, saving peoples lives including soldiers. Equally they could work down the mines or even in the merchant navy. COs can and many did risk their lives, it was the taking of life that was their red line.
A few COs risked their lives in bomb disposal: very few undertook occupations where they had a had 33% chance of dying . If one looks at the convoys of 1940-1942 , some 50% of the sailors of the Merchant Navy died : those who worked in the engine rooms had the highest risk of death. Even if sailors survived the sinking , many died of exposure in the lifeboats. In 1942 and 1943 more merchant ships in tons was being sunk than being built. The Malta Convoys , Russian Convoys ( PQ 17) had particularly high losses, (Oration Harpoon 2 out of 6 merchantmen reached Malta ) and Operation Pedestal ( 9 out 14 merchant men sunk).
People may have worked in hospitals but the raw materials such as iron and chromite had to be brought in. In fact chromite was so important, a merchant men carrying this ore was not allowed to Dunkirk . So the steel used to make a utensil required peoples lives to be risked. If those on ship carrying metal ores was not prepared to use violence to protect it, then there would be no tools a CO could use in hospital s, in agriculture or down a mine.
So on what basis would you deny COs “use any materials brought into the UK by people who have risked their lives.” when some COs worked in Bomb disposal, and other COs risked their lives in the merchant navy? After all some doctors worked in England and didn’t go near the fighting, would you deny them “use any materials brought into the UK by people who have risked their lives”?
David Evans . When a country is involved in total war as in WW2 and those bringing in resources have to use violence , then a CO is relying on others to do their fighting and dying. A merchant navy vessel which uses it’s guns to defend itself against planes and surface u-boats, in order to bring in chromite to make a steel scalpel used by a CO doctor creates interesting questions. When people are being killed in death camps , by prolonging a conflict , be it WW2 or Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge more innocent people will die.
I would go back and ask the question if CO undertakes a job which has a lower level of fatalities when their country is in total war and uses resources which others have risked their lives transporting , are they carrying their fair burden of risk? I would suggest that a major difference between WW1 and WW2 was that in the former there was a much smaller variation in risk for those who served whereas in WW2 there was much greater variation . A merchant ship travelling ( many were slow moving colliers )through the Straights of Dover in 1940-1941 was undertaking a very high risk, hence the term “Hellfire Corner”.
Colin Gibley, you might want to investigate the history of the white poppy – it’s been around for almost as long as the red one and are not a recent introduction in competition.
‘It should be about millions of people who die in war without wearing a uniform.’ And the maimed, both physically and mentally. And the families left behind, who have to endure the anxiety of uncertainty about the safety about their loved ones.
Armed conflict only creates victims and they should all, friend or foe, be remembered.
Yes, the response of Dave Page to Colin Gilbey regarding the white poppy is correct. White poppies have been available since the early 1930s. I think that white poppies were introduced by the Peace Pledge Union. I obtained my last batch of them from the Women’s Co-operative Movement (if my memory is correct). White poppies are not sold in competition with the RBL red pobbies. They are an alternative for people who feel that the red poppy supports war, or are for people like me who wish to wear both. It is most illiberal of Colin Gilbey to object to either the sale or the wearing of white poppies.
Another article with similar sentiments http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/poppy-last-time-remembrance-harry-leslie-smith
Richard – I suggest you watch PMQs with a little more critical eye. I have seen quite a few MPs without poppies – nearly all of them Labour. I believe this already casts doubt on your statement and so will not go to the further length of rewatching various shows which have presenters without poppies.