# White Poppy



## Guest (Nov 10, 2013)

For the record, I think the white poppy is rude.



*Brett Wilson White Poppy: Former Dragon Defends The Red Poppy *



As discussion in Canada swirled around the virtues of the white poppy this Remembrance Day, 
Calgary millionaire and former dragon in CBC's Dragon's Den, W. Brett Wilson took to Twitter to 
defend the red poppy and its significance. Rather than signifying the human sacrifice made by 
men and women on behalf of Canada and as a symbol to remember the price and horror of war, 
proponents of the white poppy argue the red poppy romanticizes and glorifies war. 
Wilson swiftly attacked that notion.


To the @*WhitePoppy* movement - be clear - the #*RedPoppy* does not glorify war 
nor does the #*YellowDaffodil* glorify cancer. 
#*RespectOurVeterans*


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

On the other hand anything to do with war, including remembering and honoring soldiers, glorifies war. Remember, these soldiers killed other human beings. Most, never get over the horrors of war. It's ruined more than the ones who were killed but also thier families, friends, businesses, etc,, etc.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I have and always will be thankful to the men and woman that fought for our freedom, some giving their lives so we can have the freedom that we enjoy today. If they had to kill another human being, then so be it. If i had to do the same to save my friends and family, I would. I hope that we never have to make this decision again.

Ric-A-Dam-Doo performed by Canadian soldiers wives


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

We watched a couple of shows about the wars with interviews with survivors, videos etc. about the conflicts. I think it is important to remember what happened and maybe our grand children will be wise enough not to let this happen again . That's my wish.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

For as long as I can remember I have worn a red poppy. To remember and honor my father and both grand fathers, uncles and other relatives, and friends, among others. Dad was RCAF, joined up early 1940; he came back. One grand father was infantry, one was artillery, both joined up in 1914; they came back. For a while I was Armd Recce.. To those who have served, in what ever capacity and under what ever flag, I salute you. To those who for what ever reason didn't make it back, I am thankful for your sacrifice.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

It's a measure of respect. It recognizes self sacrifice. My wife works at a veterans hospital and there are very few left from the Second World War. It's the least we can do to show our appreciation. No one is forcing anyone to wear a poppy and I'm sure the tradition, like our veterans, will slowly fade and die. I, for one, have always worn one and will continue to wear one out or respect for my mother, father, and father-in-law who were all over seas, not to mention those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. I thank God, and them, that I've been fortunate to not have to make that choice.

And yes, it should be red with a black center and worn over the heart.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

The glorification of war is a big topic and something that I do see the media do all the time. However, my grandparents on both sides of my family were involved in the war. One was in the navy and went against the Japanese; the others were in Nazi-occupied territory and struggled to stay alive. One great grandfather was captured by Nazis and sent to a death camp. He actually escaped, although he was shot through the leg with a machine gun. I have spoken to a other few veterans, too. The last thing any of these people want is to glorify war. Originally, I think part of the symbolism of the poppy was to remind us of what people went through because of the war: people who live through war tend not to want it to happen again. I'm in full agreement with that. I'm very much anti-war, but I respect the heck out of those old guys. I won't wear a white poppy.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Rememberance day is all about the vets and what they HAD to do in order for us to live as we do today. While I agree with the sentiment of the white poppy, Nov 11 is not the day for it. Don't rain on someone else's parade, pick another date.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

and preferably another symbol, something like, oh I don't know, a white dove?




Jim DaddyO said:


> Rememberance day is all about the vets and what they HAD to do in order for us to live as we do today. While I agree with the sentiment of the white poppy, Nov 11 is not the day for it. Don't rain on someone else's parade, pick another date.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> ...anything to do with war, including remembering and honoring soldiers, glorifies war.


Absolutely wrong.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Remember, these soldiers killed other human beings.


In your world view, what is the appropriate response to genocide? 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I've talked to lots of vets in my life, from church parishioners to the folks who warm chairs at the legion and nursing homes where I've gigged, to many of my coworkers in my early working career, to my Dad who served in Europe during WW2. None of them glorified war. All of them want us to learn the lessons of war so that history isn't repeated. It's never about glorifying war, it's always about respecting those who were thrust into it, remembering their sacrifice, choosing diplomacy until there are no other choices but to take up arms, embracing the ideals by which we live...

Do these white poppy people know what glorify means? They haven't done their homework.

My Dad was lucky, he came home alive, though not unaffected, and he lived his life by the same ideals that made him enlist in 1939. War is repulsive and dreaded, and not glorified.

As someone else said, wearing the yellow daffodil doesn't glorify cancer either.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Although I respect and and admire those who were put in harms way to fight in WWI and WWII, I believe the time for the white poppy is long overdue.

I think it's high time we started teaching our kids that there is NO glory in war.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2013)

Milkman said:


> I think it's high time we started teaching our kids that there is NO glory in war.


That's been happening since the inception of Remembrance Day. 
Have you skipped class all your life at the beginning of November?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

So you think seeing old men and women crying at gravesites somehow glorifies war?

I think not!

White poppies have been around since the 1930's btw, almost as long as the red. 



Milkman said:


> Although I respect and and admire those who were put in harms way to fight in WWI and WWII, I believe the time for the white poppy is long overdue.
> 
> I think it's high time we started teaching our kids that there is NO glory in war.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Although I respect and and admire those who were put in harms way to fight in WWI and WWII, I believe the time for the white poppy is long overdue.
> 
> I think it's high time we started teaching our kids that there is NO glory in war.


People can wear what they want. That's one of the freedoms that was won in battle by our vets. As for teaching our kids that there is no glory in war, who teaches their kids that there is glory in war. I sure didn't. I think Mooh's post summed it up nicely.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

laristotle said:


> That's been happening since the inception of Remembrance Day.
> Have you skipped class all your life at the beginning of November?


Really? we don't glorify war in our society? We don't create an image of war that encourages kids to play with toy guns and to reach the level of respect and glory that our war vets experience?

Please.

Sorry of reality rubs anyone the wrong way, but it is what it is.

Selling peace doesn't mean being disrespectful to those who were sent to war in the past, but if all we have learned from war is to glorify those who served, we have missed the point IMO.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I get the sense that white poppy wearers look down on the red guys and their message is that if they were around, wars wouldnt take place. This was verified when I googled white poppy and found sites like this:
http://kirbycairo.blogspot.ca/2013/11/defending-white-poppy.html
I couldnt read the whole thing, because maybe I am not as smart as those who wear a white poppy..................


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> So you think seeing old men and women crying at gravesites somehow glorifies war?
> 
> I think not!
> 
> White poppies have been around since the 1930's btw, almost as long as the red.


Who said that?

No, but we focus strongly on the heroicism and not nearly enough on learnng from the past and preventing future wars.

Look around at what's happening around the world.

Can anyone truthfully say that mankind has learned this yet?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Really? we don't glorify war in our society? We don't create an image of war that encourages kids to play with toy guns and to reach the level of respect and glory that our war vets experience?
> .


Kids play cops and robbers. Have you ever seen a group of kids saying lets play war, I wanna be Hitler? They only ones I see glorifying war is the Neo-Nazis, and militias. Besides kids dont play those games anymore, theyre too fat. Now its all WOW shit........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Here it is again......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdD0ivs_FG8
Yes talk down to all of us...........


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields. 


John McCrae

Me, I have never ever felt that remembering our veterans and dead was glorifying war.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Neither do I kent.

I'm wearing a red poppy as always, and I do understand why the white ones may seem disrespectful to some.

Our vets went to hell and back for us and I am very careful to honor that.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Well they're all fat because they're too busy playing Call of Duty, or Battlefield, or whatever war game of choice is the flavour of the day. I agree with Mike on this one. I DO NOT, however, think this is what a red poppy symbolizes.



Accept2 said:


> Kids play cops and robbers. Have you ever seen a group of kids saying lets play war, I wanna be Hitler? They only ones I see glorifying war is the Neo-Nazis, and militias. Besides kids dont play those games anymore, theyre too fat. Now its all WOW shit........


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

At least the whole red vs white debate has people thinking/talking about what Remembrance Day means. I'm okay with discussion and debate. People are remembering.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Neither the vets nor the red poppy glorify war. "LEST WE FORGET" is the warning they give to never forget the HORROR of war, not the glory.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

How to wear a white poppy on Remembrance Day:

You don't. You don't wear a white poppy. That's how you wear a white poppy on Remembrance Day.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

@keto.....Thanks.
@adcandour and others......after reading these posts I have slowly come to the realization that the color of the poppy doesn't matter. If you want to wear a white, or yellow or what ever color poppy, go for it. Wear a poppy, proudly, and remember those who fight/fought, lived and died....on both sides and those caught in the middle.
One other thing to remember, a lot of the Vets are now young.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

dradlin said:


> In your world view, what is the appropriate response to genocide?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Certainly not to go to war and have many, many innocent people killed. Do you know how many innocent civilians died in the two world wars? Do you know the percentage of innocent people killed and maimed continues to climb? 

Who takes the blame for that and the wrecked lives of those children, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> Certainly not to go to war and have many, many innocent people killed. Do you know how many innocent civilians died in the two world wars? Do you know the percentage of innocent people killed and maimed continues to climb?
> 
> Who takes the blame for that and the wrecked lives of those children, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc?


So, when Hitler wanted to take over the world and kill all of those who he hated or disliked, apparently we should have just let him.

WABH


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Certainly not to go to war and have many, many innocent people killed. Do you know how many innocent civilians died in the two world wars? Do you know the percentage of innocent people killed and maimed continues to climb?
> 
> Who takes the blame for that and the wrecked lives of those children, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc?




"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Author Unknown


----------



## allanr (Jan 11, 2012)

dradlin said:


> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Author Unknown


 "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
~Attributed to Edmund Burke. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

The distance between pacifists and warmongers is nonexistent. They are equally vile in their disrespect for human well being. Warmongers kill. Pacifists cry, but allow the killing to continue. 

Today I plan on remembering the men and women who chose to take up arms against evil. The people for whom mere tears were not an option.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

War is not glorified. We pay glory to the people, almost all peace loving people, who did the unthinkable to put a stop to a tyrant whose ideas and philosophies murdered millions & would have murdered millions more. It is not the war that we worship. The heroes are the people who did things that they didn't want to do because it has to be done.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Listen folks, I grew up in an air force family and was taught to respect those who serve in our armed forces.

But, To deny that we attach heroicism and romanticism to going to war seems willfully ignorant to me.

No rembrance day is not about that, but it obviously prompts us to consider the horrors (and that's a pretty apprriate word) of war.

I think a separate day to celebrate the ideals of peace would be more suitable doing do on remembrance day, but I respect those who would beat the swords in to ploughshears and I believe we need more of that sentiment.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I treat the two world wars on a separate level then any conflict since. They were so much different than anything the world has ever seen since. The nations involved, the absolutely horrendous death and casualties. This is not to diminish in any way the service and contributions of any vet in any other conflict since. War is hell no matter what the circumstance. But there is room for debate in just about any other conflicts man has engaged in throughout history, post industrial that is. I an certainly see some people not agreeing with Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and many more. There is much room for debate in those both pro and con. 

There is no room for debate in the two great wars. They were bloody messes that had to be fought and won in order to restore any semblance of human dignity and stop injustice. Any person with an ounce of compassion for other human beings and the thought that all people have a right to live free and not enslaved or tortured or murdered because they are one race or the other, one religion or the other, just has to suck it up and face the facts. I am very grateful that I was born after them, I am grateful my son and daughter were born after them. I am grateful to the poor souls that died in some field alone or in some other horrendous way. I am also very grateful to those that lived their lives with only a photo of their son or daughter and never got to see or hold them again. We take much for granted today, it could be so very different.

We continue to see regional conflicts all over the world. But I firmly believe that we will never see the likes of the two great wars again. They were ugly times in our history but times we had to live through. We have learned and must remember. So I don't mind people challenging some of these conflicts we have engaged in since the end of WWII, there is room for debate there. Again, that is not to diminish in any way those that serve today. They all deserve respect for putting on a uniform. But those two conflicts simply had to be fought, there should be no debate there.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I treat the two world wars on a separate level then any conflict since. They were so much different than anything the world has ever seen since. The nations involved, the absolutely horrendous death and casualties. This is not to diminish in any way the service and contributions of any vet in any other conflict since. War is hell no matter what the circumstance. But there is room for debate in just about any other conflicts man has engaged in throughout history, post industrial that is. I an certainly see some people not agreeing with Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and many more. There is much room for debate in those both pro and con.
> 
> There is no room for debate in the two great wars. They were bloody messes that had to be fought and won in order to restore any semblance of human dignity and stop injustice. Any person with an ounce of compassion for other human beings and the thought that all people have a right to live free and not enslaved or tortured or murdered because they are one race or the other, one religion or the other, just has to suck it up and face the facts. I am very grateful that I was born after them, I am grateful my son and daughter were born after them. I am grateful to the poor souls that died in some field alone or in some other horrendous way. I am also very grateful to those that lived their lives with only a photo of their son or daughter and never got to see or hold them again. We take much for granted today, it could be so very different.
> 
> We continue to see regional conflicts all over the world. But I firmly believe that we will never see the likes of the two great wars again. They were ugly times in our history but times we had to live through. We have learned and must remember. So I don't mind people challenging some of these conflicts we have engaged in since the end of WWII, there is room for debate there. Again, that is not to diminish in any way those that serve today. They all deserve respect for putting on a uniform. But those two conflicts simply had to be fought, there should be no debate there.



Well put. 

Even with some of the more recent conflicts, it's NEVER the soldiers I criticize. 

It's the angry old white guys who send them off to fight from the comfort and safety of their chairs who need a whack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Very well said Scott and I agree with everything except for the fact that I do believe there is another one coming. It will be another religious war and potentially much worse than the first 2. I really really hope I'm wrong, but unless the West gets assimilated, or the peace loving Muslims start to exert some influence I thing it's destined to happen. Hopefully not in my lifetime.


----------



## Fader (Mar 10, 2009)

Freedom isn't free.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

A much bigger war is coming. I've already chosen to be on the cyborg side.............


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Resistance is futile



Accept2 said:


> A much bigger war is coming. I've already chosen to be on the cyborg side.............


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

davetcan said:


> Resistance is futile


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Uh Oh !!! 







Jim DaddyO said:


>


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

I proudly and respectfully wear a red poppy to honour my grandfather and the men who marched through hell with him. He carried the scars with him (physically and mentally) until he died in his 60's. To me, the red signifies the blood he left behind in Ortona, Italy. Any other colour is nothing more than a political statement on this day is disrespectful. 

30 years ago I stood at the Vimy Ridge memorial and walked through the cratered landscape and visuallized the images from 1917. And I thanked the Good Lord that I grew up in the generation I did, and not in the early 20th century or in the 1930s-40s.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> _*I treat the two world wars on a separate level then any conflict since.*_ They were so much different than anything the world has ever seen since. The nations involved, the absolutely horrendous death and casualties. This is not to diminish in any way the service and contributions of any vet in any other conflict since. War is hell no matter what the circumstance. But there is room for debate in just about any other conflicts man has engaged in throughout history, post industrial that is. I an certainly see some people not agreeing with Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and many more. There is much room for debate in those both pro and con.
> 
> There is no room for debate in the two great wars. They were bloody messes that had to be fought and won in order to restore any semblance of human dignity and stop injustice. Any person with an ounce of compassion for other human beings and the thought that all people have a right to live free and not enslaved or tortured or murdered because they are one race or the other, one religion or the other, just has to suck it up and face the facts. I am very grateful that I was born after them, I am grateful my son and daughter were born after them. I am grateful to the poor souls that died in some field alone or in some other horrendous way. I am also very grateful to those that lived their lives with only a photo of their son or daughter and never got to see or hold them again. We take much for granted today, it could be so very different.
> 
> We continue to see regional conflicts all over the world. But I firmly believe that we will never see the likes of the two great wars again. They were ugly times in our history but times we had to live through. We have learned and must remember. So I don't mind people challenging some of these conflicts we have engaged in since the end of WWII, there is room for debate there. Again, that is not to diminish in any way those that serve today. They all deserve respect for putting on a uniform. But those two conflicts simply had to be fought, there should be no debate there.


For the innocent that are killed in any war, I'm sure they do not see it any different. Nor do their surviving friends and relatives, many who have to grow up without a mother, father, sister or brother.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steadfastly said:


> For the innocent that are killed in any war, I'm sure they do not see it any different. Nor do their surviving friends and relatives, many who have to grow up without a mother, father, sister or brother.


Not sure I am getting the point here


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> For the innocent that are killed in any war, I'm sure they do not see it any different. Nor do their surviving friends and relatives, many who have to grow up without a mother, father, sister or brother.


That is senseless. How about the innocent people who die to acts of genocide? It would be pure evil to stand by and do nothing. WWII was in response to Hitler's atrocious acts... war followed to stop the atrocities, to stop the torture and killing and inhumanity inflicted on an innocent people. Your response would be to do nothing and let that happen? Pure evil.

For everything there is a season, and in this broken world that means war has been and will be a reality. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Just before 11 AM while coming back from town on Nov 11, I noticed a few cars pulled over to the side of the road and realized that they were stopping to honour our vets. I pulled over and did the same. I couldn't help but notice one woman out of her car, head bowed, standing at attention in the rain. I had to wonder what loss that she suffered and must admit, I thought about it a few more times that day. War is a terrible thing.

To all the wearer's of "White Poppies". I defend your right to wear them but you will have to work harder next year. In town or on any of the news broadcasts on this years Remembrance Day, I didn't see one white poppy.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

dradlin said:


> It would be pure evil to stand by and do nothing.


Responding without violence is not doing nothing. Ask Gandhi.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of or at least noticed white poppies until this year.

Although I am fundamentally opposed to war in all but the most obvious cases, I would never use Remembrance Day as platform to oppose war. 

Our vets deserve our respect and honour as has been said in this thread numerous times.

But, I still believe our society glorifies war, and I for one find no glory in young men slaughtering each other over money, power and religion.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Shark said:


> Responding without violence is not doing nothing. Ask Gandhi.



There is a time for war when all else fails, or when there is no time for politics while innocent people are being brutalized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of or at least noticed white poppies until this year.
> 
> Although I am fundamentally opposed to war in all but the most obvious cases, I would never use Remembrance Day as platform to oppose war.
> 
> ...


I would change that slightly and use the word violence. We are the kings of violence in this hemisphere. We are in love with gore and blood. We love it in our news and we love it on tv. Canada's number one sport is filled with violence. The top selling video games are nothing but violence. So it's not so much "war" as it is violence. We are in love with death. It's disgraceful really


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Completely agree with all of this!!!



Milkman said:


> To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of or at least noticed white poppies until this year.
> 
> Although I am fundamentally opposed to war in all but the most obvious cases, I would never use Remembrance Day as platform to oppose war.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

davetcan said:


> Resistance is futile


Dave, you really should show the author of your quotes!

Here, I'll do it for you:

"Resistance is Futile!"---Two of Huge

Wild Bill

- - - Updated - - -



Steadfastly said:


> For the innocent that are killed in any war, I'm sure they do not see it any different. Nor do their surviving friends and relatives, many who have to grow up without a mother, father, sister or brother.


Stead, I too would like to hear your answer to the question. What DO we do when faced with extreme aggression? What DO we do when confronted by genocide, by some power that wants to enslave and kill us?

I can perfectly understand someone's revulsion to such violence. What sane person would not feel that way?

Still, to sit there and let it happen to me seems equally insane. 

Is not suicide a sin?

Wild Bill


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I'm not a historian, but I really don't recall Canada ever being much of an aggressor nation ........... or any Canadian I know of glorifying war. 

It is pretty easy to sit around and talk about peace - I, and millions of my peers did it through the sixties and seventies. Those very same peers run countries now. I don't think their ideals have changed - I know mine have not. But ideals are wonderful things to have - until one is faced with reality................. and then one has to make a choice.

When one is faced with war, the choices are to fight back or surrender .................... and on Nov 11th I remember and honour those who wanted peace - but chose to fight back .................... for me........ for my children.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I am not sure if the link will work but I am trying it. My Dad, WWll vet, he will be 89 this year. One of the reason's my poppies are red.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10153439431180324


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

dradlin said:


> That is senseless. How about the innocent people who die to acts of genocide? It would be pure evil to stand by and do nothing. WWII was in response to Hitler's atrocious acts... war followed to stop the atrocities, to stop the torture and killing and inhumanity inflicted on an innocent people.


If you look at the history of WWII, you'll find the allies were also guilty of atrocities. These were major atrocities. The fire bombed Dresden, a city with no military importance. It was bombed out of pure revenge. About 40,000 innocent people were killed for nothing in that city. That was only one night of bombing. Millions of other innocent lives were taken because of indiscriminate bombing. 

There is no doubt that Hitler was a diabolical tyrant. His power could have been denied to the point that he would not have been able to take the steps he did. There are others in Germany and in the Allied countries that are guilty for the genocide too. I've posted those facts here before so I won't bother to do it again. Regards, Steadfastly


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> If you look at the history of WWII, you'll find the allies were also guilty of atrocities. These were major atrocities. The fire bombed Dresden, a city with no military importance. It was bombed out of pure revenge. About 40,000 innocent people were killed for nothing in that city. That was only one night of bombing. Millions of other innocent lives were taken because of indiscriminate bombing.
> 
> There is no doubt that Hitler was a diabolical tyrant. His power could have been denied to the point that he would not have been able to take the steps he did. There are others in Germany and in the Allied countries that are guilty for the genocide too. I've posted those facts here before so I won't bother to do it again. Regards, Steadfastly


Undeniable that bad things happened and were carried out by both sides. Not one of the brave people who carried out things like the bombing of Dresden, or the Blitz on London, were involved with the decision to take such action. The brave people who were on front lines never had that luxury. Hitler could not be stopped any other way than by his death. People tried. He kept his soldiers marching into other countries. It came down to 2 choices, fight him, or be overtaken by him. He did not leave a 3rd option.

My dad stood and did his duty. My mom, as a 15 year old girl, living in Birmingham, lived through the bombing. Going out on an ambulance after a hard day in the factory to lend aid and pick up bodies with bombs falling around you is no way for a young girl to live. Would you want that for your daughter? Would you fight against it?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

If our allies on the other side of the world were being killed, the balance of world power threatened and potential ramifications for the same war to come to these shores, would you do something or support someone else in helping to stop it?

If the potential existed for soldiers under the direction of a foreign government to show up at your door and tell you to march into the woods while the rest of your family was told to get into the back of a truck, would you support a decision to fight against them? 

If the front lines moved closer and closer so that in the middle of the night bombs started to drop into your town, would you support a decision to prevent it?

If you were left with a choice to fight or die, what would you do?


I support and respect the veterans because they did so we have a free and peaceful country to live in. Wear a red poppy and teach your kids about Remembrance Day, not to glorify war but to keep it from happening.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Never mind the colour of a freaking poppy,
how is our government cutting funding to injured and disabled vets honoring them?

That seems like more of a kick in the face than the colour of a poppy.

http://globalnews.ca/news/960784/watch-vets-fight-canadian-government-for-compensation/

"If you don't want to take care of your veterans, don't create them".


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I'd love to but won't out of respect for this thread.



Wild Bill said:


> Dave, you really should show the author of your quotes!
> 
> Here, I'll do it for you:
> 
> ...


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

I do think it is tragic and I have lots of empathy for the young soldiers who are murdering and being slaughtered for what they believe to be virtuous and noble causes. I feel even more sadness for the millions of non military casualties of these insane bloodbaths. 

I was never one to buy into the propaganda that wars are fought for freedom and democracy. A bit of study and research beyond the media spin reveals a very different story of why the bloodshed and sacrifice occurs. Those who think we needed to be saved from the nazis need to look closer at the WWI and its relation to WWII, the players, the financiers of those wars, etc. We were in no danger of being turned into german robots for the 3rd reich. 

I posted a video on remembrance day in the political pundit forum, where I thought this kind of discussion would be more appropriate.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

...and the Jews? Is the rest of the world supposed to just look the other way?




bluesmostly said:


> Those who think we needed to be saved from the nazis need to look closer at the WWI and its relation to WWII, the players, the financiers of those wars, etc. We were in no danger of being turned into german robots for the 3rd reich.
> 
> I posted a video on remembrance day in the political pundit forum, where I thought this kind of discussion would be more appropriate.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Besides kids dont play those games anymore, theyre too fat...


Oh these fat kids are still playing war. On their XBoxes and Playstations.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

I look at the presentation of a white poppy on November 11th as a protest against the red poppy. Sorry is the one who tries to present a white poppy to me during a veterans memorial service. I will tell them where to stick it. 
Any idiot that thinks people wearing red poppies glorifies war is completely ignorant to what it stands for. I don't think any one wants war. But I sure as hell aint going to not honour our brave soldiers to appease some ignorant imbeciles who think they know it all.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Not sure I am getting the point here


Me neither...please reactivate my ability to 'thumbs down' him.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

davetcan said:


> ...and the Jews? Is the rest of the world supposed to just look the other way?


I do not think so at all. Do you think that was the reason for WWII?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

bluesmostly said:


> I do not think so at all. Do you think that was the reason for WWII?


I have to know….


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> I do not think so at all. Do you think that was the reason for WWII?


Go ahead, give us a reasoned argument - what was the reason for WWII?

It wasn't about the Jews, but their elimination was, of course, part of Hitler's beliefs and programs.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I look at the presentation of a white poppy on November 11th as a protest against the red poppy. Sorry is the one who tries to present a white poppy to me during a veterans memorial service. I will tell them where to stick it.
> Any idiot that thinks people wearing red poppies glorifies war is completely ignorant to what it stands for. I don't think any one wants war. But I sure as hell aint going to not honour our brave soldiers to appease some ignorant imbeciles who think they know it all.


That's a bit strong IMO.

Because someone disagrees with you that doesn't necessarily make them an imbecile OR an idiot.

The "you're either for us or you're against us" logic you seem to be using is a bit myopic.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

No. ........




bluesmostly said:


> I do not think so at all. Do you think that was the reason for WWII?


----------



## Big_Daddy (Apr 2, 2009)

So, here we all sit in our warm, cozy homes, enjoying a hot coffee or cold beer, comfortable, safe, free, tapping away on our computers, expressing our opinions about the merits of red poppies over white poppies, of what did or did not cause World War II, of whether Remembrance Day glorifies war or reminds us of its horror. If the Allies had lost the war, would we have the freedom to do all these things today? Maybe, maybe not. We can never know the answer to that question. What we do know is that Hitler invaded Poland, then Austria, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and ultimately every country in Europe. The fact is that the Japanese invaded China and attacked Pearl Harbor. These regimes slaughtered millions. Over 63 million people lost their lives in WWII...*63 million!* Of that, 33 million were civilians, 13 million were Russian, 11 million Chinese, killed by the Axis powers. Check out the numbers for yourself here....http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.asp. It is mind-boggling to even try to comprehend the depth of the loss of life. The comforts we have today were paid for with the blood of these millions. The colour of a poppy doesn't change that.

The concept of the white poppy has been around since the early 1930's and the Royal British Legion has stated that it doesn't mind what colour people wear. The point is to remember those that gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms and to never forget the horror of war. Hopefully, at least, we can all agree on that.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

davetcan said:


> ...and the Jews? Is the rest of the world supposed to just look the other way?


They did. There were letters of proof sent to the governments of the allies asking them to do something or to let the Jews that wanted to, to be allowed to move into the USA. A few did gain entry but most were denied and the allegations of what was going on in Germany were ignored. If the Jews had been allowed entry or if the Allies had stepped in earlier, the slaughter of the Jews would not have happened or at least been very much lessened. So, is it only the Nazis who are guilty?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Yes it is. Without their actions nothing else would have been needed. Genocide is genocide.



Steadfastly said:


> They did. There were letters of proof sent to the governments of the allies asking them to do something or to let the Jews that wanted to, to be allowed to move into the USA. A few did gain entry but most were denied and the allegations of what was going on in Germany were ignored. If the Jews had been allowed entry or if the Allies had stepped in earlier, the slaughter of the Jews would not have happened or at least been very much lessened. So, is it only the Nazis who are guilty?


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

Steadfastly said:


> They did. There were letters of proof sent to the governments of the allies asking them to do something or to let the Jews that wanted to, to be allowed to move into the USA. A few did gain entry but most were denied and the allegations of what was going on in Germany were ignored. If the Jews had been allowed entry or if the Allies had stepped in earlier, the slaughter of the Jews would not have happened or at least been very much lessened. So, is it only the Nazis who are guilty?


So you are suggesting that relocating all of the Jews so that Hitler could have his purified nation would have stopped the war? Effectively handing Hitler a cleansed Europe to be a unified German super-nation was the solution? Also consider the time in which these letters were sent. There was no context for ethnic cleansing of a culture like this. There was a lot of skepticism about the legitimacy of the claims in the letters and reports, maybe because it was easier than accepting such a horrible thing was actually happening. Even years after the war, once the camps were found and the scope of the holocaust was revealed, it was beyond the comprehension of most people. If there wasn't documented evidence, it would be hard to actually believe what happened. Imagine getting a letter like this (without our benefit of having ww2 history in our brains). It would be shocking claims that would sound exaggerated. And I'm sure at some level, some were afraid to learn the truth. There were even reports after the war from Jews themselves who didn't understand or believe the scope of atrocities that were being committed against their own people, by some reports even as they were being rounded up themselves. How do you expect people half a world a way to process this and make judgements about it when the true scope of things wasn't really known until later in the war or as the war closed out? That is no reason to not explore the claims further but. By this time the war was in full gear and Hitler's and the Nazi's arrogance and indifference to the rest of the world was in full display. What do you think Allied military or government investigators or even peaceful care organizations would get from the Nazi's if they asked about this? Do you really think the Nazi's were going to be forthcoming about what they were doing? So was there some responsibility to lay at the feet of the Allies? Sure, but a miniscule amount in the grand scheme of the war when it comes to the holocaust and the actions of HItler and the Nazi's. 

The ethnic cleansing was only part of Hitler's plan. The complete domination of Europe (Western and Eastern), Russia and even Africa was his plan. Do you really think he would have stopped at any border? And once the precedent was established that unwanted cultures could simply be relocated to Allied countries, what was his incentive to stop with any other religious or cultural group? It would have saved him building and staffing his camps if he could simply pile millions of people onto boats and send them towards North America. Then it becomes someone elses problem and if they all die at sea then it's not his fault. 

Yes, if the Allies had stepped in earlier there is the chance that the holocaust may have be curbed to some level. But define "stepped in". After 1938-9 do you really believe that Hitler was open to negotiation? Heck, after 1936 do you believe that Hitler was open to negotiation. In 1939 Germany signed an agreement with Russian to not invade Russia, and 2 years later the invasion of Russia started. By stepping in, do you mean the commitment of troops to the European war front? I agree that if the Allies had jumped on board and sent full commitment of their forces to Europe in 1940 that Hitler's growth through Europe would have slowed and the holocaust possibly would not have grown to the level it did. However we are talking a war against a much stronger war machine that was far more concentrated, well equipped and well manned than it was later in the war. Who knows what the war and battles would have been like. Military casualties could have been higher, but the civilian loss of life may have been reduced. There is no way to know. 

History has the benefit of hindsight. In hindsight we now know what a holocaust is. In hindsight, knowing the scope of the ethnic cleansing that was occurring, a lot of things would likely have been done differently. Just like in hindsight an invasion at Dieppe would not have happened, the US would likely have paid a little more attention in Hawaii in December, and no one would have allowed an atomic bomb to be dropped on a civilian population, or any population for that matter, and a lot of people would have paid a lot more attention to Hitler and Germany in the early-mid-1930's. We have the luxury of time, analysis, and a lot of facts (and non-facts) to review that people at the time did not.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> If you look at the history of WWII, you'll find the allies were also guilty of atrocities. These were major atrocities. The fire bombed Dresden, a city with no military importance. It was bombed out of pure revenge. About 40,000 innocent people were killed for nothing in that city. That was only one night of bombing. Millions of other innocent lives were taken because of indiscriminate bombing.





Steadfastly said:


> They did. There were letters of proof sent to the governments of the allies asking them to do something or to let the Jews that wanted to, to be allowed to move into the USA. A few did gain entry but most were denied and the allegations of what was going on in Germany were ignored. If the Jews had been allowed entry or if the Allies had stepped in earlier, the slaughter of the Jews would not have happened or at least been very much lessened. So, is it only the Nazis who are guilty?


Last time you told the Dresden story it was 30,000 people, check out the Hugo Boss thread, going up every time you decide to mention it? Seems like before going on about Hitler, the Jews, world governments, the Catholic church, you should look at the facts a bit more and explain where you stand exactly. The last thread you posted on about the war you just quoted and stretched a whole lot of randomness and took off without explaining yourself. Is it just an attempt to overload everyone and leave them confused, maybe you're a better politician than you think. Now you want to say that the Allies needed to relocate millions of people who were living just fine before a bully popped up in the playground. For someone who says they aren't very politically motivated and basically calls the soldiers that stood up for you to have a peaceful place to live glorified murders, now you want to get involved on a global scale and lead a mass exodus. How would that have worked exactly? The people on this forum that come on to be actual shit disturbers don't frustrate me as much as you do because the random ignorance that comes from you is baffling and as frustrating as the fat girl at the office who just busted her third new chairs in four months and says it must be the quality of the furniture, forbid she look at her weight.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

vadsy said:


> Last time you told the Dresden story it was 30,000 people, check out the Hugo Boss thread, going up every time you decide to mention it? Seems like before going on about Hitler, the Jews, world governments, the Catholic church, you should look at the facts a bit more and explain where you stand exactly. The last thread you posted on about the war you just quoted and stretched a whole lot of randomness and took off without explaining yourself. Is it just an attempt to overload everyone and leave them confused, maybe you're a better politician than you think. Now you want to say that the Allies needed to relocate millions of people who were living just fine before a bully popped up in the playground. For someone who says they aren't very politically motivated and basically calls the soldiers that stood up for you to have a peaceful place to live glorified murders, now you want to get involved on a global scale and lead a mass exodus. How would that have worked exactly? The people on this forum that come on to be actual shit disturbers don't frustrate me as much as you do because the random ignorance that comes from you is baffling and as frustrating as the fat girl at the office who just busted her third new chairs in four months and says it must be the quality of the furniture, forbid she look at her weight.


That's one of the greatest posts I have read on here in 10 years. Cheers


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Also, Germany wasn't allowing exit visas for Jews after a certain point in time. Just round em up and put em in cattle cars bound for the camps.

They were also exterminating physically and mentally handicapped, and mentally ill citizens regardless of race or religion.

They also stifled all political opposition, including media reports and outlawing all the opposition parties. Speaking out about what we would today view as wrongdoings, for many people led to a visit from the SS or Gestapo, after which they were never heard from again.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Big_Daddy said:


> ...The point is to remember those that gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms and to never forget the horror of war. Hopefully, at least, we can all agree on that.


I agree with the second half for sure, I think we all do, thanks for the good post.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Sorry guys. I reread my earlier post in this thread and I think it came across as a bit arrogant and condescending, my apologies. I do have a different perspective than most on these matters and it is a very important topic, and I do know we all share the same wishes and desire for peace.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

keto said:


> Go ahead, give us a reasoned argument - what was the reason for WWII?
> 
> It wasn't about the Jews, but their elimination was, of course, part of Hitler's beliefs and programs.


It was a part of the program. 

the war reparations imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles had destroyed the german economy, many poeple's lives were ruined and many starved to death during the Weimar Republic in the 1920's. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia under Lenin and Stalin saw the genocide of tens of millions of mostly christians - both these scenarios were blamed on the 'jewish' bankers and the predominantly jewish communist party of russia. 

Hitler was voted in as a savior. his government rescued the economy by taking back control of the german currency from the international bankers. the biggest fear created in the minds of the german by the state was that russian communists terrorists would infiltrate the country and take over and slaughter the mostly christian population like they did in russia (the false flag german parliment fire was blamed on russian terrorists and was instrumental in getting the nazi party into power). 

I am not saying that this stuff is totally true or even close to being the whole story, but this kind of rhetoric and propaganda is familiar to all of us when we hear of the justifications for war and invasions and the demonization of other ethnic peoples. This is the kind of propaganda that was used to create the nazi war machine. The governments of the enemies must surely be deceiving the people to get them to go along with war and genocidal atrocities but 'our' governments are telling us the truth?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

It's called indoctrination. You're not going to change the way he thinks. Only he can do that now.

Awesome post btw.




vadsy said:


> Last time you told the Dresden story it was 30,000 people, check out the Hugo Boss thread, going up every time you decide to mention it? Seems like before going on about Hitler, the Jews, world governments, the Catholic church, you should look at the facts a bit more and explain where you stand exactly. The last thread you posted on about the war you just quoted and stretched a whole lot of randomness and took off without explaining yourself. Is it just an attempt to overload everyone and leave them confused, maybe you're a better politician than you think. Now you want to say that the Allies needed to relocate millions of people who were living just fine before a bully popped up in the playground. For someone who says they aren't very politically motivated and basically calls the soldiers that stood up for you to have a peaceful place to live glorified murders, now you want to get involved on a global scale and lead a mass exodus. How would that have worked exactly? The people on this forum that come on to be actual shit disturbers don't frustrate me as much as you do because the random ignorance that comes from you is baffling and as frustrating as the fat girl at the office who just busted her third new chairs in four months and says it must be the quality of the furniture, forbid she look at her weight.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> It was a part of the program.
> 
> the war reparations imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles had destroyed the german economy, many poeple's lives were ruined and many starved to death during the Weimar Republic in the 1920's. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia under Lenin and Stalin saw the genocide of tens of millions of mostly christians - both these scenarios were blamed on the 'jewish' bankers and the predominantly jewish communist party of russia.
> 
> Hitler was voted in as a savior. his government rescued the economy by taking back control of the german currency from the international bankers. the biggest fear created in the minds of the german by the state was that russian communists terrorists would infiltrate the country and take over and slaughter the mostly christian population like they did in russia (the false flag german parliment fire was blamed on russian terrorists and was instrumental in getting the nazi party into power).


A lot of this is quite true. The Treaty of Versailles reduced a very proud people and nation into a beggar state. In come's Adolf Hitler and promises Germans prosperity. I truly believe the ordinary German during Hitler's rise to power had no idea what evil was in store for them and the world. That being said Hitler and the Nazi Party had to be destroyed at any cost.

BTW....back to the OP. I always wear a red poppy not a white one.


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

bluesmostly, good post. Many people don't understand the source of WW2 and the popularity of Hitler. My wife has many asked me about why people would follow such a monster. To the people Germany he wasn't a monster. Their lives were destroyed after WW1. He was able to bring them out of it, but it didn't stop with rebuilding Germany. He wanted to expand Germany and once he had the people on his side, there didn't seem to be any stopping him.

A lot of the discussion here is based on "civilian casualties" or non-combatants.  WW2 statistics has some infor about this 

Casualty breakdown:
WW1 - 95% military, 5% Civilian
WW2 - 33% military, 67% civilian

This was a pretty remarkable statistic, but when you consider the millions of Jews who were exterminated that certainly makes up a substantial shift in that number. 

But that wasn't all of it. Civilian air raids played a big part in WW2. The theory of soften the heart of the country and the support for the military will weaken. 
Air Raid deaths:
Germany - 543,000
England - 60,400

You can certainly see who played that card to the fullest extent. 

But these number show such a sad contrast between the wars and how the extent of WW2 reach far beyond battlefield combatants. The Allies are not innocent in this regard, but nothing compares to the genocide commited by the Germans. Even the atomic blast (as atrocious as it was) and it's long term resulting in approx. 200,000 deaths doesn't compare to the holocaust. But this is one of those things that you don't want to get into the situation of eye for an eye....kill one of ours and we kill one of yours. 

And in the grand scheme of things, seeing the number of 17million USSR civilian casualties during WW2 is mind boggling. 17 million civilians to go along with 12 million military. Unbelievable.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> Sorry guys. I reread my earlier post in this thread and I think it came across as a bit arrogant and condescending, my apologies. I do have a different perspective than most on these matters and it is a very important topic, and I do know we all share the same wishes and desire for peace.


Amen, brother ....................


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> It was a part of the program.
> 
> the war reparations imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles had destroyed the german economy, many poeple's lives were ruined and many starved to death during the Weimar Republic in the 1920's. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia under Lenin and Stalin saw the genocide of tens of millions of mostly christians - both these scenarios were blamed on the 'jewish' bankers and the predominantly jewish communist party of russia.


Predominantly Jewish communist party? That I'd like to see some reference on. Flat out, I don't believe you and have never read anything saying they were. Here's a lot of reading on the great purge(s) in Russia. Most of the Bolsheviks were also murdered by Stalin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge The reading I have done does concur with your first 2 sentences.



bluesmostly said:


> Hitler was voted in as a savior. his government rescued the economy by taking back control of the german currency from the international bankers. the biggest fear created in the minds of the german by the state was that russian communists terrorists would infiltrate the country and take over and slaughter the mostly christian population like they did in russia (the false flag german parliment fire was blamed on russian terrorists and was instrumental in getting the nazi party into power).


Again, partly right - certainly the fire was blamed on communists, but it was straight up politics with no racial/religious overtones, at least not to the extent you are implying. Nobody was going to come into Germany and "slaughter the mostly christian population like they did in russia".



bluesmostly said:


> I am not saying that this stuff is totally true or even close to being the whole story, but this kind of rhetoric and propaganda is familiar to all of us when we hear of the justifications for war and invasions and the demonization of other ethnic peoples. This is the kind of propaganda that was used to create the nazi war machine. The governments of the enemies must surely be deceiving the people to get them to go along with war and genocidal atrocities but 'our' governments are telling us the truth?


The genocide of Jews and other atrocities (wholesale slaughter of citizenry in areas they had taken over, for example) in Germany or by German forces was never widely known among German citizenry until after (or at least very very late in) WWII. For the last 2 years or so of the war, most Germans were just scared and hungry. For almost 10 years they'd had no say in government. To "get them to go along with war and genocidal atrocities" is badly mistaken....they weren't going along unless utterly scared into submission, and mostly were ignorant as I said previously.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> If the Jews had been allowed entry or if the Allies had stepped in earlier, the slaughter of the Jews would not have happened or at least been very much lessened. So, is it only the Nazis who are guilty?


So you argue throughout the thread that war is unjustifiable, then in the case of WWII assign guilt to others for the massacre of Jews because they didn't "step in" sooner... you can't have it both ways.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

keto said:


> Predominantly Jewish communist party? That I'd like to see some reference on. Flat out, I don't believe you and have never read anything saying they were. Here's a lot of reading on the great purge(s) in Russia. Most of the Bolsheviks were also murdered by Stalin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge The reading I have done does concur with your first 2 sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are debating what you consider to be 'facts' about what did or would happen. I am not arguing for the 'truth' of these statements or any other. 

do you not understand what my point is?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> You are debating what you consider to be 'facts' about what did or would happen. I am not arguing for the 'truth' of these statements or any other.
> 
> do you not understand what my point is?


Nope. In many threads, you have done this sort of thing....implied some 'bigger picture' without ever really stating what you believe. I asked you what you think was the cause of WWII. You answered. I disagree with major points, while agreeing with others. What am I missing.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> do you not understand what my point is?


I guess this is kinda my point.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...econd-decision-that-saved-her-and-unborn-son/

*This* is what I believe we were fighting for................. unless this 90 year old woman is lying for some nefarious reason.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I dont seem to remember Hitler ever being voted in. From what I recall he lost the election, then coerced the Prussians into giving him power much like a mob squeeze...........


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> There is no doubt that Hitler was a diabolical tyrant. His power could have been denied to the point that he would not have been able to take the steps he did. There are others in Germany and in the Allied countries that are guilty for the genocide too. I've posted those facts here before so I won't bother to do it again. Regards, Steadfastly


Stead, you keep dodging! You had implied that we should just sit there and refuse to go to war. You were asked what is one supposed to do when confronted with approaching genocide? Or horrible evil and violence.

Since then you keep saying that war is awful and that the Allies committed atrocities too.

Different answers to unasked questions, my friend!

It is obvious that you do not WANT to answer the question. I have debated this with Witnesses before and I have never yet gotten a clear answer. Witnesses don't go to war and that is their right. Still, the reality remains that if others do not defend them they will die!

I will not keep poking at you. If you can't answer I won't pick on you about it.

Wild Bill


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

keto said:


> Nope. In many threads, you have done this sort of thing....implied some 'bigger picture' without ever really stating what you believe. I asked you what you think was the cause of WWII. You answered. I disagree with major points, while agreeing with others. What am I missing.


I did not attempt to answer the question as to the cause of WWII. I would never to presume to be able to. Moreover, those points are not things I am proposing as any kind of truth of what and why things happened. It does not matter whether you agree with them or not, I am simply giving a different perspective to demonstrate how those on the other side of these wars certainly are being told different stuff than what is being sold to their 'enemies'. 

I _think _I am being very clear about what I believe, though obviously not great at communicating it. 

How about this for the what I believe is the 'bigger' picture? Political and religious leaders always use the same story to justify evil on a mass scale and to rally their people to commit acts of aggression on other humans. It goes like this: 

*"they (insert name and/or ethnicity here) are evil and are a threat to our freedom and security" 
*What am I missing?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

That's pretty clear and I actually agree with you in many cases. I'd also disagree in some and say that what our leaders are telling us is actually fact. The second world war and the Holocaust is a prime example. Was that the "only" reason we went to war? Obviously not. The invasion of neighboring countries by Germany might also have had something to do with it. What Hitler was able to convince the German people of was obviously enough to start them on that path, true or not. 



bluesmostly said:


> How about this for the what I believe is the 'bigger' picture? Political and religious leaders always use the same story to justify evil on a mass scale and to rally their people to commit acts of aggression on other humans. It goes like this:
> 
> *"they (insert name and/or ethnicity here) are evil and are a threat to our freedom and security"
> *What am I missing?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Wild Bill said:


> Stead, you keep dodging!


That's what 'Stead' does best...I have caught him in a 100% lie before and he runs in circles. Others have asked him questions point blank about statements in his posts and on numerous occasions he would just ignore the question & not respond. It is his modus operandi. I really don't know if he thinks he is really intelligent or just thinks that he can make others think that he is intelligent - I can only say it isn't true or it isn't working!!

Since I am on his 'ignore list' (F'n HOOORAYYY!!! Exclusive honour indeed!) I don't believe this post can be categorized as a 'personal attack' either.

Regards smorgdonkey.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

davetcan said:


> What Hitler was able to convince the German people of was obviously enough to start them on that path, true or not.


Dave, this series (The Nazis: A Warning From History) is excellent. 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq...ng-from-history-1-helped-into-power_lifestyle
It does a great job of keeping Hitler's rise to power somewhat brief (as opposed to reading A Study In Tyranny: The Rise Of Adolf Hitler) and also provides an excellent account of the events afterward. Hitler was not only somewhat charismatic and convincing, he was an opportunist AND lucky in his timing (for his ambitions). He was also ruthless, paranoid and personally quite lazy. It is a multiple part series and one of the best out there. 

I encourage anyone who has some genuine curiosity about how a man like Hitler could rise to power to watch it. I also encourage anyone with interest in WWII to watch it as a sort of 'refresher' for lack of a better word.


My Grandfather hit the beaches June 6, 1944 with the British commandos in first wave. He told me that he was the only one on his boat to survive. He said "Eisenhower said to write a letter to our loved ones and put it in our tunic pocket. They guaranteed that the letter would be picked off of our bodies the next day and sent to our families because none of us will live. I never wrote a word. I had thousands of chances to die that day but I didn't".

That was the preface of a good few war stories, none of which glorified war though some had elements of humour. Most had more tragedy than the average person ever has to face in a lifetime. They carried him from the battlefield July 25, 1944 with 19 bullet holes in his body. I was lucky to have him as a major part of my life growing up and he lived into his 90s with all but the last few years being good years.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

smorgdonkey said:


> My Grandfather hit the beaches June 6, 1944 with the British commandos in first wave. He told me that he was the only one on his boat to survive. He said "Eisenhower said to write a letter to our loved ones and put it in our tunic pocket. They guaranteed that the letter would be picked off of our bodies the next day and sent to our families because none of us will live. I never wrote a word. I had thousands of chances to die that day but I didn't".
> 
> That was the preface of a good few war stories, none of which glorified war though some had elements of humour. Most had more tragedy than the average person ever has to face in a lifetime. They carried him from the battlefield July 25, 1944 with 19 bullet holes in his body. I was lucky to have him as a major part of my life growing up and he lived into his 90s with all but the last few years being good years.


Thanks for that... 

I often wonder if people today have courage and character to do what that generation of men were called to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> My Grandfather hit the beaches June 6, 1944 with the British commandos in first wave. He told me that he was the only one on his boat to survive. He said "Eisenhower said to write a letter to our loved ones and put it in our tunic pocket. They guaranteed that the letter would be picked off of our bodies the next day and sent to our families because none of us will live. I never wrote a word. I had thousands of chances to die that day but I didn't".
> 
> That was the preface of a good few war stories, none of which glorified war though some had elements of humour. Most had more tragedy than the average person ever has to face in a lifetime. They carried him from the battlefield July 25, 1944 with 19 bullet holes in his body. I was lucky to have him as a major part of my life growing up and he lived into his 90s with all but the last few years being good years.


That is a remarkable story Smorg, he was obviously a man of great character and good for you for having him in your life. thanks for sharing.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

My father in law may have dropped him off, he piloted a landing craft that day.

I'm all to familiar with Hitlers story, just can't be very bothered getting drawn into pointless arguments. ;-)



smorgdonkey said:


> My Grandfather hit the beaches June 6, 1944 with the British commandos in first wave. He told me that he was the only one on his boat to survive.


----------

