Conscription in UK?

I think those who attack todays you people are being unjust and unfair.

In 1933 a Motion was put to the Oxford Union The motion was that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country The motion was carried by 275 votes to , was carried by 275 votes to 153

the sensation created when this resolution was passed was tremendous. It received world-wide publicity. Throughout England people, especially elderly people, were thoroughly shocked. Englishmen who were in India at the time spoke of the dismay they felt when they heard of it. What is wrong with the younger generation?' was the general query.
military-history.fandom.com/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate

when the Second World War broke out in September 1939 the War Office organised a recruiting board at Oxford which invited undergraduates and resident postgraduates under 25 to enlist: 2,632 out of a potential 3,000 volunteered.

I very much doubt whether things have changed and if this country were under direct attack now, the response would be as it was in 1939.

Absolutely and totally. At least Switzerland has agreed to stop the money being now syphoned from London to Switzerland.

There was NO bickering on my part- ma comments were about warfare and attacks now being technological from the air, and not boots on the ground. During WW1, German soldiers and British soldiers, once they could look each other in the eye, stop and play football- realised their were all real people, humans with families and loved one back home.

And that both sides, when bombing all cities from the air- were trained to de-humanise the enemy, give the enemy global, group names, because the young men would not have found it very difficult to bomb all cities if they had been allowed to imagine the real people on the ground, who were not actually the enemy.

A direct response to the concept of technological warfare, where highly trained soldiers are on their computers sending very precise bombs- never looking the enemy in the eye, dehumanised and demonised even more. And that it is not necessarily better. I'd rather take the leaders to a field and let them duel for it- or have small armies in the middle of nowhere in a field, as in Bosworth or Naseby.

Now will you please stop bickering, all of you.

For some of us it is very, very personal and upsetting.

Kali2

Germanshepherdsmum

No. Increasingly battles will be fought using technology, not boots on the ground.

Do you actually think this will be better? Really?

I don't think GSM was saying it would be better, just that this is what is happening. Ideally, none of this would happen but it is.

I think giulia's daughter is okay unless she is an ex member of the SAS likely to be recalled. Although we cannot put "boots on the ground" apparently they can go in and may do so to help the Ukrainian's disrupt the invaders.

Callistemon21

^Now will you please stop bickering, all of you^.

For some of us it is very, very personal and upsetting.

I'm very sorry if we don't all know the reasons for why you post as you do, Callistemon. I have absolutely no idea what is personal to 'some of you' or why it is upsetting. All I can see is something that looks like a rather childish tit for tat session.

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Now will you please stop bickering, all of you.

For some of us it is very, very personal and upsetting.

I'm very sorry if we don't all know the reasons for why you post as you do, Callistemon. I have absolutely no idea what is personal to 'some of you' or why it is upsetting. All I can see is something that looks like a rather childish tit for tat session.

Well, it isn't.

Some posts on here have been quite offensive and needed calling out.

re the second world war, the nazis and switzerland.
can anyone explain why hitler did not simply march into switzerland and take over all their banks and all that money.

Appologies, I missed some posts. I does appear that GSM thinks killing people from a distance would be better.

i don't think she said that, nothing about it being better, just that it was the general direction in which military action was moving.
which seems to be true.

That was how I read it the first time welbeck but when I looked back I saw posts suggesting fewer civilians would be killed, etc.

Killing people is never a good thing, but sometimes a few people being killed saves the lives of many more and has anyone any suggestions on how the Ukinians could have opposed Putin and tried to stop him taking over their country without using weapons?

Or should they have held up their hands and just accepted being incorporated back into Russia? And once Putin had found them such a walkover, where next would he have run his avaricious eyes over? The Baltic states? Poland?

It doesn't mattet whether you put a shot through someone's head at close range or from a distance, a person is still killed who will have family and friends, but rarely is the choice between killing and not killing that simple.

You get evil people who want to rule more and more territory, always in a dictaorial and cruel way. the only way to stop them is physically drive them back - and that almost always involves armed conflict.

Anybody any other ideas how this can be done, short of a miracle conversion of the person trying to do this? Napoleon? Hitler? Putin?

welbeck Try this as an answer to the Swiss conundrum en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

Kali2

As for nuclear warfare ...

You seem to have a unhealthy obsession with nuclear war.

Are you aware in the last 75 years there has only been one country that has used the nuclear option. USA

thanks.

If it did come to conscription, how could you enforce it? It’s not the country it was in 1939. However, If your way of life is threatened and your country is being invaded believe me the people would fight it, even me the age I am, as my mother said, better that than under the boot.

In 1939, as in 1914, men, and it was only men then, flocked to the recruiting offices and I think it would be no different now were we in an Ukraine type situation. Women flocked to work in factories making munitions and taking over the work the men had done

Conscription is enforced by legal sanctions, probably being arrested and taken off to some boot camp, but in circumstances like 1914, 1939 and 2022 in Ukraine, that is rarely necessary.

I see the USA has sent an extra $350 million in military aid.

War is horrific, innocent people on both sides get killed, maimed and injured.

There is only one aggressor who has expanding his country ever further to the West on his agenda and that is Vladimir Putin.

We see how the "young" act in actuality in Ukraine. I can see no reason to believe our young people are different. The young people are trying to get the most vulnerable out, picking up a gun and then, knowing how little they know, going to defend their country.

I keep hearing sentences such as "After a long and worrying night in Kyiv". I am sure if it was "After a long and worrying night in London" or any other of our cities, we would all do what we can. I believe we have just as amazing but also thoughtful, generation of young people that we have each time a generation reaches that point.

Sadly for Kyiv I have a feeling that Putin will feel he has to take Kyiv and the other cities. The next few days may be a lot worse than we have seen so far.

Russia may as well have pulled on the balaclava and mask. They are terrifying, assulting and killing as a preparation to steal. It may be a country they are trying to steal but they are no better than common violent thieves. Thankfully, we see some in Russia would don't want to be associated with this.

Whitewavemark2

I see the USA has sent an extra $350 million in military aid.

I think there was another meeting last month among the allies, discussing what can be sent.

It's interesting that commentators are saying that Russia's failure to make the progress they expected to make is because they are sending in their inexperienced conscripts first.

I wonder how many experienced and trained professional soldiers are waiting to 'mop up'? Is Putin's huge force an illusion of strength? Or just so many expendable bodies...?

Cannon fodder.

Pittcity

I don't think that this is even a remote possibility. I know the Navy has been increasing it numbers over recent years and has a large intake every week.

I don't think that a year of national service would do most youngsters any harm though.

Agreed about doing some youngsters good. My dad had to do two years army service just after WW2 and straight out of school. He loved it and his leadership skills were noticed and honed.

Afterwards, because he had 3 A-levels, the army paid university fees for him. No way he could have gone otherwise. So, indirectly, army service was his upward social mobility ticket.

prestbury

Kali2

As for nuclear warfare ...

You seem to have a unhealthy obsession with nuclear war.

Are you aware in the last 75 years there has only been one country that has used the nuclear option. USA

I think it's an entirely understandable 'obsession' as there are some 6,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of this meglomaniac and he's threatened to use them.

The MAD doctrine only works in the hands of the sane.

Nuclear attacks stopped WW2 and have acted as a deterrent to their re-use ever since. Deterrence is their main purpose. Let's hope it carries on working.