Off the cuff,the National Service Acts ran from 1939 to 1961 and reflected British and Empire /political military commitments in Europe,the Middle East and the Far East.You might say all who served as conscripts during this period were National Servicemen and not solely in the period after the war when the 18 month period of conscription was introduced and extended to 2 years when the Korean war broke out. The requirement for conscription declined in the mid 1950s and the writing was on the wall as the previous overseas committments were wound down and defence cuts initiated by the likes of Sandys in 1957 were implemented.Further the development of nuclear tactical weapons for the battlefield reduced the numbers required on the ground. On the other side of the coin was the problem that arose from the numbers that potential enemies could muster.NATO decided that they could not match the potential enemy numbers on the battlefield and therefore planned to deploy nuclear tactical weapons.Additionally the nuclear deterrent emerged based on land and at sea which eliminated the need to deliver nuclear weapons by manned aircraft. As regards the resources to cope with conscription in the future if the appropriate emergency arose.If the need arose there would be a solution as there has before,the state would requisition the property,goods and services under a mobilisation plan.But it has to be remembered that wars,emergencies,call them what you wish, cost money.British finances suffered adversely from the Great War and the country was almost bankrupt as result of the Second World War.That was the price the country had to pay for destroying the Nazi regime and the Japan Imperial policy for south east Asia. I cannot accept the proposal the the conscript is somehow inferior in performance to the volunteer.Without doubt there were some conscripts who resented being in uniform when they had other plans as regards income,personal freedom and discipline.But in the end it came down to assessment of the individual as a conscript or volunteer for the role he was to undertake. Aptitude,then training to give ability in the role to undertake, followed.But the real worth of the person to his unit was his performance level and this would only be delivered through his own inherent motivation. Leadership is a different matter and while person might possess the prequisites to say carry out, say,a technical role,the leadership to organise and motivate others,may be lacking.Therefore leadership training is imperative and while some might possess inherent leadership qualities,it is a discipline that has to be taught and honed either in military service (no matter the method of entry) or in business and commerce. There is no doubt,some found miliary service,either as conscript or volunteer hard to assimilate and there were the types who suffered badly.Unlike volunteers in peacetime,conscripts could not opt out of service if they thought the terms and conditions were not to their liking as is the practice now for volunteers.
I am American, and so I don't know if I can or should vote in this poll. I am doubtful about the socializing, trade-teaching benefits of conscription. I view it purely from a military standpoint. The fact is that the United States currently has so many military responsibilities that our volunteer force manpower has been stretched beyond the limit. As a result, we have had to send even National Guard personnel to Afghanistan and Iraq for multiple tours, which leads inevitably to higher rates of burnout, combat-stress, and lowered unit efficiency. This simply is not fair to the troops, who are asked to do more than is reasonable. With a draft, we would not be facing this problem. I am in favor of conscription because I don't think a great power can sustain itself militarily without it, but I fear my opinion is very much a minority one over here. It's not really 100% volunteer though is it? I have met US Marines, Soldiers and Sailors who joined purely for the promises that came after service for a better education paid for by the government and some that opted for service rather than going to prison after commiting what they called 'minor' offences. That was in the 90's and 00's so not sure what it's like today. Having served with American Forces on three tours, the US equivalient to the UK squaddie doesn't scrub up that well I'm affraid. Does Norway and Sweden have National Service? They are by far the best soldiers I ever served with.
Drew, from the Wiki link in post #4 National service is the usual term for compulsory military service programmes in countries including Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Israel, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Finland, the Republic of China (Taiwan), Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey. Conscription in the United States was called Selective Service and continued until 1973. In the Netherlands, conscription was called "service duty" (Dutch: "dienstplicht"), and continued until 1996. After 1996 service duty was suspended in the Netherlands but not abolished, and although unlikely, it may be reinstated at any time by the Minister of Defense. Most NATO countries discontinued obligatory military service in the 1970s. Israel was the only country to conscript young women as well as young men for military service in the late 20th century.
6/ What exactly do we do with them??? We don't have a rump of empire to send them off to any more, we don't have anywhere to send them after basic EXCEPT leave them festering somewhere in the UK; the only foreign deployment we have now is as peacekeepers somewhere....or the Falklands! And how expensive per head is it to send and keep a serviceman THERE compared with the UK? Been reading your spiel but this one blew my top! "What exactly do we do with them???" What kind of a question is that? Why, go clobber the French, that's what, Entente Cordiale my ass
Why, go clobber the French, that's what, Entente Cordiale my ass Not until there's a change of government in Argentina....we might need to borrow that "shared" aircraft carrier!!!
Marine Alouette -------- Main gauche vers les bas un deu. Tales of an aircraft carrier. Navy Lark---------left hand down a bit! With thanks to Google Frog.
Having been through basic training twice, once with the British Army (full time) and more recently with the Australian Army (Reserves) i beleive that unless you really want to be there then all national service will breed is contempt of the armed forces. There are plenty Nationl Serviecemen who enjoyed their time and did a good job but plenty of others who just hated every minute of it. Leave it to those who want to do the job.
Having been through basic training twice, once with the British Army (full time) and more recently with the Australian Army (Reserves) i beleive that unless you really want to be there then all national service will breed is contempt of the armed forces. There are plenty Nationl Serviecemen who enjoyed their time and did a good job but plenty of others who just hated every minute of it. Leave it to those who want to do the job. How you getting on? Did you stay true to 'The Corps' or did you join the monkey's?
As regards service commitment to ones country,there can never be a laissez faire approach by the individual.If the state requires to requisition manpower,it will. In both world wars,Britain was forced to conscript and train a "citizens army".I have yet to see any reference to the effect that their service performance was anyway inferior to those who would be regarded as regulars. Getting on to Drew's point. Norway has conscription base of 18 to 44 years with a lower call up in wartime of 16 years.At the moment Norway has 12 months conscription but in practice this usually works out to be 8 or 9 months service. Sweden has a conscription base of 18 to 47 years but is now entirely non conscriptive.Minimum volunteer service is 7 and a half months (Army);7 to 15 months (Navy);8 to 12 months (Air Force).Interestly, Sweden abolished conscription in 2010 but has retained the option to reintroduce it in event of emergencies.... which is stating the obvious. The Russia Federation has a conscription base of 18 to 27 years and currently has conscription service of 12 months but in the aftermath of its Afghanistan and Chechen experience,I would think, restricts entry into combat zones only after 6 months service.The Russian state is also very zealous in tracing its citizens for their stint as national servicemen. Intelligence on the manpower strength of foreign countries has always featured in recognising the might of "potentials".One of the main elements of this approach is the manpower numbers reaching military age,annually....the anvil which forged the Red Army victory over the Wehrmacht. Looking at Norway...Males 32000, Females 31000. Looking at Sweden....Males 55000, Females 53000. Contrast the above with the Russian Federation...Males 700000,Females 660000 which would be lower than the availability of the former Soviet Union. Imagine the statistics for China.
Nice to get some thoughts on this subject. I can certainly understand not wanting to go back to a military national service. Yes that could well be part of a bygone era and should be left alone. However, I can see many positives for a civil version encompassing a lot of the military style discipline of the old national service. The main objection usually seems to about cost. Has there ever been a close study though to see how much bringing in a project like this costs compared to unemployment benefits/prison costs? The way I see it there are a lot of youth out there that have no direction and by being in a civilian national service could push them in the direction of learning a trade etc, almost in the old sense of apprenticeships. I think this would be even more worthy by implementing it during a time of recession. If you think back to the time of FDR and the New Deal vast civilian projects were created and several civilian corps were established to get the country back to work whilst simultaneously benefitting the community and country in general. Finally I feel there needs to be some pride brought back to the country. Maybe I'm being naive in feeling that a civilian national service could help foster this, but I think it would be worth finding out.
In my mind, the main objection to "civil" national service would not be cost, but the possibly dubious nature of many of the projects to which the conscripts would be committed. I believe that national service should be reserved only for the most serious and obvious of national needs, and national defense against foreign enemies surely qualifies on that score. I know that can be abused--many will cite the Vietnam war--but I think military service is much less likely to be abused for political reasons than compulsory civil service. Civil service covers an enormously wide range of activities, many of which are ill-defined, politically interested, and unappealing to most young people. The CCC was a volunteer organization, while the WPA and other civilian New Deal projects were often said to be too much entangled with politics. Military service at least has the merit of being clear and straightforward.
Just to throw a hand grenade down the hall...... I consider it immoral to assume that the state has a right to the life of its citizens. The state exists for the people, not the other way around... If a state cannot obtain all the willing defenders it needs, then perhaps it should cease to exist. This basic philosophy seems to be forgotten at present in much of the world, but I believe it is still valid. No state has a right to exist forever, and certainly does not have the right to take its citizens' lives in order to do so. When it comes down to it, if a person does not want to serve, making him do so is "involuntary servitude", more commonly called "slavery". The fact that it is perhaps time-limited does not make it any more palatable. The economic and practical arguments against the practice are valid-- political direction will inevitably corrupt civilian conscripted institutions, and military conscription is only useful to fight last century's wars. It certainly is not needed today. Lest it be said I don't know what I am talking about, I served 30 years in the military, seeing first-hand both conscripted forces and professional forces. There is absolutely no comparison from a military standpoint-- volunteer forces are significantly better in general. As regards some nations still using conscription-- note that several of those noted do not permit the deployment of conscripts to combat zones. In general, when the Norwegians or the Swedes deploy forces, they do so with personnel who have volunteered to go, not unwilling conscripts. Doc
How you getting on? Did you stay true to 'The Corps' or did you join the monkey's? I'm a dead set Monkey these days
Let's have national service for tabloid readers that don't know how the would works and for Avatars that look like Patricia Morris
I was part of the last group of American draftees in 1972, and there were so many rich-boy deferments (allowing GW to be a parking lot attendant and claim 'war service') that it wasn't 'national service' at all. I'd still like to see a nation's youth sent overseas and posted around the world - as maintenance crews, road workers, ditch diggers, and having every other country send their youth to 'live in their place'. If the globalists want to make it a truly unified world, then let's start shipping 18-19 year old's around and let them walk a mile in someone else's country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3aerP7GyWE National Service. 68th Training Regiment R.A.C (Catterick)
