Brexit

[Koeketiene]

Not really supported by facts Tony; far from having no choice huge numbers volunteered for service: -

"While conscript armies proved indispensable, and even the British in 1916 and the Americans in 1917 began to draft men, significant numbers of volunteers also served in the First World War. Most famously, in Britain 2,675,149 men volunteered, the vast majority in the first half of hostilities." - See more at: http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/recruitment-conscripts-and-volunteers#sthash.edGkqzqu.dpuf

Conscription was introduced in Britain in March 2016.
The large majority of casualties in the Battle of the Somme were straight out of basic training.

 

[ITH]

Conscription was introduced in Britain in March 2016.
The large majority of casualties in the Battle of the Somme were straight out of basic training.

The bulk of Kitchener's'second' army was formed from the volunteers in 1914–1915 destined to go into action at the Battle of the Somme - not straight out of basic training.

However, this is arguing about" . . the numbers of angels on a pinhead." My point was that substantial numbers were not there "because they had to be," but out of conviction.

 

[Carmel2]

You don't get it do you. We cannot operate our economy on the basis of a Ponzi scheme with immigration with each new influx supporting the last until they to become a burden on the state. We have to reach a point where we are sustainable with a stable population. if not now when the population reaches 80, 100, 150 or 200 million. It is an undeniable truth that at some point we must become sustainable.

To achieve that we will have to change things and that means government must have balanced budgets and that means a smaller social benefit system. It means we need to stop making contributions to the Eu to do things we can do perfectly well ourselves. It means that some 16 year olds will have to go to work instead of wasting two years of their lives being forced to continue education. It also means that equalising pension ages (the sooner the better I can't understand the phased in approach of the government).

The long term benefits are that we might be able to grow enough food to feed ourselves as the world is going to reach peek food and what guarantee do we have that we will be able to import it? We might also be able to get from a to b without sitting in traffic jams, we might be able to send our children to the local school and the good jobs will chase out the bad which means low paid jobs will become more lucrative.

The benefits are huge in terms of quality of life. We just need a government willing to implement it. May will sell us out, her ministers will run rings around her and she won't sack Hammond (probably Britons worst MP, even worse than Osborne).

 

[Horace]

Did you forget to make a comment carmel or has it left you speechless

 

[Tranona]

The bulk of Kitchener's'second' army was formed from the volunteers in 1914–1915 destined to go into action at the Battle of the Somme - not straight out of basic training.

However, this is arguing about" . . the numbers of angels on a pinhead." My point was that substantial numbers were not there "because they had to be," but out of conviction.

They may well have been volunteers in the strict sense of the word, but there was enormous social pressure to sign up and for many it was a big adventure as they had no idea what they were signing up for. Conscription was introduced because word got back and volunteers dried up.

 

[nortada]

Conscription was introduced in Britain in March 2016.
The large majority of casualties in the Battle of the Somme were straight out of basic training.

2016?

Sorry, but they must have been a bit late for the kick off.

 

[Koeketiene]

2016?

Sorry, but they must have been a bit late for the kick off.

Sorry - egg of face moment.

Meant, of course, 1916.

 

[ITH]

They may well have been volunteers in the strict sense of the word, but there was enormous social pressure to sign up and for many it was a big adventure as they had no idea what they were signing up for. Conscription was introduced because word got back and volunteers dried up.

Still, the disparaging thread which runs through the many; "sovereignty is a myth" comments, is the notion that these volunteers were 'pressurised' into joining up and just didn't know what they were signing up for.

Here is the (more considered) view of Professor Peter Simkins, Senior Historian of the Imperial War Museum, London (now retired):

"Apart from a bedrock of patriotism and a widespread collective sense of duty to King and Empire, two factors, in particular, helped to generate this boom in enlistment. (My highlighting)

"One was . . . the issue of a series of memorable recruiting posters designed by leading graphic artists of the day. Another key factor in stimulating enlistment was . . . locally-raised ‘Pals’ battalions, which men from the same community or workplace were encouraged to join on the understanding that they would train and, eventually, fight together.

"Many other men, however, enlisted for adventure or to escape from an arduous, dangerous or humdrum job." - See more at: http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/voluntary-recruiting#sthash.Owmxxkwf.dpuf

So what many of these men signed up for was indeed a sense of 'sovereignty' - however you define it: a view which I also learned from personal experiences related by my great uncle who volunteered aged 17 in 1914, and survived the carnage of the Somme. Although he would never touch upon the everyday horrors, he was never in doubt about why he had enlisted.

 

[Tranona]

So what many of these men signed up for was indeed a sense of 'sovereignty' - however you define it: a view which I also learned from personal experiences related by my great uncle who volunteered aged 17 in 1914, and survived the carnage of the Somme. Although he would never touch upon the everyday horrors, he was never in doubt about why he had enlisted.

You need to look at it from the perspective at the time. The socially constructed view at the time of "sovereignty" was totally different from now. Poor education, lack of communications and particularly no experience of the real meaning of war just enhanced the adventure bit of enlisting. Remember also that civilian life for most was pretty grim, and popular literature such as Kipling glorified the empire and the heroes that created and maintained it.

Today's meaning of sovereignty is very different and in this context is more about having control over our own laws as an independent state. The only commonality really is that both ideas come from a collective reading of history that is dominant at the respective times.

 

[RAI]

It worries me a bit that sovereignty is discussed in relation to the ability to go to war. Is that why Brexiteers want out of the EU - because they want to go to war with it?

 

[jimbaerselman]

Sovereignty, in the context of WW1 and WW2, meant a nation was free to make war on its neighbours if it did not agree with them. It's a matter of degree, isn't it. Like the myth of self sufficiency.

Both ideas were easier to maintain with the limited choice of life styles in the early 1900's, with lower life expectancy and literacy, but much stronger local community ties.

But higher life expectancy, literacy, and a wider choice of lifestyles for the majority have only been achieved by co-operation with neighbours. That means agreement, instead of war. And agreement means some degree of "doing it their way" for both sides. This is, to some small degree, a loss of sovereignty; change, for the sake of mutual benefit.

The difficulty about this "change" is that small minorities suffer large individual costs (loss of job, wages, dignity), in order for the population as a whole to enjoy individually very small overall future gains, but total large long term gains.

Quite understandably, affected small minorities make one hell of a lot of noise about the effects of change, whilst the population as a whole can't measure the effect of net gains achieved. Only the statisticians (berated as "experts", now a pejorative word) can do that.

We're now suffering the backlash of multiple minorities ganging together, and very loudly saying "Your gains have been achieved by our losses; and these losses have been imposed by the EU".

It is a shame that too many politicians have been guilty of blaming the EU for un-popular decisions their parties agreed with, and even initiated.

Back to the beginning. We now have longevity, infinitely improved lifestyles, and no European wars. These have only been achieved by sacrificing lots of very small degrees of sovereignty.

With hindsight, we should have looked after our displaced minorities much better, so they benefited more from the changes that brought about this enormous change.

 

[ITH]

You need to look at it from the perspective at the time. The socially constructed view at the time of "sovereignty" was totally different from now. Poor education, lack of communications and particularly no experience of the real meaning of war just enhanced the adventure bit of enlisting. Remember also that civilian life for most was pretty grim, and popular literature such as Kipling glorified the empire and the heroes that created and maintained it.

Today's meaning of sovereignty is very different and in this context is more about having control over our own laws as an independent state. The only commonality really is that both ideas come from a collective reading of history that is dominant at the respective times.

Don't disagree with any of that; indeed the very points I made were to refute statements by people from 'today's perspective' which they applied to the very different events and attitudes of 100 years ago!

Sorry if this constituted thread drift, but it was nothing to do with arguments pro or contra 'Brexit'; simply to challenge/correct opinions being expressed about the motives or lack of knowledge of millions of WW1 volunteers - following Squeaky's posting #176.

Exuent, stage left.

 

[colind3782]

So, about these boats in the EU then...

 

[macd]

So, about these boats in the EU then...

You might...just might...get back to it via Dunkirk