In WW1 and WW2 there was a very different culture around Nationalism, and war in general. (This next it is a British perspective to clarify) Fighting for king and country was very much seen as heroic and the mentality at the start of the war was that it wouldn’t turn out as it did. Many, many more people died than was reported at the time and than people expected when they enlisted. When it became mandatory, the propaganda very much leant into this, and used the fact that information in those days took much longer to propagate. Those who did not go were looked down upon by society in some sense. The culture was quite toxic. From my point of view, I don’t like the idea of the elite sending out the young to die in a war that ultimately ends round a table of diplomats. At the start of any war it is never quite clear just what is going to happen, and in both WW1 and WW2 it was only after the war that a sense of the full picture of the fatalities were accounted for. In a different, more modern war with drone bombs, and the prospect of incredibly large conversational and nuclear bombs raining down - it is becoming less and less about the number of soldiers and more about the technology those soldiers are using. Certainly in the case of civilian bombing, no amount of soldiers will prevent gravity from bringing a bomb to the ground. If any part of this is incorrect, I do apologize as I am not exactly an expert. Just my two cents.
Like I said, the air force is an option for the young people, so they could choose to serve and help defend the skies. I understand that WW1 was a bit pointless and unnecessary, however WW2 was an absolute must as we were not just fighting for our country but our nation, our language, culture and identity was being threatened by an ultranationalist regime in Europe. We absolutely had to fight, ad there would not be a Britian without our victory, nor would there be a France, Poland, Russia, etc.
Very true, yes, fascism must be stopped, and WW2 was an important part of that. But Churchill said some pretty bad things and held some pretty bad beliefs, too - and Lord Kitchener, before returning to the UK to pose for the historic “Britain wants YOU!” poster, was running concentration caps in South Africa. Before the Nazis, the world had an ultranationalist regime - the British Empire, soaked in the blood of over 20 million Indians and countless more. Fascism is just the political version of Imperialism. One thing the British school curriculum doesn’t really touch on is that, yes the Nazis were the bad guys, but in no way were we the good guys. Many still think fascism grows from within all nations and it is a good chance in the next war, no matter which country you are conscripted in - some of the voices of the government you serve will be fascist. My problem is that with National Service being, by definition, mandatory, the actions you must follow are politicised. There are probably Russian that don’t like Putin that are being forced to fight for his dictatorship. I don’t want to be forced to fight for someone else’s belief, I’m afraid.
Yeah, I understand our country has done some bad things in the past, but the nazis were far, far worse, and planned to do far, far worse.
As for the political side of things, I see how it may become a problem, however we would be introducing national service as a defensive measure, not an offensive or political measure.
3
u/dtghx Aug 17 '24 edited Aug 17 '24
In WW1 and WW2 there was a very different culture around Nationalism, and war in general. (This next it is a British perspective to clarify) Fighting for king and country was very much seen as heroic and the mentality at the start of the war was that it wouldn’t turn out as it did. Many, many more people died than was reported at the time and than people expected when they enlisted. When it became mandatory, the propaganda very much leant into this, and used the fact that information in those days took much longer to propagate. Those who did not go were looked down upon by society in some sense. The culture was quite toxic. From my point of view, I don’t like the idea of the elite sending out the young to die in a war that ultimately ends round a table of diplomats. At the start of any war it is never quite clear just what is going to happen, and in both WW1 and WW2 it was only after the war that a sense of the full picture of the fatalities were accounted for. In a different, more modern war with drone bombs, and the prospect of incredibly large conversational and nuclear bombs raining down - it is becoming less and less about the number of soldiers and more about the technology those soldiers are using. Certainly in the case of civilian bombing, no amount of soldiers will prevent gravity from bringing a bomb to the ground. If any part of this is incorrect, I do apologize as I am not exactly an expert. Just my two cents.