Why did the United Kingdom scrap Conscription in 1960?.

Why did the United Kingdom scrap Conscription in 1960?.

When all the Other European countries did not scrap Conscription until the 1990s, the end of the Cold War?.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
The process really began with the passage of the National Service Act 1948, and during the 50's people realised that Britain didn't really need a big standing army, as it was ultimately pointless and a waste of resources. It also was unpopular with the public, conscripts didn't really have anything to actually do, and a professional army was a more attractive prospect to the people in charge. So it ended.
 
As stated above because it was unpopular and there was a less likely chance Britain would get invaded unlike mainland Europe.
 
Conscription is ok for creating short service low skill warm bodies, or reservists for emergency use, but not for the high skill requirements of peace time armies.
 
Conscription is ok for creating short service low skill warm bodies, or reservists for emergency use, but not for the high skill requirements of peace time armies.


Was it also to do with that Great Britain has traditionally been a Power with a large Navy and also had Nuclear Weapons which was a deterrent against attack?.
 
I would argue that Britain's primary contribution to NATO was in naval and air power and ground units (light infantry) for service in Norway. These all have high skill and technical requirements that can't be fulfilled by conscripts.
 
Would it be worth adding that GB wanted to use its force to fight in other parts of the world as well (more "imperial" policing etc) unlike other parts of NATO that would only keep Conscription to fight WWIII at home?

Conscription to defend the homeland is acceptable but sending sending them to fight in the third world is very much less popular.
 

Deleted member 94680

Britain always had a small standing army, once WWII was done and dusted it was seen as the right thing to do to return to that.

National Service was all fine and well, but more often than not the "regulars" left the "Nats" on minor duties whilst they got on with the real work.
 
Standing armed forces cost a lot, in fact it represents the biggest % of budget cost by far. The new tech they needed added to the forces like- ships ; missiles and jets etc cost order of magnitude more than the end of WW-II. They had no choice.

Weapons inflation is always much much higher than economic inflation. A bad situation made worse by British Pride that demanded home grown weapons solutions. Especially when you enter the NATO era there is no excuse for avoiding standardization for national pride. For most of the weapons I examined they could have doubled the numbers purchased if they had standardized through out NATO.
 
Last edited:
Peace time conscription was not a traditional part of British life, so it was never popular. It was expensive and an inefficient use of scarce funds. By the time you trained the men to the point of actually being useful they were due for demob.
 
...By the time you trained the men to the point of actually being useful they were due for demob.
Isn't that the whole point, ie you accept that the war will be fought by your full mobilised reserve not the standing army? This does require you to call up reserves to fight and since they (and families) all vote (and will be very annoyed at you messing up civilian life) you had better have a very good reason for calling them up.... so it it works for WWIII as you get far more men but not for fighting a small action in the third world as the government will fall shortly after even if you win the fighting?
 
Eh, just no.

Ever heard about BAOR? British Army of the Rhein? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_of_the_Rhine#1945.E2.80.931994

Numbered +50 000 personell

BAOR was barely the size of I Netherlands Corps, which also had four combat divisions, and only twice the size of I Belgian Corps, which came from a country with less than a fifth of the population.

On the other hand, the Royal Navy in 1988 had 3 helicopter carriers, 27 attack submarines (15 nuclear and 12 diesel), 51 destroyers and frigates, and 120 antisubmarine helicopters, second only to the US Navy and far more important to the maintenance NATO's conventional capability in Germany than one of fourteen combat corps in NORTHAG and CENTAG.
 
Last edited:
Why did the United Kingdom scrap Conscription in 1960?.

When all the Other European countries did not scrap Conscription until the 1990s, the end of the Cold War?.
The short answer is the 1957 Defence Review, called by others on this site "The Sandystorm."

The longer answer is that the British armed forces relied on voluntary enlistment until 1916. It was abolished at the end of World War One and re-introduced in the spring of 1939 to provide the personnel needed for the doubled Territorial Army field force and the massive expansion of Anti-Aircraft Command. Conscription for all the armed forces was introduced when World War II broke out and this time was continued into peace. Initially the conscripts had to serve 2 years, then as part of the austerity cuts down to 18 months and when the Korean War broke out it was put back up to 2 years.

By the late 1950s the cost of maintaining HM Forces was absorbing (IIRC) 10% of the UK's GNP. This was not bankrupting the country but it was a severe financial strain. In an era of full employment the large standing armed forces (and the expanded arms industry) were depriving the civilian economy of badly needed workers. However, the final straws were the advent of the hydrogen bomb and the ICBM which to the British Government made the maintenance of large standing armed forces and equally large reserves to fight a conventional war in Europe pointless.

Therefore Sandys invented what became known as the "East of Suez" strategy. The forces being maintained to fight World War III in Europe would be gutted (see the severe cuts to BAOR, the Territorial Army, RAF Germany, Fighter Command and Coastal Command) leaving only Bomber Command relatively untouched because it was the nuclear deterrent force. The rump of the Army, RAF and Royal Navy would be restructured to fight counter insurgency wars in the Third World before they escalated into bigger wars.

The smaller armed forces required less manpower, which could be recruited by voluntary enlistment, so no need for conscription.
 
A bad situation made worse by British Pride that demanded home grown weapons solutions. Especially when you enter the NATO era there is no excuse for avoiding standardization for national pride. For most of the weapons I examined they could have doubled the numbers purchased if they had standardized through out NATO.

There are plenty of valid reasons for a country to develop and build its own military equipment, particularly countries with a large defense budget and independent foreign policy. That said NATO would have been stronger if Britain didn't make quite so many procurement mistakes and sold their gear more widely in Europe and further afield.
 
As for the OP it was becoming clear that the Soviets could be deterred from invading western Europe by tripwire conventional forces backed by overwhelming nuclear weapons. Thus the active military role in the 60s would be proxy wars and conflicts associated with decolonisation, the HMS Bulwark was converted to a Commando carrier in 1958 and the RN undertook a bit of a reorientation on the late 50s.

A large conscripted army isn't the best and cheapest way to go about these roles, so conscription was ended from 1960.
 
BOAR along with the Bundeswehr and some America armored cavalry units and the Fulda Gap Korps , were the only thing staffing the front along the Inter German Boarder. Any counter attacks by American/French/Dutch divisions & any POMCUS Divisions had no hope if the Korps areas were shattered.

I never worried about the Brits.

I did worry about the Dutch & Belgians....constantly.

Truth is I was mostly worried about the transatlantic life line and the poor state of the various NATO escort fleets. The growing power of the Red Navy SSN ; SSGN and surface fleet -supported by regiments of BEAR bombers - freaked me out at times because our fleets were in decline and didn't seem to up to defeating the new generations of Soviet anti shipping missiles.
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Monthly Donor
BAOR was barely the size of I Netherlands Corps, which also had four combat divisions, and only twice the size of I Belgian Corps, which came from a country with less than a fifth of the population.

...one of fourteen combat corps in NORTHAG and CENTAG.

You are comparing mandarins and oranges.
And in addition not all your facts are quite correct either, but I guess that really would depend on the year.
 
Top