Why did the United Kingdom scrap Conscription in 1960?.

Oddball

Monthly Donor
And the birch at school?
Im probably stupid for touching this, but I wonder:

What is the similarity between birching at school and conscription? :confused:

Btw, Iv done 12 months conscription myself and have only positive things to say about it. So Im probably biased...
 
Following on from posts 36 and 39
ANNEX III
EXPANSION OF THE R.A.F. 1951-54

Attention is drawn to the following points: —

Bomber Command
1. The plan provides for an increase of one squadron (8 aircraft) in 1951-52, of eight squadrons in 1952-53 and nine squadrons in 1953-54, giving a total front line of 36 squadrons (288 aircraft) by the end of 1953-54, together with three target marking and four photographic reconnaissance squadrons. This provides for an important part of our obligations to Western Union.
2. Most of this force of 36 squadrons will be equipped with the Canberra (see below), which can only carry 7,500 lb. over a radius of 500 miles; and its hitting power will be small in relation to its commitments in support of the defence of the United Kingdom and the land battle in Europe.
3. At present nearly the whole of the medium bomber force is equipped with Lincolns. Four squadrons will remain on Lincolns throughout the period, in order to provide for heavy mine-laying and lor the carriage of heavy bombs. By June 1952 eight squadrons should be re-equipped with Washingtons and the rest with Canberras. The new squadrons to be formed between 1952 and 1954 will all be equipped with Canberras.
4. If it should prove possible to accelerate the introduction of the B.9/48, the first deliveries will probably be used to re-equip the four Lincoln Squadrons.

Fighter Command
5. The plan provides for the following increases in the front line at a fairly uniform rate up to March 1954: —
Short-range day fighter (regular) ... ... from 208 to 440
Night fighter/all-weather ... ... ... from 56 to 286
Intruder ... ... ... ... . .. from 32 to 48​
a total front line increase of 478 aircraft. However, even allowing for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, which would not be ready on the outbreak of war, Fighter Command would still be 218 aircraft short of the number recommended by the Air Defence Committee.
6. Apart from four squadrons which will be re-equipped with Venoms in 1952 as the Vampire disappears, the whole regular day fighter force will remain on the Meteor until the F.3/48 and the Swift begin to be introduced in 1953; that is, unless, by special measures, the F.3 and the Swift can be produced more quickly. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force will complete re-equipment with Meteors and Vampires by the end of 1951. The night fighter /all weather force will be equipped with night fighter versions of the Meteor and latter of the Venom.

Coastal Command
7. The front line is increased by 32 aircraft, and in addition 8 G.R. aircraft are transferred to Coastal Command from M.E.A.F. and 10 flying boats from F.E.A.F.
8. When the Maritime Air Defence Committee has reported, the programme for Maritime Reconnaissance Squadrons will have to be reviewed. It seems certain that it will be necessary to provide for a substantially large increase.

Transport Command
9. Transport Command is reduced to three long-range squadrons (24 aircraft) and one medium-range squadron (8 aircraft). If C.119's can be obtained from America, they will increase the carrying capacity of the overseas transport force.

Western European Tactical Air Force (B.A.F.O.)
10. The programme provides for an expansion of the fighter/ground attack force from 80 to 256 aircraft, the whole force being ultimately equipped with the Venom. It also provides for the formation of 10 squadrons (160 aircraft) of light bombers (Canberras) in 1953-54.
11. If two-thirds of Bomber Command is reckoned to be available for support of the land campaign in Western Europe, the above expansion meets the recommendation of the Western European Regional Planning Group for the United Kingdom contribution to the interim Western European Tactical Air Force of 2,196 aircraft. On the other hand the full Western European T.A.F. required for the Medium Term Plan is over 4,500 aircraft, and there is no doubt we shall be pressed for a substantial further increase.

Middle East and Far East Air Forces
12. The front line of the Middle East Air Force is increased in 1954 by 48 light bombers and 1.12 day fighter/ground attack aircraft. This expansion of Tactical Air Forces in the Middle East is the minimum required for support of the land campaign and for the air defence of the Middle East. The front line in the Far East remains the same as at present, except for a reduction of two flying boat squadrons which are transferred to Coastal Command. By the end of 1953-54 combat squadrons in M.E.A.F. and F.E.A.F. will be largely re-equipped with the Venom and Canberra, but the rate of re-equipment is slower than at home.
13. Thus the front line is increased in total from 1,344 to 2,450 aircraft and extensively re-equipped. The points which should especially be noted are: —
(a) The rate of introduction of the newest fighter types should if possible be improved on.
(b) The expansion of the Tactical Air Force in Western Europe achieves the United Kingdom contribution to the interim force of 2,196 aircraft, but 4,500 aircraft are required under the Medium Term Plan.
(c) The programme for Coastal Command will need review when the Maritime Air Defence Committee has reported.​
 
We are now entering the field of semantics and miss-understandings stemming from English not beeing everyones first language.

I just finish my part in this with my personal view:
During the Cold War all of the frontline forces in Europe were significant, each in their own way.
If nothing else having significant ground combat forces on the ground in Germany that are allocated to NATO, on a full time basis from a nuclear armed founding member of NATO was in and of itself important from a political perspective.
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Both archaic survivals?
I fully accept your right to have the viewpoint that both are archaic survivals. And please do not get me wrong, Im honestly interested in the matter any your opinion.

Still I fail to view your statement as substantial to the argument. Your view is highly subjective, and while I personally fully agree that birching is archaic I sincerely disagree that conscription is.

Bottom line, your answer does not help me understand/see the similarity between birching at school and conscription.

Again please do not get this wrong, and I apologize any missunderstandings coming from English not being my first language.
 
I fully accept your right to have the viewpoint that both are archaic survivals. And please do not get me wrong, Im honestly interested in the matter any your opinion.

Still I fail to view your statement as substantial to the argument. Your view is highly subjective, and while I personally fully agree that birching is archaic I sincerely disagree that conscription is.

Bottom line, your answer does not help me understand/see the similarity between birching at school and conscription.
It isn't so much your understanding of the English language as of current UK politics. One of the big issues around the Brexit debate is that a large portion of the population (who have a strong tendency to vote UKIP) want things to go back to the way they were when they were young, in some sort of imagined golden age - one which incidentally happened before they were born. My dad (73) was too young to be conscripted, while my uncle (83) was: most of the support from it comes from older people who were never themselves conscripted. Similarly with birching, capital punishment, etc.
It needs to be noted that the UK's experience with conscription is very different to that of the rest of Europe, and comes from our history - conscription has only really happened for the two world wars and the immediate aftermath, so is linked in the public mind to national emergency/catastrophe (indeed, resistance to it was so strong that it wasn't introduced until 1916 for the first time - the Somme for instance was fought with a volunteer army). That has good and bad points, but also relates to the sort of war we tend to fight - last year was only the second in the past century where no British soldier was killed by enemy action on active service somewhere in the world: for Norway the ratio would be almost reversed. Public acceptance of casualties among a volunteer professional army is far greater than casualties among conscripts, which I suspect has a large impact on the UK government's dislike for conscription, incidentally.
 
It isn't so much your understanding of the English language as of current UK politics. One of the big issues around the Brexit debate is that a large portion of the population (who have a strong tendency to vote UKIP) want things to go back to the way they were when they were young, in some sort of imagined golden age - one which incidentally happened before they were born. My dad (73) was too young to be conscripted, while my uncle (83) was: most of the support from it comes from older people who were never themselves conscripted. Similarly with birching, capital punishment, etc.
It needs to be noted that the UK's experience with conscription is very different to that of the rest of Europe, and comes from our history - conscription has only really happened for the two world wars and the immediate aftermath, so is linked in the public mind to national emergency/catastrophe (indeed, resistance to it was so strong that it wasn't introduced until 1916 for the first time - the Somme for instance was fought with a volunteer army). That has good and bad points, but also relates to the sort of war we tend to fight - last year was only the second in the past century where no British soldier was killed by enemy action on active service somewhere in the world: for Norway the ratio would be almost reversed. Public acceptance of casualties among a volunteer professional army is far greater than casualties among conscripts, which I suspect has a large impact on the UK government's dislike for conscription, incidentally.
I'd argue that there was a least a tacit acceptance by some segments of the population of the naval "press gang" for hundreds of years which IMHO was another form of conscription. So I would suggest that the UK did in fact have a form of conscription for a considerable period of time.
 
Last edited:
I think I would have kept a Requirement that very Male between the ages of 18 to 21 do 12 Basic Training.
I'd suggest that unless one is contemplating organizing a "levy en masse" as a response to an invasion that in this day in age the military value of such a scheme wouldn't be very high.
 
I think I would have kept a Requirement that very Male between the ages of 18 to 21 do 12 Basic Training.
Three-quarters of the eligible population (18y men) are completely unsuitable nowadays if you ask me. The AWOL rate would be something off the chart, and the number of 18y shooting themselves in the foot would be astronomical. They would rather be at uni, at the pub, or at their Girlfriend's house.

If was something which was a part of British life, then the problem wouldn't exist. Introducing it nowadays would be ridiculous and should never happen.
 

Deleted member 94680

Im probably stupid for touching this, but I wonder:

What is the similarity between birching at school and conscription? :confused:

Btw, Iv done 12 months conscription myself and have only positive things to say about it. So Im probably biased...

Flippant as it may be, I was suggesting your suggestion belongs in a different age.

As others have posted, in Britain the birch at school and conscription (in most people's memories - personal or collective - remembered as National Service) belongs to an age where the Empire was still an entity - or at least the recent past, within government's reach - and reflected a "better time".

As many on this thread have pointed out, conscription wouldn't have suited Britain's modern defence needs. A desire to maintain that, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, would speak to the "past is best" mindset.
 
A few points.

The UK does not need a large standing army.
Professional soldiers don't like conscripts. They need more supervision and especially in peacetime are at best reluctant soldiers. There's also a massive increase in costs associated with training and equipping them. The days of just a uniform and a rifle are long gone.
Training a large conscript army is a drain on the Regular army. You're removing experienced NCO's and officers from availability for front line duty.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
It isn't so much your understanding of the English language as of current UK politics.
...

In this case spesific British issues then. Thanks for enlightening me :)

A few points.

The UK does not need a large standing army.
Professional soldiers don't like conscripts. They need more supervision and especially in peacetime are at best reluctant soldiers. There's also a massive increase in costs associated with training and equipping them. The days of just a uniform and a rifle are long gone.
Training a large conscript army is a drain on the Regular army. You're removing experienced NCO's and officers from availability for front line duty.

I understand. And I see the point regarding Britain especialy.

But I do not agree fully. If you can get enough Professional soldiers, I partly agree. Your statement tough, witch I have bolded above, is just not true in all cases. Conscription comes in many shapes, not all of them massive, canonfooder 1WW style ;):)

I see several good elements in conscription, and in cases were the eligable pool of soldiers is small, I even think it is necessary.

The Finns are still using it, and their defence forces are considered rather good. The Sweedes are reinstating it. In Norway it is semi-dormant, but used to increase the pool to get Professional soldiers from.
 
I'd argue that there was a least a tacit acceptance by some segments of the population of the naval "press gang" for hundreds of years which IMHO was another form of conscription. So I would suggest that the UK did in fact have a form of conscription for a considerable period of time.

True at one time, but iirc it was never used after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, so that by the 20C it was largely forgotten except by readers of historical fiction - and even there the Press Gang was rarely portrayed in a favourable light.
 
Last edited:
I think I would have kept a Requirement that very Male between the ages of 18 to 21 do 12 Basic Training.

As one who had a green beret and a campaign medal before I was 18, I would raise an eyebrow at this suggestion. Would that mean that after having spent two years qualifying as a Royal Marine Commando, and seen active service, I would then need to go back and do basic training? That's the problem when you say "every male between the ages of 18 to 21" - you neglect the possibility of exceptions.

Have you the slightest idea how unpopular the idea would be in the Forces? When being involved in an action, I wanted to know for absolute certain that the guy next to me was a reliable type, and not a useless half-wit who doesn't want to be there. All you are doing is using the Armed Forces as a Babysitter for large numbers of recalcitent teenagers. Bloody thanks for nothing.
 
I'd argue that there was a least a tacit acceptance by some segments of the population of the naval "press gang" for hundreds of years which IMHO was another form of conscription. So I would suggest that the UK did in fact have a form of conscription for a considerable period of time.
I'd forgotten about Impressment. Yes it was a form of selective conscription. Part of the selection was that only seamen could be impressed.

IIRC there were periods of time when conscription was used to keep the Militia up to strength. However, like the Fencibles, Volunteers and Yeomanry they were for home service only until the reserve forces were reorganised as part of the Haldane Reforms. That is the Militia became the Special Reserve. It's job was to bring the Regular Army up to its War Establishment and provide a pool of soldiers to replace casualties before normal recruiting could catch up. The Volunteers and Yeomanry were merged to become the Territorial Force (later the Territorial Army). It's job was to defend the British Isles while the Regular Army which formed the Expeditionary Force was overseas.

We could go even further back to the age before "1066 And All That," to the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd.

Quote from History of the British Army by Charles Messenger...
At the end of March Hore-Belisha suddenly announced that the size of the Territorial Army was to be doubled. A few weeks later a form of conscription was introduced, all 20-year olds being called up for six months service with the Regular Army, and then to go on to serve a further three and a half years in the newly created Territorial divisions. They were given the name of "militiamen", thus reintroducing this ancient form of military service.
 
Sometimes, "landsmen" or persons without any navy experience could be impressed.
Furthermore the navy preferred an all volunteer force in the first place.

There's a good Timewatch documentary on Youtube explaining how many of the stereotypes about the Georgian Royal Navy are myths. Amongst them Impressment, what it was, how it was used and how most of the sailors were volunteers in the first place.
 
Every time the subject of National Service comes up in the UK, the reaction of the armed forces, top to bottom, is basically "Oh, for fuck's sake!"
 
Top