Will the like of Kitchener's army ever be seen again?

[McNamara]

hello

methinks that many of today’s wars are over control combinations of external factors and internal dynamics, including for resources,globalization and economic power struggles

i dont think we will need the likes of kitchener army so long as our economy is strong, lets hope that they be a good economist rather than a soldier,

regards

[Neil Mackenzie]

People have rightly commented that today we rely on a small professional army and therefore argue that we will never see another large army on the scale of the Great War. But then we also relied on a small professional army in early 1914 and circumstances changed.

I could see a situation where large armies would again be required - e.g. if China decided to take over Europe and the nuclear options were not used initially. We would need a large army just to ensure our small professional armies were not swamped by their superior man power.

Luckily, as we currently sit and with improved methods of communication, this scenario seems impossible but then many were shocked when the Great War started as well.

Neil

[BJanman]

When trench foot was a problem, the men were informed that getting trench foot would be an offence. The Company and platoon commanders were ordered to inspect the men's feet and see that the men took the required steps. If a man did get trench foot , not only was he risking being charged , so was his subaltern.

Ah ha, so thats why trench foot was closely inspected, it could have been a self inflicted wound.

Great thread by the way. My views, for what its worth, is that the people of the country (young or older) tend to pull together if there is a common enemy or a common cause. An example of this, I guess, is 31st December 1999 when most people were out and about shaking hands and wishing everyone a happy millenium (a common cause). The next evening they went back to their usual routine of practically ignoring one another.

Everyone may question the powers to be today, but I reckon they'll pull together and readily fight.

Barbara

[SiegeGunner]

i dont think we will need the likes of kitchener army so long as our economy is strong

If an enemy came marching up Whitehall, I'd rather have a large RPG than a small PSBR ...

[McNamara]

If an enemy came marching up Whitehall, I'd rather have a large RPG than a small PSBR ...

if you find enough money to buy one!!!!!!!

[truthergw]

If an enemy came marching up Whitehall, I'd rather have a large RPG than a small PSBR ...

This Role Playing Game, is it multi user or single player?

[John_Hartley]

The Who summed it up for me - Won't Get Fooled Again.

Tom

As opposed to "Hope I die before I get old, talkin' 'bout......"

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Now ur an hofficer Katie, let's turn it around.

Would you go along with the spirit of WWI & 2?

Would you volunteer to ride a motorbike attending to the shattered wounded? Or fill shells with explosives? What about working in a factory operating heavy machinery?

How about flying in an unarmed aircraft through skies where you could get bounced by enemy fighters (slipped into WW2 now). Could you pull someone from a burning building; contribute to someone else’s death, say by being part of anti aircraft defence; or could you pick up a machine gun and shoot people (like Violette Szabo did)?

[LANCER]

For what its worth. I joined up as a young lad of 18 in the 1960s. Bit of a lad.Why adventure ,change , But dont laugh the feeling I should give something back. I dont thik the young of today would be any different if things happened.

Frank

[Pete1052]

I suppose we should remember that the High Command of today would not have any use for a mass conscript army. Today's soldier is highly trained and highly motivated. There is a reason that we do not have conscription, we have no use for conscripts.

These days the U.S. could sure use about five additional divisions of "highly trained and highly motivated" soldiers. The problem with conscription for say two years of service is that by the time training has been completed there is little time left for the soldier to serve. If the initial entry training can be completed within the first six months of the period of service then conscription could be said to have its benefits. This necessarily limits the conscriptees to the less demanding military specialties.

[Garron]

Bit of a sooky coincidence I was given a book by my aunty, inside were news paper cutting related to ww1, this was one of them, its from the daily mail in 1998 (wow nearly 10 years ago)

Sorry about the quality, I do have it in a PDF format if you would like to email it to you, just pm your address.

Gaz

[Paul Hederer]

The Who summed it up for me - Won't Get Fooled Again.

Tom

Tom,

Thank You. You've said more in those few words than others did in paragraphs. I agree 100%.

Paul

[SiegeGunner]

I don't think that people of military age today are any less 'qualified', physically or mentally, than the men from very diverse (and un-military) backgrounds who answered Kitchener's call. But they are more politically aware and better informed, and above all cynical about situations that degenerate into war because politicians can't or won't sort them out. The circumstances in which a mass army would be required in the future are most unlikely to arise, but I could not see the majority of eligible people rushing to volunteer, or indeed comply with conscription, unless there was a massive national consensus that the cause was just and the need was urgent. There's no doubt, for instance, that the Cold War was real, but with the opening up that has taken place since the late 1980s, it's become very apparent that it wasn't being driven by the ordinary people of the countries involved. I currently have a very nice Polish lad doing some work on my house, and I find it rather chilling to think that there was once a realistic possibility of my generation being conscripted to fight against his father or grandfather.

Mick

[Beau Geste]

Hello Katie,

I apologise to you but I really didn't know that your excellent thread existed when I introduced "Today's Generation". It's now running parallel with yours i'm afraid. When I was informed of the existence of this one we made overtures to "the moderators" to have them brought together but things were left as they were.

Sorry. I never have learnt to surf the Forum to check if things are going to clash.

Harry

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

Now ur an hofficer Katie, let's turn it around.

Would you go along with the spirit of WWI & 2?

Would you volunteer to ride a motorbike attending to the shattered wounded? Or fill shells with explosives? What about working in a factory operating heavy machinery?

How about flying in an unarmed aircraft through skies where you could get bounced by enemy fighters (slipped into WW2 now). Could you pull someone from a burning building; contribute to someone else’s death, say by being part of anti aircraft defence; or could you pick up a machine gun and shoot people (like Violette Szabo did)?

I have to say, I have never really thought about it in terms of my own life or death philosophy. Someone later on said they 'joined up as a lad, to give something back.' I do feel that, overwhelmingly, truly I do. However, I don't think I will ever have the correct skills to join the army, if that's what you mean. I think if I was to 'do my bit' to make sure that generation are never forgotten, it will be in telling people, both my peers and those in future generations. I also don't think girls in the army are quite right, somehow. A bit old-fashioned, and ridiculously romanticised on my part, perhaps - it's just, when I think of soldiers and heroes, I always think of 'soldier lads' for some reason.

There are people, and indeed, ways of life that I love, and yes, I think there are some that I would judge worth the spilling of blood, and even my own life. But let us hope it never comes to that.

One final question: to the person who posted this, are you yourself in the army?

Hello Katie,

I apologise to you but I really didn't know that your excellent thread existed when I introduced "Today's Generation". It's now running parallel with yours i'm afraid. When I was informed of the existence of this one we made overtures to "the moderators" to have them brought together but things were left as they were.

Sorry. I never have learnt to surf the Forum to check if things are going to clash.

Harry

Quite all right - I will very gladly involve myself both in your thread and mine!

[ejcmartin]

Last summer I took part in the filming of a documentary for the CBC entilted "The Great War". I was one of 150 decendents of Great War veterans, who took part in battle recreations for the documentary. I remember one of the NCO's in the production being an NCO in the Princess Paticia's. One thing that struck him was how different everyone was. Like Kitchener's Army we were a hodgepodge of civilian life; doctors, lawyers, labourers, etc. with a few "Old Contemptibles" thrown in. He was used to everyone in the Army being very homogeneous.

I was reading just recently that in Canada, even with our casualties in Afghanistan, recruitment in the forces is up. There must continue to be some sort of mystique of the adventure that some are attracted to.

[truthergw]

The armed services still offers, as it always has, a means to get off the dole queue for the relatively unqualified. It also offers a chance to learn a trade for those who missed their chance earlier on. The chance to get abroad and earn a decent wage while you are doing it, doesn't hurt.

[Take on me]

At to that the taste of adventure, the respect given to a man in uniform and, for some, that dark part of a man's soul that enjoys destruction and violence.

Jon

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

At to that the taste of adventure, the respect given to a man in uniform and, for some, that dark part of a man's soul that enjoys destruction and violence.

Jon

The latter is a really interesting point. R.L. Stevenson might have something to say about it! But as for men, what about women?!

[KONDOA]

Given a genuine enemy and the chance of adventure little difference would be seen between 1914 and today. I have the pleasure of working with a motley "company" who would turn their hand to the bayonet and rifle just as easily as the their current trade tools. Wars are about manpower, technology is only a small part of the effort.

Roop

[keithfazzani]

I think that we must wonder where the media would be in all this. In WW1 the media (newspapers) were by and large very patriotic and encouraged men to fight - what would the media do today. I suspect some newspapers would by and large be the same. But then what about the tv and the radio? What would they do what would they show. I suspect that many young men joining up in 1914 thought it was all a bit of a Boys Own adventure with their mates - obviously this changed as the casualty lists lengthened but black and white newspapers could never show what the 24 hour news does and what about the internet - we see things today on our tv and internet that could never have been imagined back then. Censorship in our modern age is almost impossible pictures of the equivalent of July 1st 1916 would appear somewhere within hours.

Then there is the question of bringing home bodies. The decision to not do this I am sure was more propaganda than anything else - what would the sight of 10's of thousands of bodies being brought home, which is current practise, do to potential recruits.

[Alan Tucker]

I think that we must wonder where the media would be in all this. In WW1 the media (newspapers) were by and large very patriotic and encouraged men to fight - what would the media do today. I suspect some newspapers would by and large be the same. But then what about the tv and the radio? What would they do what would they show. I suspect that many young men joining up in 1914 thought it was all a bit of a Boys Own adventure with their mates - obviously this changed as the casualty lists lengthened but black and white newspapers could never show what the 24 hour news does and what about the internet - we see things today on our tv and internet that could never have been imagined back then. Censorship in our modern age is almost impossible pictures of the equivalent of July 1st 1916 would appear somewhere within hours.

Then there is the question of bringing home bodies. The decision to not do this I am sure was more propaganda than anything else - what would the sight of 10's of thousands of bodies being brought home, which is current practise, do to potential recruits.

1. By media today presumably you mean what would the view of Rupert Murdoch be. The rest of the press would make up its mind based on the justice of the cause. Only the brave Independent and Daily Mirror opposed our imperial adventure in Iraq from Day 1.

2. If you think the net and the news would show the reality of war to the mass of the population you are in a dream world. The media do not get outside the Green Zone in Baghdad. If we knew what it was really like in Basra and Helmund public opinion would demand troops out now. They don't because the media have a conspiracy of self-imposed silence.

3. Non-repatration of bodies in the Great War was nothing to do with the impact on public opinion. It was about logistics and practicalities. The public at home 1914-1918 knew the scale of casualties if not the true nature of trench warfare at the time.

The ambulance trains after every big push

The special supplements of the dead in local newspapers

The 200+ street shrines in Hull after the Somme etc etc

[John_Hartley]

3. Non-repatration of bodies in the Great War was nothing to do with the impact on public opinion. It was about logistics and practicalities.

You may be right , Alan.

But it was also damned convenient for the vested interests not to have large numbers of war dead buried in every community. Of course, one can only speculate on the effect it might have had on future generations who might be asked to serve for "King & Country".

John

[Muerrisch]

A little digression please.

An army officer, now a Brigadier or retired, confided in me some ten years ago that 'I see no way that the young people of today could be asked to do what was done in 14-18' or words to that effect. He is a very able military historian, so knew a great deal about 'then'.

I had the impression that he was about to add 'and much the better for it'.

[Take on me]

The latter is a really interesting point. R.L. Stevenson might have something to say about it! But as for men, what about women?!

Here we descend into the world of stereotypes and gender roles. I am sure that some believe that the idea of only men having a destructive part of their being and women not being so inclined is merely a gender construct of society. On the other hand others might say that the urge to destroy other men and things simply does not exist in many women. If, in a crude sense, we are all animals the male desire to destroy comes from some desire to assert sexual superiority over his fellow man, and therefore woman as well. However psychology is certainly not my strong point.

Jon