FIFA Poppy Ban

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
I got this from wiki but it appears the majority didn't volunteer to do their bit for King and Country.

Of these men, 2.67 million joined as Volunteers and 2.77 million as conscripts (although some volunteered after conscription was introduced and would most likely have been conscripted anyway)
I'm afraid that second number is unsupported. WW1 Facts gives 2.67 million volunteers and 2.28 million conscripted. Conscription In The First World War | WW1 Facts

Even your source, Wikipedia, supports those numbers (and thus disagrees with itself): British Army during World War I - Wikipedia and British Army First World War reserve brigades - Wikipedia. Note that your site explains that it gets its figure of 2.77 by assuming everyone recruited after conscription began was a conscript.

The UK parliament figures show approximately 2.5 million conscripted, but mentions that this includes those conscripted into 1920 (just as WW2 conscription didn't end in 1945). Conscription: the First World War


By contrast, Simpkins has figures of 2.47 million volunteers by the end of 1915. [1] Bourne gives figures of 1.19 million volunteering in 1914, and 1.28 million volunteering in 1915, agreeing with Simpkins's 2.47 million. [2] Spiers also agrees with those figures. [3] Note that these figures are to the end of 1915 and do not include either the volunteers who joined in early 1916 (before conscription), and nor those volunteering after that date.


Another Wiki page, Monthly recruiting figures for the British Army in the First World War - Wikipedia, has the monthly recruiting figures for August 1914 to October 1918, and shows 2.67 million volunteers and 2.28 million conscripts in that time, tying in with the WW1 Facts website. It also shows that just over 200,000 volunteered between January 1916 and October 1918, neatly filling the gap between the 2.67 million and the 2.47 million quoted by Simpkins et. al.The source is the official papers: General Annual Reports on the British Army (including the Territorial Force) for the Period from 1st October, 1913, to 30th September, 1919, so I'm happy to take them as accurate, short of pulling the papers from the National Archives which I'm not going to do.


Calculating the number of those conscripted against their will is problematic after March 1916 because there is no way to determine if the recruit was a willing or unwilling conscript. In addition, not everyone sent conscription papers was either finally recruited or served. Many were found to be medically unfit, others were placed in categories held in reserve only to be recruited should numbers fall below targets. There are also those who were conscripted but refused to join up. Still more would have been recruited but were too late to see action. This does not include all those who were exempt from conscription in the first place.


All figures in the millions rounded to two decimal places.

[1] Peter Simpkins, 'The Raising of the New Armies: Some Further Reflections', Britain Goes to War, p. 92.
[2] John Bourne, 'British Readiness for War', Britain Goes to War, p. 28
[3] Edward M Spiers, 'The National Response to the Outbreak of War, 1914', Britain Goes to War, p. 57.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid that second number is unsupported. WW1 Facts gives 2.67 million volunteers and 2.28 million conscripted. Conscription In The First World War | WW1 Facts

Even your source, Wikipedia, supports those numbers (and thus disagrees with itself): British Army during World War I - Wikipedia and British Army First World War reserve brigades - Wikipedia. Note that your site explains that it gets its figure of 2.77 by assuming everyone recruited after conscription began was a conscript.

The UK parliament figures show approximately 2.5 million conscripted, but mentions that this includes those conscripted into 1920 (just as WW2 conscription didn't end in 1945). Conscription: the First World War


By contrast, Simpkins has figures of 2.47 million volunteers by the end of 1915. [1] Bourne gives figures of 1.19 million volunteering in 1914, and 1.28 million volunteering in 1915, agreeing with Simpkins's 2.47 million. [2] Spiers also agrees with those figures. [3] Note that these figures are to the end of 1915 and do not include either the volunteers who joined in early 1916 (before conscription), and nor those volunteering after that date.


Another Wiki page, Monthly recruiting figures for the British Army in the First World War - Wikipedia, has the monthly recruiting figures for August 1914 to October 1918, and shows 2.67 million volunteers and 2.28 million conscripts in that time, tying in with the WW1 Facts website. It also shows that just over 200,000 volunteered between January 1916 and October 1918, neatly filling the gap between the 2.67 million and the 2.47 million quoted by Simpkins et. al.The source is the official papers: General Annual Reports on the British Army (including the Territorial Force) for the Period from 1st October, 1913, to 30th September, 1919, so I'm happy to take them as accurate, short of pulling the papers from the National Archives which I'm not going to do.


Calculating the number of those conscripted against their will is problematic after March 1916 because there is no way to determine if the recruit was a willing or unwilling conscript. In addition, not everyone sent conscription papers was either finally recruited or served. Many were found to be medically unfit, others were placed in categories held in reserve only to be recruited should numbers fall below targets. There are also those who were conscripted but refused to join up. Still more would have been recruited but were too late to see action. This does not include all those who were exempt from conscription in the first place.


All figures in the millions rounded to two decimal places.

[1] Peter Simpkins, 'The Raising of the New Armies: Some Further Reflections', Britain Goes to War, p. 92.
[2] John Bourne, 'British Readiness for War', Britain Goes to War, p. 28
[3] Edward M Spiers, 'The National Response to the Outbreak of War, 1914', Britain Goes to War, p. 57.
Don't bother - everybody else is wrong and @stacker1 is right.
 
You just keep getting upset that an international sporting organisation isn't showing the "proper respect".
No I don't. I'm not even upset at some of the drivel you post. My point is the Poppy isn't a religious symbol. You don't agree. Fine.
 
Gareth Southgate: Poppies important part of England and Scotland's history

"It represents the team. It is a very important part of history and tradition of what we are as a nation, to have freedom of speech to make statements as we see fit, owes to those people who gave their lives in two wars.

When did footballers become literate and coherent?
Fair play the Southgate. Whilst this is only a sporting event, the team are representing their respective nations and are not making a political or religious statement. Rugby doesn't have this problem, Andy Murray played tennis wearing a poppy. Cricketers, Golfers etc. etc....
The problem seems to be FIFA and football in general. Maybe they should all wear the MacDonald's logo instead!

I'm glad the home nations have decided to wear the poppy. Not because it's proper remembering but because it pisses of FIFA
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
You'll struggle to find many England fans who would rather not qualify than allow their team to play without poppies.
Great excuse though this could be the longest serving manager ever if they keep the poppy thing going.
 
No I don't. I'm not even upset at some of the drivel you post. My point is the Poppy isn't a religious symbol. You don't agree. Fine.
My point is it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether the England team wear the poppy. Except to the frothy mouths who think people should "show respect" for a short time as this makes up for people not giving a **** for the rest of year.
 
My point is it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether the England team wear the poppy. Except to the frothy mouths who think people should "show respect" for a short time as this makes up for people not giving a **** for the rest of year.
Black.
 
My point is it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether the England team wear the poppy. Except to the frothy mouths who think people should "show respect" for a short time as this makes up for people not giving a **** for the rest of year.
You could argue that since civpop don't give a **** the rest of the year, one day in November isn't a lot to ask.

There again, you are the most contrary twat on ARRSE.

Ever.
 
You could argue that since civpop don't give a **** the rest of the year, one day in November isn't a lot to ask.

There again, you are the most contrary twat on ARRSE.

Ever.
Oh dear someone has a negative opinion about me, I'll just file that with the rest of them.

I wouldnt argue that anyone should wear something for one day of the year if they dont want to.
 
White. You can now argue to your hearts content. By yourself.
Have your outrage level peaked with a international sporting organisation not caring about your personal opinion?
 
No but thanks for asking.

PS piss poor grammar.
I put that straight to the top of my list of priorities to sort out.
Because I really care what a frothy mouth thinks.
 
Oh dear someone has a negative opinion about me, I'll just file that with the rest of them.
I take it you know the NSN for a 4 drawer filing cabinet off by heart?
 

MARTOK

War Hero
Just watching the highlights of the rugby England vs RSA both sides appear to be wearing poppies, England on the left arm RSA on the right arm. I don’t recall there being any controversy about this.
 
Just watching the highlights of the rugby England vs RSA both sides appear to be wearing poppies, England on the left arm RSA on the right arm. I don’t recall there being any controversy about this.
Could that possibly be because FIFA has no connection to rugby?
 

MARTOK

War Hero
Could that possibly be because FIFA has no connection to rugby?
Or it could be that the RFU are not as anally retentive as FIFA.
 

Latest Threads

Top