What would have happened if everyone stayed at home in WW2

[IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021]

So reading lots of different threads tonight arguing for and against lockdown. How it is not safe and the comparisons to WW2 has got me thinking?

What would have happened if at the start of national service everyone just said no? So instead of fighting they stayed home to protect everyone cause then maybe we would not get bombed? So the war was to protect our freedom and our rights. This virus vs lockdown is now very similar. Protect the NHS? Destroy your own life?

As far as I know CEV was not a thing then. National service was compulsory so how would that have worked? I understand some people got to opt out but where thought of very badly unless severely disabled.

Let's face it not one single person who entered that war or stayed behind was safe.

I wonder what happened with medics then as obviously this predates the NHS. People died. It was sad but we fought for our lives. None of that involved staying in our houses watching Netflix!

Medics, technicians all were conscripted. Where would we have been if everyone wanted to stay safe?

Millions of people have fought and died for freedoms... all so cunts like the OP can start fucking ridiculous threads spouting absolute bollocks.

I'm sure you can disagree without calling someone a cunt. Although perhaps you can't because you've got nothing of any intelligence to offer?

If one life was saved, would it have been worth it?

Indeed. Freedom is over-rated if the cost is a single life.

The sad reality is that many people alive today who are cev or just vulnerable to covid would not have survived in the 1930's. We are far better at not only keeping people alive but also giving extended quality of life. It was sadly still common then for children to die early in childhood, from diseases which we now treat.

I think OP has the analogy backwards.

As Cold War Steve (collage artist) has pointed out - it's the anti-mask, anti-precaution whingers who are like people with their Christmas lights on during the Blitz...

twitter.com/Coldwar_Steve/status/1283406783848087552

Well OP that's me convinced. I'm now about to load up my gun and shoot loads of Germans. It got us through the war, it'll get us through covid.

Tally-ho.

I don’t think you OP is particularly clear. I’m not entirely sure what exactly you’re trying to say and what side of the fence you’re on-

Are you saying that during the war, soldiers fought for our freedoms - so we shouldn’t give those freedoms up and be forced in to a lockdown and we should make a fuss about our lost liberties and freedoms.....

Or are you saying, those soldiers fought in a war, so we should all be able to simply stay at home without making a fuss.....

It basically comes down to there is no analogy at all 😂 that was always my point.

@TableFlowerss the first one.

I think I need to go to bed.... I haven’t got a clue what’s going on oh here....

Night all

@Shodan

I get your point OP.

My mother, who was evacuated during the war, was quite baffled at the lack of (as she put it) gumption. She said that she wasn't evacuated, away from her parents from the age of 5 until she turned 11, so that people could willingly give up their freedom for a virus. Don't forget, either, that she lived through the Asian flu pandemic of 1957 and the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968. During neither pandemic were people forced into lockdowns. I think that her generation would have scoffed at the idea that a virus was going to make them cower at home, when even war itself could not.

Well, if we're playing 'my mother says' - my mother must be about a year younger than yours based on war ages and she thinks people who aren't staying at home (besides the obvious good reasons) are being complete idiots and we're lucky we're relatively so well equipped to deal with this compared to the world wars or Spanish flu, eg quicker to make vaccines, so many can work from home, got freezers so don't need to go and shop every day etc. She's got gumption in spades but doesn't need to argue her freedom with a virus that won't even notice whether you're exercising your freedom or not, it'll infect you if it can anyway. Covid is not Hitler, you can't strap a bayonet on and charge at it!

@MaxNormal

Millions of people have fought and died for freedoms... all so cunts like the OP can start fucking ridiculous threads spouting absolute bollocks.

I'm sure you can disagree without calling someone a cunt. Although perhaps you can't because you've got nothing of any intelligence to offer?

I certainly hope you’re not trampling over my hard-won freedom to call someone a cunt, are you?

Because that’s what “freedom” means nowadays isn’t it? The right for people to do whatever they feel like without having to think about the impact of their behaviour or words on anyone else?

@LakeGeneva

Well OP that's me convinced. I'm now about to load up my gun and shoot loads of Germans. It got us through the war, it'll get us through covid.

Tally-ho.

[quote IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021]@TableFlowerss the first one. [/quote]
Ahh I see, that makes things clearer. Thanks for replying, I thought I was losing the plot!

Ffs @TableFlowerss it's perfectly clear that anything other than participation in outright fucking carnage is an unacceptable response to an international emergency. Those brave young boys didn't get evacuated to sing in tube stations so we could all go around wearing masks LEST WE FORGET.

@Robin45

I understand the point you’re making Op. People fought and died in the war to protect their freedom. Today, people are giving up their freedom because they are scared of death. Aside from WW2 throughout history people have died fighting for basic rights. The thing is, I think most people really, truly believe that the rights and freedoms they have given up will be restored in full. I hope they’re right. But it’s a slippery slope.

I totally and utterly agree with you!

@LakeGeneva

Ffs *@TableFlowerss* it's perfectly clear that anything other than participation in outright fucking carnage is an unacceptable response to an international emergency. Those brave young boys didn't get evacuated to sing in tube stations so we could all go around wearing masks LEST WE FORGET.

I think about this comparison a lot. In the war between freedom and tyranny, it was seen as imperative to expend thousands and thousands of lives. Then out of the Nazi horror arose the Declaration of Human Rights - the ultimate expression of the rights of the individual against state action. Now, on the pretext of 'public safety' and (Nuremberg shudder) 'the greater good', many of these fundamental rights have been suspended. Many people believe it will be a titanic struggle to regain these rights. I think people who disagree with (or are offended by) this comparison have faith that our leaders and the scientists they employ are acting in the interests of those they serve. I believe that the state and its scientists are acting in the interests of those they serve. I just don't believe they're serving us.

None of you cissies know anything about war. I bet not one of you has put your hair in a chignon and worn a slightly twee pinny while making "keep calm and carry on" bunting.

Going out right now when I don't have to wouldn't be being brave, it would be more like an act of sabotage. I'm not someone who is currently desperately suffering by being at home and to suggest that I would somehow be helping my country more by going out and mixing and potentially spreading the virus makes no sense at all.

This wins the award for the strangest comparison between war 2 and the current pandemic.

I honestly have no idea what your point is but I quite like dystopian history so in your imaginary world where British men stay at home, what are the Nazis and Italy up to?

for some people staying at home is more dangerous than a war zone. You probably will not believe that but it's true.

I take it you haven't been to a war zone.
I was in a conversation a few years ago between an Iraqi refugee and a Bosnian Refugee.
They'd given up far more than just staying at home (and being able to nip out to the shops, go for a walk...) while they were in the war zone.

The Iraqi had got out of the country when his home had blown up taking his family with it. He'd gone out to the shops. He'd been shot at on the way back, and threatened for going out simply for being a Christian. They'd been receiving death threats for some time.
The Bosnian refugee had memories as a child of being in a basement having to be silent because the buildings were being searched. They'd gone three days without food and only a little bit of water rationed between them.

And you want to compare it to being asked to stay home except for essentials. Really?

I’m really struggling to understand your posts. How would staying home during WW2 have kept people safe? We would have been taken over. The only way to win the war and prevent genocide in other countries was by fighting. And FYI sometimes people did have to stay at home to prevent casualties - they had to turn off the lights, pull down the blackout blinds and hide in the Anderson shelter instead of going down the pub!

The only way to fight the “Coronavirus War” is by reducing transmission and preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed. We do this by staying at home as much as possible and not mixing with others. We can channel the wartime spirit by abiding by the rules and trying to keep as positive and cheerful as positive. It’s the whole “stiff upper lip” and “keep calm and carry on” rhetoric.

I think that’s why people compare the current situation with the war. We’re facing an incredibly challenging and anxiety inducing situation, arguably the worst since WW2, and the only way we will get through it is by following the rules as mandated by the government and trying not to panic.

Muzzle ...??????!!!!

You can't compare war and a virus.
At a pinch you could compare the plague with Covid, and I guess the answer might be to start a fire in pudding lane and see if Covid disappears....
Actually people were isolated during the plague years and there were plague villages, where supposedly only the priest, the quack and the 'bring out your dead' brigade were allowed in and out (although it wasn't particularly well policed). In cases of cholera (sadly very common before decent sewerage systems) the area would be 'roped off' but residents would simply be left to die.
I vaguely remember reading about a later cholera outbreak and a measles outbreak between the wars, and in both instances isolation was required. The difference is back in the 1920s travel and commuting was nothing like today, so it was much easier to isolate people...
I think this is probably the first time in history where the government is actually trying to save lives...it's costing a huge amount of money and it's not being done lightly. The alternative is to carry on and follow Darwin's theory. I hate being locked down, but I don't want people to die either.