I don't think the humble British Tommie or French Poliu, German & Austrian Landser,was fighting for the rights of the big ciggerette company, or the right for future generations to puff on a weed.
If he had been ordered to put out that ciggerrette he would have done so bitched about it for a while and got on with fighting a war, which had more to do with reasons other than the aforementioned humble, cancer causing, chest heaving weed.
God bless em all now, nearly all gone, only 3 French Veterens left out of all the men who fought from the European side.
2007-06-05 08:44:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by conranger1 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well since soldiers had the slimmest chance of even returning from war, long-term smoking damage was the very least of their concerns and a government wouldn't do anything to aggravate its soldiers in such a harsh time so you can think "what if?" but it wouldn't have ever happened. It meant nothing to them back then and didn't have the true understanding of what it did to the body.
We live in an age now where stupid little things like smoking are the biggest problems for everyone and the general public just can't always see whats good for them. I don't like the government controlling everything but there is no good reason about smoking, why do people continue to pay to kill themselves quicker and have poorer health.
2007-06-05 02:06:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by agius1520 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Would you like to explain how stopping smoking would have lost a war? Because I can't quite see the connection myself.
And since the French, Danish, Dutch and Belgians didn't speak German in spite of having been controlled by Germany, would you also like to explain why the British would have been speaking German?
And call me radical, but there's this thing called punctuation that you've clearly never heard of.
Smoking's on the way out. Get used to the idea.
2007-06-05 06:28:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Beastie 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Smoking was positively encouraged in the British Army during WW-One and free cigarettes were given to the troops in the trenches much as free wine was given to French troops.
Result, we ended up a cigarette smoking nation who's population was heavily addicted to the dreaded weed.
In my childhood of the 1940s about one third of the total pop of UK smoked.
Never give up giving up giving. Or whatever the slogan is.
Edit: if the British people enjoy self flagellation and puritanical government which seeks to ban the fun out of life, then just keep on voting laboriously.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for it!
2007-06-05 05:28:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The goverment banning anything has never worked,prohibtion is just a theory thought up by the elitle politician for empty votes.There are too many examples of it failing throughout history to begin a list.But your example of it is groundless,the queen owes her crown jewels to the united states marine corps not to tobacco or any other material.Without the involvement of america we ALL would be speaking german today...FYI,better learn to speak Chinese real soon as well !
2007-06-05 02:23:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bill L 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I saw the next step this morning. Government branding drinking unsociable. What did public houses ever do to them, apart from making them huge amounts of money in tax
2007-06-05 02:23:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Probably, it would have been bad for moral & the soldiers would have been craving their cigs & preoccupied with the cravings so performance would not have been 100%.
2007-06-05 02:02:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by La5all3 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
they only smoke with the permission of the ranking officer don't you know god bless him salt of the earth , pride of the empire!
2007-06-05 01:58:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Andrew1968 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
What's a revolke then?
2007-06-05 21:06:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The trenches were outside.
Smoking wouldnt have been banned there.
2007-06-05 01:59:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Colin 3
·
0⤊
1⤋