Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 01-14-2012, 12:02 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 271
Accounts of guilt-wracked men who weren't drafted in US wars?

Apologies for the awkwardly phrased question.

I'm asking if psychological guilt or shame were real, perceptible and acknowledged feelings for men who were not drafted in US wars (Civil War through Vietnam).

Excluding conscientious objectors, did some exempted men feel guilty that they could not enlist? Did men discuss being conflicted about serving? Did this impact the social lives of American families during any of the wars? Is this documented somewhere in the annals of American sociology ?

This is in GQ because I'm asking if this was ever something publicly discussed in the media, but also curious if people have stories about family members or others who dealt with complicated feelings about avoiding/being exempted from military duty.....
#2
Old 01-14-2012, 12:07 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoaster View Post
Excluding conscientious objectors, did some exempted men feel guilty that they could not enlist?
They could enlist. The draft (excepting, I think, WWII) was to make up the difference between the number of enlistees and what they needed.
#3
Old 01-14-2012, 12:18 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
They could enlist. The draft (excepting, I think, WWII) was to make up the difference between the number of enlistees and what they needed.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm just asking in general, if men who didn't fight in wars (for whatever reason) felt guilt/shame or some other conflicting or confusing emotions about having fellow Americans fight and die on the front lines.
#4
Old 01-14-2012, 12:54 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: up the coast
Posts: 4,417
Not quite a serious or deep discussion, but one of the best American films ever, Buster Keaton's The General, has the main character dealing with being rejected for service during the Civil War. It's more of an action/comedy but there's a certain tragic realism to it. Though the actual scene where he repeatedly attempts to fake his way in is one of the funniest in the movie.

Just mentioning it as an example of the idea in popular culture. It's not so much about feelings of shame that others are fighting or dying (he goes to enlist the first day), but about a sense of duty. That and the fact that his woman won't be with him otherwise (moreover, he can't figure out why he gets rejected).
#5
Old 01-14-2012, 01:30 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,781
Did not serve in the Vietnam war and did not protest. Sat on the side lines. Was exempt because of my choice of college.

Have little sympathy for the draft dodgers who only thought was about themselfs. But I have as much respect for those who protested or dodged because of their objections to the war as those who went.

I do not fell guilt about not going, but I have regrets about not protesting.
#6
Old 01-14-2012, 01:31 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Bagram Airfield
Posts: 2,074
I run into men all the time that, when I mention my or my son's service, feel a need to preemptively tell me why it was that they couldn't/didn't serve, even though it's not something I ever inquire about. I don't know if they feel guilty, but many of them certainly seem defensive about it.
#7
Old 01-14-2012, 02:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,187
On the Band of Brothers DVD set, I saw an interview with an Easy Co veteran who said that several boys from his home town committed suicide when they were classified as 4-F.
#8
Old 01-14-2012, 07:24 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoaster View Post
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm just asking in general, if men who didn't fight in wars (for whatever reason) felt guilt/shame or some other conflicting or confusing emotions about having fellow Americans fight and die on the front lines.
What, you mean like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Shakespeare
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Last edited by Bill Door; 01-14-2012 at 07:24 AM.
#9
Old 01-14-2012, 12:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,468
During WW II people who had medical issues sometimes went to work in factories that built planes, guns, tanks, etc. They helped the war effort in a different way.
#10
Old 01-14-2012, 01:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 10,128
Only fiction, but not being able to enlist during WWII is a significant issue for the main character, Bucky Cantor, in Phillip Roth's recent novel Nemesis.
#11
Old 01-14-2012, 01:42 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 3,437
Lot's of soldiers didn't fight on the front lines. Personnel, Intelligence, Training and Supply. (PITS) (With exceptions, of course).
I was lucky enough to have served before Vietnam and after Korea. Didn't feel a bit guilty. Felt bad for those who did have to go, though.
#12
Old 01-14-2012, 01:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretia View Post
I run into men all the time that, when I mention my or my son's service, feel a need to preemptively tell me why it was that they couldn't/didn't serve, even though it's not something I ever inquire about. I don't know if they feel guilty, but many of them certainly seem defensive about it.
I was un-able to enlist because of a back injury, although it didn't keep me from trying. Every branch turned me down because of the injury. Now I realize that the Gulf War was fairly small compared to something like WWII, however I have to say that I personally feel a bit guilty for not being able to serve.

I always felt it was every young mans responsibility to serve when the the Country needed us and to be left out of it does carry some guilt. Almost like you aren't able to pull your weight. So, not an official cite, but if the way I feel is of any indication then I think that guilt or perhaps embarrassment is a certainty.

I can tell you I remember my Grandfather telling me about a few of his friends that were 4F in WWII, pretty much in the same boat that I was. And he did mention that they felt "worthless" being at home while almost every other young man was in uniform.
#13
Old 01-14-2012, 02:34 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Lincoln, NE, USA
Posts: 1,022
I had an Uncle that wanted to enlist in WWII, he was only 16 in 1941 and lied about his age. The recruiter refused him because it was a small town and he knew a. He was underage, b. he was an "only son", c. my Grandfather needed him to help work the family farm, which was a vital war resource and d. that my Grandfather would not sign the papers.

He always felt guilty about not serving. By the time he was 19, he was resigned to staying home and working the farm. Many of his friends served and some of course never came back. I don't know how bad it was, but it weighed on him his whole life. It didn't help that my Grandfather had served in WWI.
#14
Old 01-14-2012, 05:51 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,647
I had a grandfather who worked in the chemical industry during WW2. His occupation made him classified as a worker engaged in an industry deemed essential to the war effort and ineligible for the draft or enlistment. He apparently tried nonetheless to enlist several times only to be told each time that he couldn't.
#15
Old 01-14-2012, 08:18 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 3,055
My dad was 4F during Korea because he was missing an eye. I wouldn't say he was guilt-wracked, but two of his brothers had enlisted in WW II and I think he did feel somewhat belittled. Can't be any more specific than that, as he never talked about it. I just have a vague feeling he would rather have been able to serve.
#16
Old 01-14-2012, 08:46 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 7,635
My dad was drafted for WWII and he said he saw rejected, 4F men literally sobbing because they couldn't serve. It really, really was a different time...
#17
Old 01-14-2012, 10:42 PM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,051
My father enlisted in the Marine Corps when he was 17 in 1945. He did not make it out of boot camp before the war ended. He always felt guilty about it. He even went to inquire about being recalled for Korea but they were interested in combat vets.
#18
Old 01-14-2012, 10:57 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,948
If there were a way to quantify it, I wonder if there is a significant drop post-WWII. Maybe a shift from patriotic duty/defence of liberty/survivor guilt to primarily survivor guilt. Not that modern soldiers aren't patriotic or defending liberty or that lots didn't think that Korea, Viet Nam through to Iraq were keeping the world safe, but I (intuitively and subjectively) don't see the guilt in not having served in Grenada.

ETA: Sorry, just hit that OP was talking about draft only and only through Viet Nam. I was thinking people who couldn't get in even if they tried (I tried twice in two different services; didn't make it for different reasons) or never tried to get in.

Last edited by Rhythmdvl; 01-14-2012 at 10:59 PM.
#19
Old 01-14-2012, 10:59 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
My dad was drafted for WWII and he said he saw rejected, 4F men literally sobbing because they couldn't serve. It really, really was a different time...
I suspect there was rather less sobbing after 1943, when Americans began dying in significant numbers.
#20
Old 01-14-2012, 11:52 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
My brother took speed to raise his blood pressure so he would flunk his physical and miss out on the festivities in SE Asia. Several years later he felt guilty and joined the Navy. Of course, by then the shooting had stopped so I'm not sure what he accomplished, but he felt better.
#21
Old 01-15-2012, 12:39 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,310
There was a kerfluffle a few years ago when somebody wrote an article, I think in Esquire magazine, talking about the guilt from not fighting in Vietnam. My memory of the reaction was that every single person who commented said that the writer had his head up his ass, because no person in America felt guilt about avoiding Nam. I'm of that age and I've never met anyone in my life who thought that way. There obviously must be some, but it's not like WWI and WWII, where the attitudes were totally different. But by the time of Korea the urge to serve was noticeably lacking. It's never returned.
#22
Old 01-15-2012, 02:39 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoaster View Post
This is in GQ because I'm asking if this was ever something publicly discussed in the media, but also curious if people have stories about family members or others who dealt with complicated feelings about avoiding/being exempted from military duty.....
I was looking through an issue of Yank magazine (produced by and for enlisted men in the U.S. Armed Forces) dating from 1945 about some men who were on the home front not in uniform. A lot of the men featured in the article said they were frequently asked by others why they weren't serving in the military. One of the men was turned down for service because he was deaf in one ear. He carried his deferment papers to prove to people that he was rejected for military service. Another man had actually served in the army and also carried around proof that he had served for the occasions where people asked why he wasn't in uniform. The third I remembered had a job critical to the war effort and was not allowed to enlist (I forget what his job was).
#23
Old 01-15-2012, 03:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
I was un-able to enlist because of a back injury, although it didn't keep me from trying. Every branch turned me down because of the injury. Now I realize that the Gulf War was fairly small compared to something like WWII, however I have to say that I personally feel a bit guilty for not being able to serve.

I always felt it was every young mans responsibility to serve when the the Country needed us and to be left out of it does carry some guilt. Almost like you aren't able to pull your weight. So, not an official cite, but if the way I feel is of any indication then I think that guilt or perhaps embarrassment is a certainty.

I can tell you I remember my Grandfather telling me about a few of his friends that were 4F in WWII, pretty much in the same boat that I was. And he did mention that they felt "worthless" being at home while almost every other young man was in uniform.
Did the reasons or popularity behind the particular war matter to you? Would you feel the same responsibility towards 'Nam or the recent wars?
#24
Old 01-15-2012, 04:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
Did the reasons or popularity behind the particular war matter to you? Would you feel the same responsibility towards 'Nam or the recent wars?
No, the popularity of the war did not enter my decision to try to enlist. The Gulf War was the current war at the time I tried. And Vietnam wouldn't have prevented it either. As I tried to explain in my last post, military service is a honor and something that all young men should feel compelled to do. Not only in a time of war, but whenever. I come from a very long line of veterans, going back to the Civil War. I am no war-monger by any stretch, but I do feel a very real sense of duty and commitment to this Country. Giving a little back is not asking too much of our young men.
#25
Old 01-15-2012, 04:55 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maui
Posts: 828
My war was Vietnam. I was 4F. No shame at all.

Are you kidding? I vowed to go thru this life without taking human life for any reason, and so far so good.
#26
Old 01-15-2012, 05:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bardos View Post
My war was Vietnam. I was 4F. No shame at all.

Are you kidding? I vowed to go thru this life without taking human life for any reason, and so far so good.
I'm not implying one should feel shame or guilt (I don't) or even a sense of duty. I'm just asking if the psychological impact of not serving had profound effects on men in past wars. I do think if I had friends or family who were fighting today, or if I came from a line of military men, I might feel differently. Certainly the concept of "duty" is alive and well for many people today, although clearly the WWs had a much deeper social and psychological impact than our present wars on the American psyche.

My only "conflict" (if you can even call it that) is what I consider to be somewhat of a contradiction; I do not approve of our involvement in the Middle East and yet I do have respect for soldiers who decide to serve. I certainly don't believe they are protecting freedom or are making this country (or the world) any safer, and yet they are making a personal sacrifice that I respect, even if I feel it is wrong-headed.
#27
Old 01-15-2012, 07:53 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,536
My father was exempted during WWII for similar reasons to Satchmo above. He was an only son, his family farmed, his father was disabled, and he had five sisters. He really resented people who assumed he had tried to be exempted or had dodged somehow. I don't think he felt guilty so much, because he really was needed as the sole support for his family, but he didn't want anyone to think badly of him. And some did, of course.
#28
Old 01-15-2012, 11:49 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by panamajack View Post
Not quite a serious or deep discussion, but one of the best American films ever, Buster Keaton's The General, has the main character dealing with being rejected for service during the Civil War. It's more of an action/comedy but there's a certain tragic realism to it. ...
Preston Sturges's 1944 Hail the Conquering Hero is premised on a man crushed because he was 4-F. It has a complicated theme, after active Marines claim he was with them overseas.
#29
Old 01-16-2012, 12:19 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,214
In a past thread people reported on the shaming of young men who did not serve in WWII. Young able bodied men were looked at askance if they were not in the service in some settings. I don't if any other war brought about that kind of reaction. In something similar, during the Civil War there were scandalous cases of soldiers paid to serve in the place of drafted individuals who died in service. I doubt there was much guilt associated with those instances.

The Four Feathers is a book about this subject, that has formed the basis for several movies.
#30
Old 01-16-2012, 12:29 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,833
Not American, but my Grandfather was rejected by every service during WWII. He was an engineer in the Glasgow shipyards - 'essential personnel'.

He was deeply ashamed anyway, especially when some bitch later handed him a white feather.
#31
Old 01-16-2012, 12:40 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I'm of that age and I've never met anyone in my life who thought that way.
I make a modest nod of respect to those whose Numbers were less than 273. Okay, it's a bigger nod but, frankly, it's "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Give my regards to Saigon!"

They didn't call it a lottery for nothing, and I was one of the winners. I have no regrets, but I do have that respect.

Last edited by dropzone; 01-16-2012 at 12:43 AM.
#32
Old 01-16-2012, 01:57 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,214
I had to think about this subject for a while. I recall some men from the Vietnam era who expressed some guilt about knowing that others served in their place, and may have died. One served in the military, but worked the system to remain stateside. In the case of Vietnam there was a great deal of collective guilt about the US involvement that may have mitigated some of the individual feelings. During the Vietnam War, the traditional association of refusal to serve and cowardice was dissolved, another mitigating factor. 'Guilt wracked' from avoiding service may have never been more than a romatic notion anyway. But real guilt, or misgivings must have occurred.
#33
Old 01-16-2012, 11:20 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
My dad was drafted for WWII and he said he saw rejected, 4F men literally sobbing because they couldn't serve. It really, really was a different time...
I call bullshit. I have no doubt that there were many people upset that they couldn't fight, but that didn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment. Of the 16 million WWII vets, 10 million of them were drafted. If there was this huge sentiment to fight, why did 2/3s of the soldiers have to be drafted? Compare that with Vietnam where that number is 1/3 or today where it is 0.
#34
Old 01-16-2012, 11:25 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,900
I did not enlist, nor was I drafted. I took my turn in the lottery with everyone else during the Vietnam Era. I don't think I'm suffering from survivor guilt, especially when I know that I would not have gone into combat. I got a "Profile 2" classification on my physical because of my hearing - they would have taken me, but I would have pounded a typewriter somewhere.

I do sometimes wonder what my life would have been like if I had volunteered, done my time, collected my honorable discharge and then had access to the benefits like college tuition, etc.
#35
Old 01-16-2012, 12:11 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
I call bullshit. I have no doubt that there were many people upset that they couldn't fight, but that didn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment. Of the 16 million WWII vets, 10 million of them were drafted. If there was this huge sentiment to fight, why did 2/3s of the soldiers have to be drafted? Compare that with Vietnam where that number is 1/3 or today where it is 0.
The U.S. didn't want everybody to sign up all at once. It was totally unprepared for all-out war, because conservatives were fierce isolationists who refused to spend money on a true build-up of the army. As it was, they were swamped after Pearl Harbor. They didn't have the camps, the trainers, the weaponry, heck, even the uniforms. Or the ships to transport the bodies across an Atlantic filled with u-boats. Drafting bodies in a regular predictable fashion over the course of the war was helpful. Don't forget that it wasn't until 1944 that the largest need for bodies occurred.

Vietnam was a completely different situation. In WWII draftees and enlistees were used in pretty much the same ways across combat and support. Wikipedia has a quote about Nam:
Quote:
Draftees, who constituted only 16 percent of the armed forces, but 88 percent of infantry soldiers in Vietnam, accounted for over 50 percent of combat deaths in 1969, a peak year for casualties. Little wonder that the draft became the focus of anti-Vietnam activism.
Every male in the country knew that if you got drafted you were meat. That put a very high premium on enlisting so that you could go off to Germany or somewhere away from the firing line, as the recruiters specifically promised.

The two wars were different in every way, and so was the reaction to them in the country. It's completely believable to me that 4F's cried if they were rejected. In fact, the only slightly realistic moments in the new Captain America movie were those in which Steve Rogers was desperately trying to enlist. There are multitudes of cases in which men disguised their names or traveled to distant areas or faked medical records or birthdates so they could enlist after being rejected. I don't think that happened in Nam or happens today.
#36
Old 01-16-2012, 02:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The U.S. didn't want everybody to sign up all at once. It was totally unprepared for all-out war, because conservatives were fierce isolationists who refused to spend money on a true build-up of the army. As it was, they were swamped after Pearl Harbor. They didn't have the camps, the trainers, the weaponry, heck, even the uniforms. Or the ships to transport the bodies across an Atlantic filled with u-boats. Drafting bodies in a regular predictable fashion over the course of the war was helpful. Don't forget that it wasn't until 1944 that the largest need for bodies occurred.

Vietnam was a completely different situation. In WWII draftees and enlistees were used in pretty much the same ways across combat and support. Wikipedia has a quote about Nam:
Every male in the country knew that if you got drafted you were meat. That put a very high premium on enlisting so that you could go off to Germany or somewhere away from the firing line, as the recruiters specifically promised.

The two wars were different in every way, and so was the reaction to them in the country. It's completely believable to me that 4F's cried if they were rejected. In fact, the only slightly realistic moments in the new Captain America movie were those in which Steve Rogers was desperately trying to enlist. There are multitudes of cases in which men disguised their names or traveled to distant areas or faked medical records or birthdates so they could enlist after being rejected. I don't think that happened in Nam or happens today.

Well said! It should also be noted that WWII was more of a "patriot" war than was Vietnam. We were attacked, not to mention I think that the feeling of patriotism was much higher in the 1940's than today. The sixties and seventies really killed the patriotism that this country used to have. It has returned somewhat since 9/11. Also, WWII was a "total" war, meaning that every single family in this country was involved some way in the war effort. To not be a part of that put you as an outcast. If you were a young man and not in uniform it was quite possible you were the only one in your town who wasn't. It isn't too hard to see how that could affect a young man's self esteem.
#37
Old 01-16-2012, 03:18 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The U.S. didn't want everybody to sign up all at once. It was totally unprepared for all-out war, because conservatives were fierce isolationists who refused to spend money on a true build-up of the army. As it was, they were swamped after Pearl Harbor. They didn't have the camps, the trainers, the weaponry, heck, even the uniforms. Or the ships to transport the bodies across an Atlantic filled with u-boats. Drafting bodies in a regular predictable fashion over the course of the war was helpful. Don't forget that it wasn't until 1944 that the largest need for bodies occurred.
This doesn't make sense. Just because people want to enlist doesn't mean you have to take them. It is far easier to put out a notice saying we need 10,000 more men every month than to force people to sign up. Or, you say we need volunteers and when they all rush to sign up you say, ok you come back in two months, you in three, etc.
#38
Old 01-16-2012, 03:28 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
This doesn't make sense. Just because people want to enlist doesn't mean you have to take them. It is far easier to put out a notice saying we need 10,000 more men every month than to force people to sign up. Or, you say we need volunteers and when they all rush to sign up you say, ok you come back in two months, you in three, etc.
This doesn't work in reality. Can you give me an example in which a country ever did this when a war was declared?
#39
Old 01-16-2012, 03:33 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
This doesn't work in reality. Can you give me an example in which a country ever did this when a war was declared?
Every war that didn't involve a draft. Your method is completely bizarre. If the problem is too many recruits, why in the world would you expand the pool and take random people, instead of selecting the best applicants.

Can you provide any cite by someone involved with the effort saying "We had enough recruits, but we thought drafting people was a better idea."
#40
Old 01-16-2012, 03:43 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
Can you provide any cite by someone involved with the effort saying "We had enough recruits, but we thought drafting people was a better idea."
It's pretty much common knowledge. There simply weren't enough resources to handle the deluge of men who wanted to sign up after the Pearl Harbor attacks. The draft then was just an orderly way to go through the people who wanted to sign up.
#41
Old 01-16-2012, 04:01 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
It's pretty much common knowledge.
Then it shouldn't be hard to find a cite.
#42
Old 01-16-2012, 05:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,187
One advantage of the draft would be putting bodies where the bodies are needed. Enlistees tend to have a particular branch of the military that they prefer.
#43
Old 01-16-2012, 05:14 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,187
I believe the French experienced the headache of mass volunteer enlistment at the beginning of WWI. Men were leaving vital jobs to join the army.
#44
Old 01-16-2012, 06:12 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
Every war that didn't involve a draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
Then it shouldn't be hard to find a cite.
Mobilization in World War II is an interesting introduction to the topic. The "brochure was prepared in the U.S. Army Center of Military History by Frank N. Schubert."

The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, the first peacetime draft, limited training to 900,000 men at any one time. The exact number varied during the war because all predictions of needed personnel went up by almost a power of ten, but the largest camps could only handle about 70,000 troops a year. Training regimes varied but the combined basic/advanced training period lasted about four months.

I'd ask you for a cite in return, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Nam all had formal conscription. No other war the U.S. was involved in was anywhere near that magnitude. Most other countries have some form of national service, so their examples wouldn't be comparable. Desperate countries often throw totally unprepared troops into service, but that's not comparable either. The U.S. in WWII had the luxury of two years to ramp up to D-Day levels and troops received a normal 8 months of additional training after basic/advanced.

So I guess the question is, what countries in what wars at what times have not been constrained by the number of troops they could train, outfit, prepare, and move at one time?
#45
Old 01-16-2012, 06:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
...

Vietnam was a completely different situation. In WWII draftees and enlistees were used in pretty much the same ways across combat and support. Wikipedia has a quote about Nam:
Every male in the country knew that if you got drafted you were meat. That put a very high premium on enlisting so that you could go off to Germany or somewhere away from the firing line, as the recruiters specifically promised.
...
I used to know someone who said that when he found out that he would be drafted, went ahead and joined the Navy, figuring that he wouldn't be in as much danger. He apparently had a decent but not very glorious experience as an enlisted sailor.

Last edited by robert_columbia; 01-16-2012 at 06:26 PM.
#46
Old 01-16-2012, 07:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Mobilization in World War II is an interesting introduction to the topic. The "brochure was prepared in the U.S. Army Center of Military History by Frank N. Schubert."

The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, the first peacetime draft, limited training to 900,000 men at any one time. The exact number varied during the war because all predictions of needed personnel went up by almost a power of ten, but the largest camps could only handle about 70,000 troops a year. Training regimes varied but the combined basic/advanced training period lasted about four months.

I'd ask you for a cite in return, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Nam all had formal conscription. No other war the U.S. was involved in was anywhere near that magnitude. Most other countries have some form of national service, so their examples wouldn't be comparable. Desperate countries often throw totally unprepared troops into service, but that's not comparable either. The U.S. in WWII had the luxury of two years to ramp up to D-Day levels and troops received a normal 8 months of additional training after basic/advanced.

So I guess the question is, what countries in what wars at what times have not been constrained by the number of troops they could train, outfit, prepare, and move at one time?
You're supposed to be convincing me that the draft in WWII was for efficiency reasons, and not because they couldn't get enough recruits.
#47
Old 01-16-2012, 07:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 752
I was in the very first Vietnam-era draft lottery and had a number of about 350. I wasn't eager to go but I did feel a little like I wasn't pulling my weight. After college I worked with a WWII vet (B-52 Crewman? I think). I told him I felt some regret that he had served for our country and I hadn't. He said I absolutely 100% should not feel any sense of guilt about it.
#48
Old 01-16-2012, 08:42 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
You're supposed to be convincing me that the draft in WWII was for efficiency reasons, and not because they couldn't get enough recruits.
And you're supposed to be providing cites to affirm your contentions.
#49
Old 01-16-2012, 10:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
And you're supposed to be providing cites to affirm your contentions.
I have provided data to back up my position. You haven't.
#50
Old 01-16-2012, 10:50 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
I have provided data to back up my position. You haven't.
So we're at a stalemate. I'm happy to let everybody look at my posts compared to yours and do their own evaluation. How about you?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: cinemax sex shows motel living ranitidine alcohol banishment 3.5 diet coke lemon library card holder smirnoff malt beverage earbuds suck tom hanks peeing is soma addictive kendall oil history itchy chest cough lotus sanitizing system short sword size accountants visor sean murray voice farm fucking luxaire reviews serial killer calendar florentine fighting cephalexin cure chlamydia gorda spanish translation gay gimps ceramic guns undercover boss scripted job's daughter slope slur helicopter barrel roll hay bale pricing veterans caps acre inch microwave making noise wishing death upon someone university of phoenix teaching credentials how long is cooked shrimp safe to eat cost of building an a frame cabin is harrison ford related to henry ford dragon age origins best weapons oil tank fill pipe 3 stooges theme song i can see my teeth through my gums les schwab credit plan does amtrak trains have outlets water dripping from exhaust pipe motorcycle electronic throttle control how long should a tetanus shot hurt rolling own cigarettes healthier ventura highway lyrics meaning dale gribble real life car engine temperature goes up and down how to recarbonate soda height of one story how do i get an address assigned to my property why do vampires have to be invited in vintage fur coat appraisal when did vhs tapes come out turbo 2 stroke engine man crushed by tree what does the key to the city do golden corral food quality helicopter hovering over my house why can't i get an internship steve blues clues shirt how much do laker season tickets cost leaking plastic pipe joint what was carol brady's maiden name can hermaphrodites get themselves pregnant garage door roller keeps coming out track can you eat meth