# WWII shirkers and defectors



## muscogeemike (May 20, 2013)

Joseph Heller (CATCH 22) couldn’t have been the only guy in WWII to think about it. Does anyone have any idea of how many Allied Airmen interned in neutral countries went there to avoid further risk? Were any of them held to account for their actions?

Along the same lines does anybody know how many Allied soldiers/Sailors/Airmen went over to the Axis - and were any of them held accountable (Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw were not in the military)? 

I know that most nationalities were represented in the Axis (there were US citizens in the SS!) but how many defectors from the Allied Military were there?


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2013)

A word of caution on this topic.


----------



## CobberKane (May 20, 2013)

Wow , that's got to be some kind of record for the earliest intervention from a moderator!
Me, I'm wary about taking the moral high ground about combat avoidance. Courage is not about putting yourself in harms way, it's about acting according to your beliefs, whether you are an objector or a raving Nazi. People can be courageous in a morally indefensible cause by wading into the fray, or by defusing to fight at all. In WWI many shell shocked soldiers who were brave men were shot for cowardice. Many equally brave objectors volunteered for the medical service, which won two of only three double VCs ever awarded.


----------



## nincomp (May 21, 2013)

The war may have been considerably shorter and less bloody if a large number of Axis combatants had been "shirkers and defectors" because they thought that the war was wrong or unjust.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 21, 2013)

Incredibly few on all sides in air forces basically, despite the horrendous losses. 

Fair number in ground forces, though that depends on the area. Not many Russians or Germans switched sides in combat areas, because you almost certainly got killed.
Though, bizarrely the SS (post '43) had a very high proportion of foreign (French, Russian, etc, etc) soldiers (go figure?).

Fair number of US ones, but that wasn't for any reason that they were any less brave (_more likely the US was just more honest in their reporting_), just that there were lots of French and Italian places they could go to (ie Paris, some estimates put it as much as 20,000).
Almost certainly a fair number of British (for similar reasons, though there were also those who went 'walkabout' in North Africa). The British, being British (where secrecy is almost a genetic trait) have kept their numbers as (to my knowledge) 'unknown'.

Very difficult for Germans to do the same in those areas, as they were the invaders and cordially disliked (well... hated).

A fair number of conscientious objectors, many of whom served in far more dangerous positions than if they had signed up. At least on the British, Commonwealth and American sides.
People like that went into concentration camps in Germany and into the Gulags in the Soviet Union (which, if for no other reason, showed we really were ethically superior to them back then, even though we really blurred the lines at times).

So a mixed bag, people are people. They get scared, hurt, miss their lost loved ones and friends. Get wounded, shocked, stunned, exhausted, burned out. Get cold, scared, hot, distracted, tired, hungry, forgetful, guilty.

Just like anyone else. I have no illusions that I would do any better than any of them in the same circumstances.

My grandfather served in WW1 (and fought in the Somme) and he came back from that hating all violence and 'isms' (as he called them). Capitalism, communism, socialism, facism, etc, etc, etc. 
He hated the lot of 'isms'. Anything that divided people and created a situation where killing seemed to be a 'solution'. Be a better place if we all had the same attitude as that wise old man.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 21, 2013)

The 3rd Reich had their own methods for dealing with shirkers, around 14,000 Werhmacht soldiers were executed during WW2 for combat advoidance in it's various forms, and that doesn't include the ones during the last few chaotic months.
Just admitting to belonging to a religion that taught consciencious objection would result in the person going to a concentration camp. Actively participating in CO activities resulted in thousands of German citizens going under the guillotine.
One war widow was beheaded just for telling a joke.

The Russians shot, or hung over 100,000 of it own soldiers during WW2 for combat avoidance, civilian numbers, i'm not sure of.

My own oldest brother was a CO during the Korean war, but he served in the Army as a medic.


----------



## Hop (May 21, 2013)

> Along the same lines does anybody know how many Allied soldiers/Sailors/Airmen went over to the Axis - and were any of them held accountable (Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw were not in the military)?



A British fascist called John Amery, the son of a cabinet minister in Churchill's government, persuaded the Germans to let him recruit British and Commonwealth prisoners of war to form a Waffen SS unit. He apparently got 59 men to join, although most quickly left. John Avery was tried for treason after the war, pleaded guilty, and was hanged.


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2013)

IIRC there was a single USAAF P-38 pilot who defected to Italy and I recall one Free French pilot who defected. At least a few Soviet pilots defected to Finland, or at least claimed so when captured with their planes. And one defected to Japan, but Japan wasn't at that time at war against CCCP.

Juha


----------



## GregP (May 21, 2013)

I'm not very sympathetic to CO's. If they serve (as a medic or whatever) with the rest of us then OK, no problem. If they don't serve, then deport, or get rid of (expell from the country forever, no visitation).

That's just personal opinion and I fully realize many do not agree. That's OK, I still feel that way.

Doesn't mean it will ever be policy but, if I have to serve, then they should have to serve, too, if called upon to do so. Not everyone IS called on to serve in the USA, but we SHOULD be. Again, personal opinion that not everyone shares. If that were true, then we would not have an armed services manpower shortage ever.

In the real world, it's now an all-volunteer service and I don't think it works very well as it stands, but it IS in place.''

No insult intended to anyone, even CO's. I agree it takes courage to stand up for your beliefs. I just believe that service should be required for citizenship unless physical or mental conditions indicate otherwise. Doesn't have to be combat service.


----------



## muscogeemike (May 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'm not very sympathetic to CO's. If they serve (as a medic or whatever) with the rest of us then OK, no problem. If they don't serve, then deport, or get rid of (expell from the country forever, no visitation).
> 
> That's just personal opinion and I fully realize many do not agree. That's OK, I still feel that way.
> 
> ...



As a Draftee who then went on to serve 25yrs I can’t agree with you.
Not EVERYONE should serve. I’ve met 100’s of a-holes (both in and out of the Army) who I don’t want anywhere near me, or in any way responsible for supporting me, if the **** hit’s the fan!


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'm not very sympathetic to CO's. If they serve (as a medic or whatever) with the rest of us then OK, no problem. If they don't serve, then deport, or get rid of (expell from the country forever, no visitation).
> 
> That's just personal opinion and I fully realize many do not agree. That's OK, I still feel that way.
> 
> ...



I'll play the advocate to the devil here.

I don't see why anyone should be compelled to fight in a war purely because of the geography of their birth. If they object to fighting on moral or religious grounds, or disagree with the aims of the conflict/war, why then should they be required to participate in it?

The service = citizenship MIGHT be workable in a very narrowly defined circumstances (like a long-term, total war situation under strictly limited republican democracy government). Even then its a dubious proposition, at best. During WW2, the total number of people in the US that were involved in military service was around 16.4 million. That's only about 12.5% of the pre-war population.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 21, 2013)

I only served 8 years, and most of that was in units that were volunteers, But my Army basic ( I went thru USAF basic and Army basic training ) and my last 1 1/2 years in the Army was mostly with draftees. Some were ok, but there were some whose mission in life seem to be to make the whole world regret that they got drafted.
If i'd had to be in a combat situation with them, i'd probably have to arrange a accident, to make it safer for everybody.

I think everyone should serve their country too, but to force it on people who are completely opposed to it, hurts the service and the country.


----------



## gumbyk (May 21, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> which, if for no other reason, showed we really were ethically superior to them back then, even though we really blurred the lines at times.



That's a very debatable point, but too far off topic, and too volatile for further discussion


----------



## Capt. Vick (May 22, 2013)

Juha said:


> *IIRC there was a single USAAF P-38 pilot who defected to Italy *and I recall one Free French pilot who defected. At least a few Soviet pilots defected to Finland, or at least claimed so when captured with their planes. And one defected to Japan, but Japan wasn't at that time at war against CCCP.
> 
> Juha



From the German Air Force - US airmen defects to the Axis

German personnel preparing for the flight, an American reconnaissance plane Lockheed F-5E Lightning s/n 44-23725 Lieutenant Martin James Monti deserted from the USAAF.On October 13, 1944 he landed his plane at Pomigliano Airfield near Milan in Italy, The Italians had captured the aircraft and handed it over to the Germans.

Source Wiki:
Martin James Monti (October 24, 1921 – September 11, 2000) was a United States airman who defected to the Axis powers and worked as a propaganda broadcaster and writer. After the end of World War II, he was caught and sentenced to long terms, first for desertion, then for treason.

Monti enlisted in the Army Air Forces as an aviation cadet. He reported for training and later was commissioned as a flight officer. He subsequently qualified in the P-39 Aircobra and the P-38 Lightning, and was promoted to second lieutenant, when he was sent to Karachi, India (now in Pakistan). Attached to the 126th Replacement Depot, by then a first lieutenant, he deserted the Army Air Forces. He hitched a ride aboard a C-46 to Cairo, Egypt, and from there he traveled to Italy, via Tripoli, Libya. At Foggia he visited the 82nd Fighter Group, and then he made his way to Pomigliano Airfield, north of Naples, where the 354th Air Service Squadron prepared aircraft for assignment to line squadrons. He took note that an aircraft, a reconnaissance version of the P-38 Lightning, needed work and required a test flight after repairs. He stole the aircraft and flew to Milan. There, he surrendered, or rather defected to the Nazis, and subsequently began work as a propaganda broadcaster under the pseudonym of "Captain Martin Wiethaupt".

At the end of 1944, Monti made a microphone test at the recording studio of the SS Standarte ‘Kurt Eggers’, a propaganda unit of the Waffen-SS, under the direction of Guenter d'Alquen, in Berlin, Germany. He later joined them as a SS-Untersturmführer and participated in writing and composing a leaflet to be distributed by members of the German military forces, and among Allied prisoners of war.

At the end of the war, Monti was in Italy when he surrendered to the Americans (still wearing his SS uniform). In 1946, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison on the charge of desertion, but was pardoned within a year on condition he join the army. He was serving as a sergeant when the FBI rearrested him in 1948. He was charged with treason, as his propaganda activities as "Martin Wiethaupt" had been discovered by the FBI, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Monti was paroled in 1960.


----------



## GregP (May 22, 2013)

I adress the "why should they serve" crew. Because I believe they should be required to serve to live here in the U.S.A. . 

They aren't, but that does not mean I would volunteer to serve and maybe get killed for someone who won't even serve at all. I would have (and HAVE) fought for Americans who would also fight. If they won't, then I won't fight for them at all. I'd fight for me and my country and would not advocate for the people who would not.

Service should be required for the privlidges afforded by citizenship. You should not have to agree; you should have to serve if asked or face deportation forever. A CO should be able to serve in a non-combat role, but that is still honorable service.

Not serving at all should be because either the government didn't ask or because you aren't capable of service. Either one is OK for not serving, and I have no issue at all with that assuming no political problems, and I won't believe that until I SEE it myself.

Mostly, non-service is an act of defiance. Why should we who served put up with it at all unless warranted by well-documented circumstances? If modern people can not "serve," then why should WE have done so when asked to DO so?

It hits my HOT button in case you missed it. Service should be required for citizenship ... unless exemped for a reason. More ''later".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> In the real world, it's now an all-volunteer service and I don't think it works very well as it stands, but it IS in place.''



Just interested in your opinion as how an all volunteer army does not really work. 

I served in the all volunteer army, and it worked just fine from what I have seen. Finest military force in the world in my opinion. I would rather serve with people who volunteer and want to be there, than people who are only doing it because they are told to.



GregP said:


> I adress the "why should they serve" crew. Because I believe they should be required to serve to live here in the U.S.A. .
> 
> They aren't, but that does not mean I would volunteer to serve and maybe get killed for someone who won't even serve at all. I would have (and HAVE) fought for Americans who would also fight. If they won't, then I won't fight for them at all. I'd fight for me and my country and would not advocate for the people who would not.
> 
> ...



Service should not be a requirement for citizenship. That is just plain stupid (sorry to put it bluntly, and I am not saying you are stupid.). Not everyone is made for the military, and the military is not for everyone. There are plenty of ways that someone can contribute to the welfare of the nation.

If you volunteer for the army, you should not be allowed to CO your way out of a conflict. If you however are not already in the military, and there is no draft, you should not have to join a war, that you do believe in for moral grounds.

Forcing someone to do so is tyrannical.

Besides as a combat veteran myself, I would not want that person by my side in combat.


----------



## stona (May 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Service should be required for citizenship ... unless exemped for a reason. More ''later".



Freedom of religion? Would you fight for a Quaker's right to his pacifist beliefs? "Thou shalt not kill" is to him an injunction from a higher authority than any on earth. I would fight for his right not to fight, but it is a very complicated question and there are no easy answers.

Deporting or expelling such a person surely contradicts just about everything the United States stands for!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (May 22, 2013)

Dick Winters was a Quaker, I'll not get into a discussion on religion and it's views on war, but some leave the decision on the interpitation of scriptures up to the individual.
My drill sergeant in AF basic was a Quaker. I didn't know it until another tainee asked him why he didn't use foul language, His explanation was he didn't need to use foul language to get his point across, and he didn't. We had two DS, one cussed and the other didn't, i'd never noticed till someone else pointed it out.
There were Quakers in the military, not all were in non-combat jobs.


----------



## meatloaf109 (May 22, 2013)

Band of Brothers, Day of Days. Lt. Winters: "Oh, and Sergeant, I'm not a Quaker"


----------



## bobbysocks (May 22, 2013)

didnt sgt york....the rifleman went to war..york, try to get out of the war ac a CO because of his religous belief? honestly cant remember if i read it or it was the movie.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 22, 2013)

Forcing people to fight to prove there right to residency is one step from ism. Facism, Communism I dont care its an ism and I would fight for anybodys right not to do something against there beliefs. Thats called civilisation.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 22, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> Band of Brothers, Day of Days. Lt. Winters: "Oh, and Sergeant, I'm not a Quaker"


 That's just from the movie.
Winter's mother was a Mennonite, there are Quaker/Mennonite congregations, and they attended a German Reform Church in his youth, if the makes him a member of the Society of Friends ( Quaker), I don't know. Religious denominations and it's variations can get complicated.


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2013)

Mennonite is a more modern form of Amish belief.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 22, 2013)

i have both living close to me. amish are more strict and shun the ways of the "english" <<< non-amish. they still use horse and buggy as opposed to cars...."not supposed" to have electricity...phones...ect ( although a bunch of them do....shhhhh). mennonites adopted more "english" ways to do things...like tractors.


----------



## meatloaf109 (May 22, 2013)

Yeah, I just thought it was funny. Movie quotes.
I don't know what Maj. Winters beliefs were, really. I'm just glad that he was where he was when he needed to be there.
As all of the "Greatest Generation", I am just happy that they were there.


----------



## GregP (May 22, 2013)

Hi Der Adler,

I certainly know that service is not required for US citizenship and I respect that since it is currently not the law. I simply feel it SHOULD be. Nobody has to agree, it is how I feel. Doesn't make me right or wrong. That said, a new draft is unlikely to be required anytime soon in the U.S.A. . When I served, the draft was in use and it generally worked well. I joined ... I wasn't drafted.

I long for a world where a military force is not needed but don't think it will ever happen. Meanwhile, we all play by the rules we live with. 

Too bad politicians can't seem to come to agreements before shooting gets started. They should have to serve FIRST and be in the first wave to attack. If that happened, I bet they'd negotiate a bit differently and get an agreement hammered out. We can only dream about it, but it would solve a lot of arguments, I bet. Maybe not ... who can say for sure? Not me anyway.

I also don't want to derail this thread, so let's say that we have different opinions on this one. Having served doesn't mean we think the same, but that's part of what the U.S.A. is all about ... the right to have a dissenting opinion without persecution.

The thread is about shirkers and defectors. I have an opinion about shirkers and stated it.

I'm not too sure about defectors. If someone defects TO us, do we prosecute him or her? No. If they defect FROM us, we might prosecute them if they ever come back but usually not if they stay in their new "home" country. This one is a bit delicate. I generally do not advocate going into another sovreign country unannounced and forceably returning a defector home to stand trial. That violates the sovreignity of the country as well as the rights of the defector who gave up citizenship here and is now a citizen (perhaps, perhaps not) of the new country. Now if the information he/she divulged caused deaths to our people, it becomes a sticky situation ... which course is the right course? Depends on who is making the decision, I suppose. I know what I'd do, but that doesn't mean it would happen in the world we live in today.

Interesting thread, and perhaps not one destined to generate widespread agreement in today's world since the draft hasn't been used in the U.S.A. for some decades and perhaps longer in other countries while it still may be in effect in still others.


----------



## stona (May 23, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Dick Winters was a Quaker,



I don't think so. I live in a city, a large chunk of which was developed by a Quaker family. One of that family is a personal friend and they are pacifists.

All religious groups have various divisions and sub denominations but a refusal to fight (incidentally most Quakers won't swear an oath, of allegiance or otherwise) is a fundamental belief of all calling themselves Quaker.

For them God's word supersedes any temporal power, President, Prime Minister or King. Many Christian groups, by definition Protestant, do not interpret the commandment which they count as number six (five in the catholic tradition) as being conditional. 

Of course their are members of all religions who don't practice their faith and a person born Quaker who no longer practices that faith might well decide that he or she will fight.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Dogwalker (May 23, 2013)

Hitler voluntereed in WWI, and was wounded by a bayonet in the belly. Mussolini, as a newspaper director, was one of the main supporter of Italy's entry in WWI, then voluntereed, and was wounded by an hand grenade. Both, after, used their servicing as a propaganda tool (both fascism and nazism started as movements of ex-combatants that believed to have not been well rewarded for their servicing).
In ancient Rome, to have a military command as a pro-consul was a must in a political career, and often ambitious pro-consuls did so to have to fight a war, or sedate a rebellion, to achieve fame.
Having served, or having to serve, does not guarantee anything, nor the search of negotiated solutions, nor the mental sanity.


----------



## pattle (May 23, 2013)

I have often heard that a good sized number of American's of German decent went to fight for Germany but I have no idea of the numbers or the facts behind this. As far as the British are concerned as mentioned in a previous post there was an attempt to recruit a British SS unit similar to the ones created in the occupied countries, but only a very small amount of British POW's (under 50 I think) were attracted to this and nearly all of these either did it just for the food or were under duress. I have also heard that there were some British servicemen who crossed into the Irish Republic to avoid the war but again I have no idea about the facts of this. Britain also had a number of double and triple agents one of who Agent Zig Zag was awarded the iron cross. Although off topic I have also heard that after the war the Russian's refused to return British and American prisoners of war under their care until the British agreed to handover to them captured Eastern European members of the German armed forces, some Allied prisoners are said to have been sent to Gulags by the Russians. 
My father remembers the Italian Prisoners of war well, he tells me that he and his friends used to play football with them and that they were a good crowd who were happy to be in England. I understand that this was later in the war when the Italians were given brown uniforms with orange diamonds on the backs and used as farm labourers, they were allowed to live away from camps and given a fair amount of freedom. Although the British were not supposed to fraternise with them they often got to know them on a personal level and many stayed after the war. I remember working with two old boys during the 80's and even though they spoke with strong Italian accents they hated being called Italian's, they would angrily say "Italy gave me nothing only war, I am British now". 
I know the Italians gained a reputation for cowardice following their mass surrenders in North Africa but I believe this to be unfair. The way I see the Italians is that there came a point where the majority of them realised they were being expected to fight and die for the wrong reasons and that when this point was reached they decided to either join the Allies or become prisoners of war. I have absolutely no Italian blood in me and no Italian bias in me by the way.


----------



## CobberKane (May 23, 2013)

Sorry Greg, gotta disagree. On the one hand you re saying it's okay for people to disagree with you, on the other you are saying they should be compelled to do what you think is right. How can you reconcile those views? 
Great things have been achieved by men willing men to fight for what they beleive in, including the establishment of the worlds longest standing democracy. And great things have also been achieved by men who have had the courage not to fight, including the establishment of the world's most populous democracy - and also the recent emancipation of millions of your own countrymen, who in WWII were denied the right to take up arms in defence of a country they might have considered themselves to have good reason to turn their backs on.


----------



## GregP (May 23, 2013)

Hi Cobber,

People will do whatever they do and that's fine. I wish the law were diffrent but it isn't, so they are fine doing what they do. If the law were changed, then it would be a different story. Right now, we follow the law as it stands. If it changed, we'd likely do the same.

People don't have to agree, but I would insist they follow the law if I were in charge. I'm not.

There is no contradiction there. I'd wager MOST people might change a law or two if they magically were put in charge. Doesn't happen to many people. Only people like Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, etc. Dictators.

I might wish for a few things but I have no desire to be a dictator in real life. The world is screwed up enough without me adding to it.

By the way, just for the record, we are NOT a democracy. We are a representative Republic. A real democracy is way too unwieldly to respond quickly to anything.

Courage not to fight? I think rather the opposite. I might choose not to fight in a poilice action but, when war was declared, it was required to fight for able-bodied men in WWII. Those who didn't were persecuted rather justly in my view. Disagreement with that is OK. Doesn't and won't change my view.

This thread is about shirkers and defectors. Instead of challenging me, why don't you post your own view and justify it or don't as you see fit? You will NOT change the way I think, but I am interested in the way YOU think. Exchange of differing views seems to be the point, unless I miss the intent of the thread. If so, then I have nothing to add.

Everyone thinks how they think for a reason or reasons. Usually, that's why people ask about things like what we think of shirkers and defectors ... to find out what others think. OK, I shared my views. Share yours. 

What would YOU do with shirkers and defectors? Nothing?


----------



## Milosh (May 23, 2013)

If there was no shirkers there would be no one to build the weapons of war and deliver those weapons to those that used those weapons.


----------



## CobberKane (May 23, 2013)

My own opinion is that compelling anyone to fight is a bad idea for one big reason: it creates a system where whoever has their has their hands on the levers can use the apparatus of the state to force it citizens to fight in I'll-conceived and futile wars.
The US conscripted for Veit Nam. To a lot of people at the time it was apparent that this was a bad war. Maybe that was why there were a few escape clauses for anyone socially advantaged enough to access them. Australia did like wise. New Zealand sent only proffesionals. 
In WWII the USA conscripted, as did NZ. Australia didn't - it was tried but howled down by the populace, who still remembered the carnage of unquestioning obedience from twenty five years earlier. None the less, Australians volunteered in droves. Maybe it was seen as a more justifiable war.
Personally, with the benefit of hindsight, if some had told me I had to go to Viet Nam I would have told them to f - off. Not going, not making guns and bombs for you. Give me a job in veterans rehabilitation. I'd have done it for free, seeing as the power system that ordered those guys off did f - all for them when they came back in pieces.


----------



## GregP (May 23, 2013)

Interesting Cobber, and not without merit.

Milosh, I could be wrong but people who are building things in support of a declared war effort don't seem to be shirking their duty. I was thinking "shirkers" was intended to encompass those who don't want to serve in any capacity at home or abroad, and who left the country to avoid the draft when we had it or who deserted. They wanted to live here but didn't want to contribute anything. I can understand not wanting to serve in a police action like Viet Nam, but feel that avoiding service in a declared war would be a very different story.

The US doesn't declare war lightly and hasn't since WWII, so it doesn't come up all that often.

Perhaps the author of the thread was thinking as you indicate above, I don't know.


----------



## pattle (May 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> Interesting Cobber, and not without merit.
> 
> Milosh, I could be wrong but people who are building things in support of a declared war effort don't seem to be shirking their duty. I was thinking "shirkers" was intended to encompass those who don't want to serve in any capacity at home or abroad, and who left the country to avoid the draft when we had it or who deserted. They wanted to live here but didn't want to contribute anything. I can understand not wanting to serve in a police action like Viet Nam, but feel that avoiding service in a declared war would be a very different story.
> 
> ...



The introduction to this thread read like the author was interested to hear what people knew of Allied servicemen that either did a runner to a neutral country or surrendered prematurely to avoid fighting, for me it didn't read like he was opening up a debate on conscientious objectors or draft dodgers. 
As this topic has moved in the general direction of conscientious objectors and draft dodgers I will make the comment that I see two separate groups of people here, one which avoids service out of concern for others and another that avoids service out of self preservation, I believe that these two motives are the opposite of one another. I think however that conscientious objectors sometimes need to ask themselves how much they are prepared to allow others to suffer in order to keep their own consciences clean.


----------



## Njaco (May 23, 2013)

> ....None the less, Australians volunteered in droves.....



Might be that Australia had a serious concern about being invaded by japan?


----------



## gumbyk (May 23, 2013)

Njaco said:


> Might be that Australia had a serious concern about being invaded by japan?



Nah, this was before the war in the Pacific started. IIRC, Australia had real problems when they tried to pull troops from the ETO to serve in the Pacific, and defend their own homeland.


----------



## mhuxt (May 23, 2013)

pattle said:


> The introduction to this thread read like the author was interested to hear what people knew of Allied servicemen that either did a runner to a neutral country or surrendered prematurely to avoid fighting, for me it didn't read like he was opening up a debate on conscientious objectors or draft dodgers.
> As this topic has moved in the general direction of conscientious objectors and draft dodgers I will make the comment that I see two separate groups of people here, one which avoids service out of concern for others and another that avoids service out of self preservation, I believe that these two motives are the opposite of one another. I think however that conscientious objectors sometimes need to ask themselves how much they are prepared to allow others to suffer in order to keep their own consciences clean.


 
Good post. The "conscies" don't seem to have had it easy in either of the World Wars, though I believe they earned a good deal of respect by the end. As for asking themselves how much they were willing to allow others to suffer, it's worth noting that the most successful Mossie night-fighter pilot began the war as a conscie.


----------



## muscogeemike (May 23, 2013)

pattle said:


> The introduction to this thread read like the author was interested to hear what people knew of Allied servicemen that either did a runner to a neutral country or surrendered prematurely to avoid fighting, for me it didn't read like he was opening up a debate on conscientious objectors or draft dodgers.
> As this topic has moved in the general direction of conscientious objectors and draft dodgers I will make the comment that I see two separate groups of people here, one which avoids service out of concern for others and another that avoids service out of self preservation, I believe that these two motives are the opposite of one another. I think however that conscientious objectors sometimes need to ask themselves how much they are prepared to allow others to suffer in order to keep their own consciences clean.



Thanks, you are right I was not seeking info on C.O.'s. I don’t really have a problem with real C.O.’s, probably even respect them for standing up for their beliefs and, as has been pointed out, many went into harms way - they just didn’t carry weapons.

But I also believe that pacifism can’t exist unless others protect them, the bad guys would destroy them as would some “good guys” too. Christian’s have been every bit as bad as Muslim’s - and would be again if allowed.

I find it interesting that the wars of my generation (VN, Granada, Panama, the first Gulf War) are dissected with not regard to offending servicemen yet ask about the “Greatest Generation” and, for some, things get touchy.

There were over two hundred allied aircraft interned in Sweden alone, I find it very hard to swallow that some didn’t get there for personal reasons.


----------



## mhuxt (May 23, 2013)

There is a book called "Making for Sweden", which might throw some light on it. There were around 13 Mossies which ditched in Sweden, most after having been damaged over the Baltic, though I think one limped there from Berlin after being hit by flak.

The only aircraft I'm aware of which fled/defected to Sweden were Luftwaffe aircraft near the end of the war.

Don't know if you speak Swedish, but there's also a book called "Noedlandning" which chronicles both Allied and Axis aircraft which came down in Sweden.


----------



## altsym (May 23, 2013)

Horst Petzschler landed in Sweden. Low fuel/Nav error iirc.


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2013)

Intersting subject. A few observations. During WWI, there were just 309 recorded cases of desertion in the British Army. There were very few cases in the Australian Army, though I could not find an actual number. After the boer War, Australia legislated to make it illegal for British jstice to be meted out on Australian Sevice people. that followed the execution of Breaker Morant by the British, against the express wishes of the Austalian Government. Most in Australia did not believe Morant should have been executed. Most believeed he was one of the last "political executions", because Morant had attempted to implicate Kitchener in the civilian murders.

Almost imedialtely following this controversy, the Australian Government outlawed military executions. AFAIK there have been no military capital punishments meted out by military courts since before WWI. ill stand corrected on that if anyo has any contrary information.

The Australians fought the entire WWI with an all volunteer army, which gained an exceptional number of distinctions. There were never enough men available in the all volunteer force to fill all the billets, and Billy Hughes (WWI Aussie PM) took the matter to referendum in 1917, strongly advocating military conscription. It was heavily defeated. Interestingly a greater proportion of the troops in the field were opposed to conscription....bean believed that attitude arose because having a "choco" (chocolate soldier....someone who melts under the heat of battle) covering your back, as opposed to a volunteer, who was thought more relaible. 

Conscription with limited overseas deployment did occur in WWII and (controversially) in Vietnam. The WWII expereience showed no reall disbenefit to the conscripts fighting in the jungle, thoughthe headliners remained the all volunteer AIF. In vietnam, there were definite reliability issues, but none really serious, some of the "Regs" I knew did have a bias against the few conscripts ("nashos") that saw active service over there. It proved a massively devisive issue for the country, and the effects of that dispute still haunt the Australian political scene and cultural consciousness.

Volunteers have a reputation of being more motivated, stretching all the way back to the Spartans and thermopylae. In our generation, the intereaction between the largely conscript Argentinian forces and the largely volunteer British forces at Flklands, and again the largely US volunteer forces and the largely conscript Iraqi forces during desert storm goes a long way to illustrating why volunteer forces are favoured over conscript forces. Its probably an unfair conclusion to draw, I think, but there you have it.


----------



## GregP (May 24, 2013)

The US Army and Navy had no issues with conscripts. Maybe because they mostly knew when they were to get out. We didnlt hold people longer than their exit date and they got benefits after service to help with school and a few other things.

The issue came to a head in Viet Nam and the draft was stopped. It should not have been by the wish of many, but was due to politics. So be it. It may rise to the top again sometime. You never know.

Though I personally believe military service to be a good thing, there are those who are just not team players. Tough to know the right course and I'm glad I won't be deciding it.


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2013)

I know where you are coming from Greg. When we next get the white knuckle national emergenecy that requires a great many to make huge sacrifices....how many loser "Ichoose not to fight" drop kicks are going to show themselves. In times of national emergency there has to be a level of national discipline, and that sometimes manifests itself in the draft.

But the exceptional performances in history....the guard, the AIF, SAS, the Spartans, and so many others are volunteers. Doesnt mean that the conscripts arent capable, just that the volunteers forces have a bit of a headstart sometimes.


----------



## GregP (May 24, 2013)

Probably true and I have no issue with a volunteer military ... unless there aren't enough volunteers. Then conscription would be necessary for national survival. I'm talking about a declared war, not a police action.

There aren't many so it should not be an issue maybe for some generations, but it certainly COULD come up sometime for any nation.


----------



## altsym (May 24, 2013)

You happen to live in country 'A', most of your family lives in country 'B'. One day 'A' goes to war with 'B' and your drafted. Would you be willing to drop bombs, or shoot guns knowing that your family in 'B' could be killed, so would you fight for country 'A'? Refuse to fight? Defect?


----------



## GregP (May 24, 2013)

I'll say it this way: If you live in a nation and won't fight for it if it declares war, why should they let you live there? Of course assuming you are of the right age and physical capabilities.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'll say it this way: If you live in a nation and won't fight for it if it declares war, why should they let you live there? Of course assuming you are of the right age and physical capabilities.



What are the reasons for declaring war? If someone does not believe in the reasons, why should they fight? That does not mean they don't love their country. That also does not mean they won't support their country. 

My wife for instance is German, a legal immigrant and green card holder that lives here in the US. She contributes to society. She is however not a US citizen. I would never expect her to support a war with Germany or even go to war against Germany. 

Does that mean she should not be allowed to live here? 

Forcing someone to serve, in order to be a citizen, is tyrannical. Period. It is Un-American. 

And yes it is contradicting. To say that the US is a country where people can have differing opinions, morals and values, but say that they have to serve in order to be a citizen of that country, basically is saying that you can only have the right to have differing opinions, morals and values if you have served. 

That is how I see it at least, and in my opinion as a veteran, I served in order to allow people to have those different opinions, morals and values. As well as the right to choose what they wish to do, whether they wish to serve. 

You of course are entitled to your different opinion of this subject. I can also say, thank god you are not the person that makes these decisions for our country. I could not support something like that. It goes against my beliefs as an American.

On another note. 

Volunteer Army > Draft Army

Any day of the week. Volunteers serves for many different reasons, but many serve because they want to. A person who does not want to, but does because he is forced to is not someone I want to have covering me.


----------



## DonL (May 24, 2013)

> I'll say it this way: If you live in a nation and won't fight for it if it declares war, why should they let you live there? Of course assuming you are of the right age and physical capabilities.



You should rethink this and one very good example is my country between 1933-1945.
Everybody/every Nation in the World today, would expect (quite rightly) from the most of the german citizen, that they don't fight, if some stupid politican or dictator would do something similar then Mr. Hitler.
And I'm not talking about the Holocaust, I'm only talking about to be agressive and declare war to the neighbours.


----------



## GregP (May 24, 2013)

We have different opinions and they will never be brought together. That's OK since the current laws support your views and not mine. I accept that easily.

If it changes, then circumstances might conspire so as to make things different. When war is declared, the situation gets pretty muddy for some. Not for me. Either way, we have what we have and we all must live with it. 

Let's say we disagree and let it go at that. I still restore WWII aircraft and that is fun for me. If war comes, we'll see. I hope it doesn't. People die in war and that is mostly not necessary if the politicians do their homework. If not ... it gets ugly.

I hope your German wife can cook traditional German foods ... I'd love to share some Sauerbratten! Cheers to you, Der Adler. We may not agree on this one, but that doesn't mean we can't share many other opinions of greater import. The U.S.A. hasn't decalred war since Dec 1941 so it's not all that important in the scheme of things.


----------



## Dogwalker (May 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Volunteers have a reputation of being more motivated, stretching all the way back to the Spartans and thermopylae. In our generation, the intereaction between the largely conscript Argentinian forces and the largely volunteer British forces at Flklands, and again the largely US volunteer forces and the largely conscript Iraqi forces during desert storm goes a long way to illustrating why volunteer forces are favoured over conscript forces. Its probably an unfair conclusion to draw, I think, but there you have it.


The war selects his manpower. WWI and WWII were the wars of mass industrialization. The fordism of the war.
In WWI, with the tactics employed, which rarely differed from the frontal assault in mass, and the vast majority of caualities from artillery and machineguns, there were not a real advantage in using volunteers over conscripts. Volunteers were useful in particular tasks, but was not thinkable to fight the entire war only with them. 
In WWII things were a little different, and we sometimes saw numerical inferior forces of higly motivated and better trained units to handle numerically superior forces, but, in the end, the production capability made the difference, and it was necessary the mass of men to bring the industrial production to the enemy.
Today, the equipment, and the training to use it, makes the difference, but even the richest countries haven't the money to equip and train an army of conscripts (intending whit this, an army of all the youngs phisically able) to an high standard. So there is a choice. Or an army of well armed volunteers, or an army of mass conscripts more or less armed like one of WWII, and destined to be cannon fodder in a modern war (IE the Iraqi army), or an army of conscripts but where the call to arms is like a lottery with little possibilities to really have to serve (so, those who will be chosen, will have a further disadvantage when, left the military, will embark on a new career).
In the end, the choice is almost inevitable.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 24, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> On another note.
> 
> Volunteer Army > Draft Army
> 
> Any day of the week. Volunteers serves for many different reasons, but many serve because they want to. A person who does not want to, but does because he is forced to is not someone I want to have covering me.



Draft armies does not necessarily mean unmotivated. I could bring you a thousand examples - Napoleon's armies were largely drafted, Hitler's armies were largely drafted, Nelson fought with people who were press ganged into the Navy. Doesn't seem to me that any of them was an unmotivated force...

Volunteer armies only have a tradition and (IMHO false) nimbus in Anglo Saxon culture countries, largely because they are all protected by a sea barrier and traditionally/typically fought only small wards. In the Franco-Prussian tradition of drafted armies the rest of the world follows is more suited for larger wars or to defend against suddenly emerging threats (because a large body of _trained _men is always available in a few days notice).


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2013)

The war selects his manpower. WWI and WWII were the wars of mass industrialization. The fordism of the war.




> In WWI, with the tactics employed, which rarely differed from the frontal assault in mass, and the vast majority of caualities from artillery and machineguns, there were not a real advantage in using volunteers over conscripts. Volunteers were useful in particular tasks, but was not thinkable to fight the entire war only with them.



This is somewhat true, but the gneralisation makes the whole position incorrect. The experiences to 1917 support this notion, but mostly because of brailess tactics and methods. After 1917, both the allies and the central powers worked out methods and tactical concepts that broke that deadlock, but at the heart of the success of both sides was the idea that elan, initiative and good tactical leadership could break the deadlock and lead the assault. The Germans were first to lead off with the Stosstruppen and Von Hutier tactics. The allies also used similar tactics in the finish, adding tanks and Monash's integrated warfare theories to implement their 100 days offensives. These are not "the same tactics and methods....they were very different in fact to that which preceded it. These modern tactics form the basis of modern fire and movement tactics to this day. 

Volunteer formations for both sides were in fact instyrumental in breaking the deadlocks that gripped the major fronts of the war. That is not just "useful", they proved absolutely critical to breaking the stalemate. 



> In WWII things were a little different, and we sometimes saw numerical inferior forces of higly motivated and better trained units to handle numerically superior forces, but, in the end, the production capability made the difference, and it was necessary the mass of men to bring the industrial production to the enemy.




The production bases of the allies was a critical factor, but it was also a war of management systems, and in this the Axis fell down badly. if it was just a war of materiel, the germans should have won, since they had the second strongest economy in the world before the war, and the strongest, in the beginning was totally uninterested in the war. It ended up being a war of getting the resources, and then using them in a targetted intelligent way. In a tactical sense, both the Germans and the Japanese were extremely good at getting the most of what they had. in a strategic sense they both sucked. 



> Today, the equipment, and the training to use it, makes the difference, but even the richest countries haven't the money to equip and train an army of conscripts (intending whit this, an army of all the youngs phisically able) to an high standard. So there is a choice. Or an army of well armed volunteers, or an army of mass conscripts more or less armed like one of WWII, and destined to be cannon fodder in a modern war (IE the Iraqi army), or an army of conscripts but where the call to arms is like a lottery with little possibilities to really have to serve (so, those who will be chosen, will have a further disadvantage when, left the military, will embark on a new career).
> In the end, the choice is almost inevitable.




Until the 1990 revoltion, the Soviets had an army, fully or mostly mechanized numbering the hundreds of divisions. the PLA is still fielding about 500 divs. Thats a mass army that is also equipped to a modern TO&E. its only in the west, where manpower is very expensive, that armies have been pared back to just about nothing. Thats not that different to 1939.....when the US Army had about 8 divs ready, and the British, before the mobilzation of their reserves, had about 2 divs combat ready.


----------



## CobberKane (May 24, 2013)

Far to often the call to fight for your country actually means fight for the cause adopted by your ruler - two very different things. Given that the primary reason put forth for the war proved wrong, aren't those who served in Iraq, or the families of those who died there, entitled to ask if they were serving their country or their politicians? 
Unfortunately, young men have always been too susceptible to rhetoric, and when that isn't enough there is always conscription. In the right amounts patriotism is a wonderful thing, but as Samuel Jackson pointed out, it is also the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Nor law nor duty bade me fight
Nor public men or cheering crowds
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds


----------



## Dogwalker (May 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> This is somewhat true, but the gneralisation makes the whole position incorrect. The experiences to 1917 support this notion, but mostly because of brailess tactics and methods.


Those were the tactics and those were the methods. It has little sense to say "what if" the tactics and methods were different. They were not. 
When I told of _"Volunteers were useful in particular tasks"_ I referred in particular to Stosstruppen, or the Arditi, or similar tasks. Hovever, want you to call them "useful" or "critical", even post 1917 was not thinkable to fight a war only with them. 



parsifal said:


> The production bases of the allies was a critical factor, but it was also a war of management systems,


Could be, but I do not think that has to do a lot in the present discussion.



parsifal said:


> Until the 1990 revoltion, the Soviets had an army, fully or mostly mechanized numbering the hundreds of divisions.


And the enormous expenses for the maintenance and refurbishment of these, were one of the main causes of the fall.
Since the cost of labor in China is still low and the economy is growing (a situation similar to that of the western countries in the '50s), the PLA can still have a massive army, but given that wages are still growing, and the working conditions are improving, it's just a matter of time until the soldiers, even there, begin to cost too much.


----------



## altsym (May 24, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'll say it this way: If you live in a nation and won't fight for it if it declares war, why should they let you live there? Of course assuming you are of the right age and physical capabilities.



Greg,

I respect what your saying, but you also sidestepped the question. What would you do in regards to post #46?


----------



## GregP (May 24, 2013)

I wasn't sidestepping. I already answered it. I would fight for my country and did in Viet Nam when the war wasn't popular here. I would not attack my extended family, but would otherwise serve. Since I'm over military service age now, it won't come up for me most likely. When it did, I made my choice and lived with it.

I also think that families living in two countries probably communicate when relations betweeen the two countries get strained and many times know what the others will be doing. I am aware of 4 or 5 cases like that in WWII via friends. They say most famlies in that situation knew where the others were and what theyt would do in the event hostilities broke out. Not always, but more often than not.

It is likely that we can come up with extenuating circumnstances that would alter what we would do in a wartime situation. I made my choices when I signed up and did not perform illegal activities in Viet Nam. I did participate in military operations but would have declined illegal orders. It didn't come up, so I didn't have to take a stand contrary to orders.


----------



## altsym (May 24, 2013)

I appreciate your answer. IF it was me about to attack a village in country 'B' where I know for a fact my family is still there, I would not. And take my
punishment, I would probably help 'my family, the enemy'. It doesn't mean that I don't love my country where I'm living however.

I suspect most 'defectors' motives were similar (whether family/fellow countrymen etc), and I don't blame them one bit.

Cheers


----------



## GregP (May 24, 2013)

Well it would be a boring world if we all thought the same, wouldn't it?

I appreciate your opinion, too. We don't have to agree and the choices are tough ones ... they aren't called tough choices for nothing.

I like to think there is always a way to avoid war, but sometimes there just isn't, particularly if you are attacked without warning.


----------



## Balljoint (May 24, 2013)

Loyalties at the outbreak of WWII were often more to philosophies than country, particularly to communism or fascism. After WWI great cynicism attached to national chauvinism. This was particularly true in France which raised probably Hitler’s most fanatical unit–SS I believe. However, Churchill also noted the increase in support he got after Barbarossa. Those out of phase with the national cause often are wrongheaded but hardly shirkers. Shirkers are a different class.

Since booty and exploited colonies have gone out of style, war is hardly a winning proposition even for the winner. However, it’s an excellent means for a leader to gain power and allegiance. Thus when a following of unsophisticated adherents are motivated to aggression –fairly easy to do with an asymmetrical conflict- those threatened join in and often escalate the situation. It’s difficult to distinguish between a reasonable response to aggression and escalation. That makes duty a tricky, perhaps subjective, concept.


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> ...Don't know if you speak Swedish, but there's also a book called "Noedlandning" which chronicles both Allied and Axis aircraft which came down in Sweden.



In fact there are a series of 3 books on the subject, see: Bokförlaget Air Historic Research on the right column the 3 uppermost.

Juha


----------



## altsym (May 24, 2013)

Here to for aircraft that landed in Sweden:

Forcedlanding Collection - FLC


----------



## mhuxt (May 25, 2013)

altsym said:


> Here to for aircraft that landed in Sweden:
> 
> Forcedlanding Collection - FLC



Thanks for that link, it's got some excellent pics of Mossies I'd not seen before. I have been able to reconcile the entries there with my Mossie loss database - I tend to attribute losses to a cause where known, so I had some of those ones down as lost to flak, as opposed to landed in Sweden.

The pics of PZ164 are of interest to me, since they demonstrate that 487 Squadron, which at that time was normally operating at night with shrouded exhausts, had fitted stub exhausts for an extra turn of speed for the raid on the Aarhus Gestapo building.

For what it's worth to the OP, here's the misadventure the crew went through. Note they were returned to the U.K. a couple of weeks later:

"31.10.1944 Bombing Gestapo Headquarter 487 to Aarhus DK from Thorney Island belly landed and burnt. Harplinge, Halmstad, Sweden 1245 (Nöd). W/C Thomas ok, F/L Humphry- Baker ok, Crew interned and returned to UK in November 44 For the "Department of Useless Information" I provide, below, the MI.9 report of W/C William Lewis Thomas, DSO, DFC, who force-landed in Sweden 1 November 1944. His report was based on interviews of 25 November 1944, jointly with his navigator, one F/L Humphrey-Baker (probably Peter Rodney Humphrey-Baker, DFC).

There are several interesting elements here, such as the rather humorous escape attempt by Thomas and the obvious confusion over the duties of the British Consul at Gothenburg. However, the most striking thing here is the mention of W/C Thomas - a temporarily interened office - being engaged in the ferrying of a PRU Mosquito within Sweden. One would have thought that any such aircraft, if still operational, would have been interned as well.

"We took off from Thorney Island at 0700 hours on 1 November 1944 in a Mosquito aircraft. We landed at Swanton Morley to refuel, taking off on our mission which was to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters at Aarhus, Denmark at 0930 hours.

"We had released our bombs and as we passed over the target at 100 feet the bombs which had been released by a preceding aircraft exploded. Our aircraft was damaged and we were forced to feather the starboard propeller. We therefore followed briefing instructions and orders from the formation leaser and flew to Sweden.

"We landed in a field near the village of Harplinge, near Halmstadt, Sweden and burned the aircraft. A policeman held us until the Army authorities arrived. We were then taken to Halmstadt and billeted at the Grand Hotel under armed guard. An interrogation was attempted but was not pressed.

"On 2 November we were taken to Faulin via Gothenburg. At Gothenburg we escaped from our escort with the idea of reaching the British Consul. (We had been given to understand at the Squadron that if we could reach the British Consul in a neutral country we would be repatriated immediately.

"Wing Commander Thomas

"I ran from the brightly lighted railway station at Gothenburg into a dark square. Running accross the square I jumped over a low chain. In mid air I realised that I had jumped out over a canal but it was too late to do anything about it. I fell 15 feet into the water and was pulled out and recaptured by the escort, police and civilians.

"F/L Humphrey-Baker

"I had been running just behind W/C Thomas and when he disappeared I realised his mistake and turned to one side just in time. I continued on and reached the British Consul, who immediately turned me over to the police, where I rejoined W/C Thomas. We were then taken to Falun together.

"On 3 November we were billeted at the Solliden Pensionat Hotel and we were kept there until 14 November. During that time W/C Thomas ferried a PRU Mosquito from Malmo to Linkaping at the request of the Air Attache. On 14 November we went to Stockholm to be repatriated. On 23 November we were sent to the UK by air."
(http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3869) Damaged by blast from bombs Aarhus and failed to return 31.10.44 (Air Britain Serials)"


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2013)

My father was a CO at the start of WW2 having been was engaged to a german. He actually wanted to stay with her but the family urged him to leave and he left Germany three days before war broke out. He stayed a CO until 1941 when he became fed up with people using it as a way of avoiding danger and joined the Army serving in the RAMC.
By the time the war finished he was an RSM which for a CO must be something of a record and was close to where the family lived. He was able to visit the family and by good fortune they had all survived. The brother was a POW in Italy, she had met and married someone else during the war and had a daughter. 

On his army records, his joining as 'being deemed to have been conscripted'


----------



## GregP (May 25, 2013)

What is RAMC and RSM (I assume Royal Sergeant Major)?


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2013)

Regimental Sergeant Major.


----------



## pattle (May 25, 2013)

Grep P, RAMC is Royal Army Medical Corps. 
Leonard Cheshire the famous Victoria Cross holding RAF pathfinder and bomber pilot became a pacifist after witnessing the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki whilst flying as an observer in a B29. He spent the rest of his life helping the sick and founded a number of hospices but I can not remember if Cheshire's change of attitude made him regret his actions during World War Two, my understanding from reading his book Leonard Cheshire VC is that even though he believed that war was wrong there is still a need for self defence.


----------



## drgondog (May 25, 2013)

Interesting discussion touching on philosophical perspectives about the role of man within his belief structure... which more often than not is shaped by the beliefs of those around him and the political infrastructure of his country of residence.

For me, shaped by the political framework framed by the US Constitution and the role assumed by America immediately post WWII, I have formed my own opinions which I accept are not Universal Truths.

If, as an American, you hold the Constitution dear (you folks of the Commonwealth and the Empire and others are not so inclined) then you must recognize that all able bodied 'men' between the ages of 18 and 45 are 'militia' in a time of crisis, obligated to be armed and ready to be incorporated into regulated units - the foundation of the legal draft. The practice and the political divisions that exist today obscure that obligation. Further, we do not have the political will to keep our noses out of global conflicts and send our volunteer militia to various hell holes to serve one political objective or another - usually in the name of preserving 'democracy'.

Our politicians have no compunction to consider being the 'point of the spear' whenever they send our 'militia' so the only skin they have in the game is political consequences when they vote to authorize a deployment. I would change that - and require that every Congressman designate a replacement 'for the duration plus a day' and immediately place them under command of the nearest military authority to be assigned any duties they may be fit for..

Our troops are now equivalent to the Roman Legions in that they are not civilians until the glass shield over the War switch is broken. They are now professional warriors choosing of a military career of operating within the political structure of the Joint Chiefs. Each swears an oath to uphold our Constitution and protects It (not the President, not 'America') from all enemies foreign and domestic. Each must navigate 'correctly' between the shoals of 'performance' and 'political requirements' for continuation of career and service.

We have not declared a War since December 8, 1945 yet we deploy our blood to every hot spot on this planet to spill (and spill others that do not give a tinker's damn about our Constitution or our righteousness and belief that we know what is good and proper for all. Yet Congress is only authority to declare War. That we routinely deploy and enter into armed conflict without a declaration of War is in my opinion a violation of Section 8. Libya is a huge illustration. 

Our warriors survive their career to receive pensions based on achievement and commendation - but are subordinate to the politics of command during their career... in an environment that does not encourage 'radical or non-conforming beliefs'. Practically speaking, no armed force may function smoothly and efficiently with a host of free thinkers in the ranks. Therefore the quality of a military force staffed by conscripts is dubious.

When the draft existed our armed forces were integrated with professionals and civilian militia - many of which did not want to be there, a few who would question everything, and a few that would thoughtfully ask 'Why' when stupidity prevailed.

To the point of my ramble.

I have watched careers of dedicated professionals stalled or ruined when they didn't 'go along to get along' in their devotion to doing things in a better way relative to the job - namely killing the guys they were sent to kill while losing the fewest of their comrades - and getting out of dodge. The awareness first started in Vietnam era but I have made that observation as our warriors transitioned from Citizen Soldiers led by professionals to professionals led by managers and politicians in many instances at O-6 and above - Particularly Above.

I am of the opinion that:
1. We do not embark offshore without total commitment and NATIONAL resolve that a crisis threatening our Constitutional Republic's existence is upon us.
2. That every Citizen 18-45 be integrated in some form of 'milita' Reserve whether as a medic, a rifleman, a clerk typist, engineer and that such Voluntary service, as a civilian operating within a Reserve infrastructure for contingency military training, is a requisite to have voting rights and eligibility to serve in elected leadership capacity. Such Voluntary service in Governmental supervised activities as Peace Corps also qualifies for those CO's as exist. This 'militia' would report to the Governors of the States and service in this reserve expires after two years, unless and until called to active duty in the National Emergency, whereupon the 'militia' would be subordinate to the CIC and integrated into US Military command structure.. 
3. That the Commander in Chief NEVER be permitted to deploy troops to another country without explicit majority vote of approval of Congress within 30 days of notice from CiC that such deployment is necessary and argue personally in the Well of Congress for such deployment. Further, that such deployment as granted, may not continue unless War is declared.
4. That our DoD leadership be subject to anonymous 360 degree performance review by our troops, such survey to be conducted by an outside civilian agency reporting to the President and presented to Congress annually prior to selection and approval of all General officers presented by military promotions board..


----------



## pattle (May 25, 2013)

[If, as an American, you hold the Constitution dear (you folks of the Commonwealth and the Empire and others are not so inclined) 

I must ask you what exactly you mean by this?


----------



## Timppa (May 25, 2013)

muscogeemike said:


> Joseph Heller (CATCH 22) couldn’t have been the only guy in WWII to think about it. Along the same lines does anybody know how many Allied soldiers/Sailors/Airmen went over to the Axis - and were any of them held accountable



If you consider Russians as allied, the number of allied defectors was about two to three magnitudes bigger than axis defectors. Vlasov's army consisted more than 100 battalions, and the other "Hilfswilliger" consisted hundred of thousands volunteers. They apparently considered Hitler's tyranny less evil than Stalin's.


----------



## drgondog (May 25, 2013)

pattle said:


> [If, as an American, you hold the Constitution dear (you folks of the Commonwealth and the Empire and others are not so inclined)
> 
> I must ask you what exactly you mean by this?



Not meant with any disrespect - simply It is Our code of Law - not yours


----------



## Balljoint (May 25, 2013)

drgondog said:


> I am of the opinion that:
> 1. We do not embark offshore without total commitment and NATIONAL resolve that a crisis threatening our Constitutional Republic's existence is upon us.
> 2. That every Citizen 18-45 be integrated in some form of 'milita' Reserve whether as a medic, a rifleman, a clerk typist, engineer and that such Voluntary service, as a civilian operating within a Reserve infrastructure for contingency military training, is a requisite to have voting rights and eligibility to serve in elected leadership capacity. Such Voluntary service in Governmental supervised activities as Peace Corps also qualifies for those CO's as exist. This 'militia' would report to the Governors of the States and service in this reserve expires after two years, unless and until called to active duty in the National Emergency, whereupon the 'militia' would be subordinate to the CIC and integrated into US Military command structure..
> 3. That the Commander in Chief NEVER be permitted to deploy troops to another country without explicit majority vote of approval of Congress within 30 days of notice from CiC that such deployment is necessary and argue personally in the Well of Congress for such deployment. Further, that such deployment as granted, may not continue unless War is declared.
> 4. That our DoD leadership be subject to anonymous 360 degree performance review by our troops, such survey to be conducted by an outside civilian agency reporting to the President and presented to Congress annually prior to selection and approval of all General officers presented by military promotions board..





Don’t agree entirely. What you describe is pretty much the US of WWII. After the war, Truman attempted to demobilize and return the country to civilian needs and control. He was cut off at the knees by Korea where a lot of blood was wasted due to being unprepared. With China and the Soviets involved on a shadow basis –until China was spooked by troops on her border-, formal war was reasonably viewed as leading to nuclear war. So a “police action” fiction was used to avoid escalation. Other than the fact that it worked it was a dumb idea. The guys on the line were put in a no-win situation. Still the losses were probably fewer than under Mac Arthur’s approach.

Whether by plan or default, Korea was in accord with Kennan’s Containment strategy for dealing with the Soviets. Their system wasn’t sustainable so just stress them and wait things out. It’s in this context that I –and probably only I- don’t view the Vietnam action as a lost war. The war was the Cold War and Nam was a lost campaign, like Corregidor. The Cold War whimpered away without a nuclear incident.

But, as you point out, corners were cut and the military took the dirty end of it. At least during a formal war there’s appreciation.

My view of the Constitution is that it limits government. Thus, except during times of extreme threat, years of involuntary servitude by citizens is not a citizen “duty”. Perhaps it’s time to revisit Truman’s stand down. The professional military then would be deployed only in circumstances of dire threat. And, if necessary, the militia could be called up. If Europe is an example, there would be few call ups and limited deployments.


----------



## pattle (May 25, 2013)

Depending on the circumstances any country would be forced to consider conscription, it ended in Britain about 1960 but I think the French, German's and Italians still have it and I know that the Greeks still do. I think the German's may use their conscripts more on social projects than training for war. Like somebody said earlier things have changed and it wouldn't be possible to drag millions of kids off the street and train them up like in past wars, no country could afford all the high tech weapons used today for a start. There seems to be a tradition of making the mistake of assuming that each war is going to be fought the same as the last, the truth is nobody knows what it will be like or even who it will be against. So many big companies have their money spread all other the world as well these days instead of just in their own countries like before, so war would be bad for business.


----------



## parsifal (May 25, 2013)

> If, as an American, you hold the Constitution dear (you folks of the Commonwealth and the Empire and others are not so inclined) then you must recognize that all able bodied 'men' between the ages of 18 and 45 are 'militia' in a time of crisis, obligated to be armed and ready to be incorporated into regulated units - the foundation of the legal draft.



Mostly I agree DG with you main post, but i have to rise and make a couple of observations. 

The British dont have a written constitution, but they have a very strong unwritten constitution that is every bit as powerful as the American Constitution, and as enforceable and defensible.And British are fierce in their defence of it. The difference that the English Constitution is firmly embedded in English Common Law....things like the right to a fair trial, the freedom of religion, the right of free men to vote, are not written down (or werent) but are as strongly defencible as anything in the US Consitution. The reason your founding fathers found it necessary to make a declaration, and then codify it, was because they wanted to preserve those inane human rights, and when they declared independance they placed those rights at risk. The Bill of Rights and the American Constitution is an affirmation of the continuation of English laws and freedoms. 

We do hold to those principals as strongly as any American, and in fact, moreso...... 

For Australia, we also made established our unification, unlike the Americans our Federation was done peacefully. But because we were still establishing our own self rule, and because we still wanted to preserve our British legal and liberty traditions, we also needed to write a constitution. Our constitution is admittedly more about preserving the rights of the states, and the relationships with the Feds,but it also includes declarations about human freedoms and inalienable rights. 

Because we won our rights to freedom by peaceful means, we dont hold our constitution as religiously as Americans. But we do hold to our rights and responsiblities to the and from the nation even more strongly than you guys. i say that from my year of exposure to US servicemen and civilians.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2013)

pattle said:


> Depending on the circumstances any country would be forced to consider conscription, it ended in Britain about 1960 but I think the French, German's and Italians still have it and I know that the Greeks still do. I think the German's may use their conscripts more on social projects than training for war. Like somebody said earlier things have changed and it wouldn't be possible to drag millions of kids off the street and train them up like in past wars, no country could afford all the high tech weapons used today for a start. There seems to be a tradition of making the mistake of assuming that each war is going to be fought the same as the last, the truth is nobody knows what it will be like or even who it will be against. So many big companies have their money spread all other the world as well these days instead of just in their own countries like before, so war would be bad for business.



The Germans stopped conscription 2 years ago.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 26, 2013)

By far the most well thought out post I have read in years, drgondog! Thank you for posting it.


----------



## yulzari (May 26, 2013)

Conscription also stopped in France years ago. Possibly after the Gulf War when it was realised that, out of a large army, only one light division was fit to send abroad, so the emphasis changed to a smaller professional army.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Mostly I agree DG with you main post, but i have to rise and make a couple of observations.
> 
> The British dont have a written constitution, but they have a very strong unwritten constitution that is every bit as powerful as the American Constitution, and as enforceable and defensible.And British are fierce in their defence of it. The difference that the English Constitution is firmly embedded in English Common Law....things like the right to a fair trial, the freedom of religion, the right of free men to vote, are not written down (or werent) but are as strongly defencible as anything in the US Consitution. The reason your founding fathers found it necessary to make a declaration, and then codify it, was because they wanted to preserve those inane human rights, and when they declared independance they placed those rights at risk. The Bill of Rights and the American Constitution is an affirmation of the continuation of English laws and freedoms.
> 
> ...



If our polls are to be believed, we are at a nexus point where a large percentage of our population do not truly understand, or particularly care, about both the Rights and the obligations inherent in our Constitution. Our Second Amendment and First Amendment and State Governments are the keys to holding an over reaching Federal Government at bay. 

IMO -You are watching an historical change in our history unfold today... and remember my views and opinions are my own.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2013)

Balljoint said:


> Don’t agree entirely. My view of the Constitution is that it limits government. Thus, except during times of extreme threat, years of involuntary servitude by citizens is not a citizen “duty”. Perhaps it’s time to revisit Truman’s stand down. The professional military then would be deployed only in circumstances of dire threat. And, if necessary, the militia could be called up. If Europe is an example, there would be few call ups and limited deployments.



The concept that Only professional military should be deployed is what bothers me the most. If our Constitution is sacred, then Everybody must have skin in the game in times of dire circumstances - I am so against perpetual deployment to extend our footprint based on our political leader's view of Pax Americana to bring Democracy to the World - without commitment of said politicians to sacrifices equivalent of those they send to far shores.

I am so angry at the Perfumed Princes at flag level rank making bean counter decisions regarding our crippled warriors after placing them in harm's way for obscure reasons NOT related to defense of the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am equally angry at politicians directing and tolerating multiple deployment of our citizens in ranks where there is no danger to our Republic. If you want to argue that we are in a war against terror, I would argue that nothing we are doing offshore with boots on the ground today is eliminating that threat - and we are creating a monster relative to the powers of the executive office with respect to abuse of the Bill of Rights.. think FISA, Patriot Act, NDAA and the abuses that emerge daily regarding treating citizens as 'political enemies'.


----------



## dobbie (May 26, 2013)

Some shirkers bother me more than others...John Wayne made millions making war films while taking a deferment. 
As opposed to folks like Jimmy Stewart who was rejected once because he was too skinny, so he "fattened up" and reapplied, ultimately retiring as a Brigadier General in the Air Force reserve.

I dont have an issue with defectors...if that is where their loyalties lie, then youre free to leave. Id rather you not come back.

I dont necessarily agree with some of the shirkers but I can understand some of their reasoning. Its one thing indeed when your country is attacked, yet quite another when its a politically motivated fight where we are losing people for a very ambigous strategy.

Most of it depends on what the fight is about, at least to me. That said, I enlisted in the Army when it was not popular to do so mainly because I saw good people that I personally knew going off to fight and some of them coming home in a box, many others wounded, and most of them trying to deal with the horror they had to deal with.

The wars we see now are not flag against flag, but ideals. Unconventional wars can be successfully fought, but it takes tenacity and the will of the people to see it to the end. There are a lot of folks asking honest questions about the WOT and not getting answers which will hold up to much scrutiny. Having the people at home behind the fight is absolutely vital.

The debate between professional armies and conscripted will go on forever. America fought WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam with consripts and the results are obivous to me that it depends more on what the fight is about, the strategic goals of the fight, and whether the folks back home can be convinced of its necessity. Whether or not the soldier is drafted or is a professional depends very much on the leadership as to their effectiveness.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 26, 2013)

I understand the value of a volunteer service and having served for 23 years in a mainly volunteer arm, do appreciate that it is generally more effective than a conscript military, but I disapprove of an all volunteer service for the very reasons delineated by drgondog. I think a country that allows some subset of its people to do its blood work is on a short road to tyranny probably in the form of a military coup. I consider an all volunteer force to be fundamentally undemocratic and as contrary to the nation's founding principles as forcing military service. Historically, it is my understanding that the all volunteer military was an outgrowth to some extent of the Vietnam experience and the fundamental cultural change in the attitude of the country toward military service. That shift could arguably be laid at the feet of politicians and military leaders. I think Drgondog is spot on when he implies that the existence of a volunteer military makes it easier for opportunistic politicians to abuse its use and preserves a tendency for detrimental careerism and conformism in military leadership. 

In a republican democracy every citizen should have skin in the game. I believe the right to vote and hold public office should be contingent upon having worked in some 'service' capacity making a contribution to the national welfare even if only at a local level and could include the professions of police officer, teacher, medic or perhaps even community development worker. It's not about a willingness to pick up a rifle and kill an enemy in my mind, but rather a willingness to make a communal sacrifice of your time and energy; not just during war time but as a matter of pride and principle. ironically, while I type this I can hear the report of automatic weapons from the firing ranges of Academi, the company formerly known as Xe and before that, Blackwater. The new sound of democracy in action.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2013)

Oldcrow - If I could have dropped 50 'likes' on your post I would have done so - maybe because we think too much alike - so our thoughts must be suspect in some way...

I know every dedicated warrior I have known framed his life on the questions - "what is best for the unit and those that I fight with" but always for the Republic.

Many, many left service after the bugles stopped - and many that labored on retired as Light and occasionally Bird Colonels for lack of correct brand of perfume and for occasionally reminding their CO that indeed their poo poo did not smell like lilacs..


----------



## buffnut453 (May 26, 2013)

What does being a republican democracy have to do with it? Do these comments not equally apply to other forms of democracy?


----------



## Balljoint (May 26, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The concept that Only professional military should be deployed is what bothers me the most. If our Constitution is sacred, then Everybody must have skin in the game in times of dire circumstances - I am so against perpetual deployment to extend our footprint based on our political leader's view of Pax Americana to bring Democracy to the World - without commitment of said politicians to sacrifices equivalent of those they send to far shores.
> 
> I am so angry at the Perfumed Princes at flag level rank making bean counter decisions regarding our crippled warriors after placing them in harm's way for obscure reasons NOT related to defense of the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am equally angry at politicians directing and tolerating multiple deployment of our citizens in ranks where there is no danger to our Republic. If you want to argue that we are in a war against terror, I would argue that nothing we are doing offshore with boots on the ground today is eliminating that threat - and we are creating a monster relative to the powers of the executive office with respect to abuse of the Bill of Rights.. think FISA, Patriot Act, NDAA and the abuses that emerge daily regarding treating citizens as 'political enemies'.




Maybe we’re a product of our times. I was part of the blessed cohort just a little too young for Korea and was aged out 10 to 12 years later when Viet Nam started to ramped up. Draftees cooled their heels doing nothing for 2 years. I signed up for the Air Guard, aced the aptitude test and passed the physical. They then called to say enlistments were frozen because of the Berlin Crisis. Never heard anything further. 

When I ran out of school money and started night classes I checked with my draft board to see when I might be called. I was told to not worry since they were more than meeting their quotas with guys asking that their number be called. When I got my degree the board gave me a critical skill deferment sans an employer request –actually a pass- since they didn’t need me and I was working on an administrative task dealing with the Sidewinder AtA. I have no faith that a bureaucrat is capable of usefully employing unneeded conscripted units whether in a military or civilian setting. So much has been done so poorly without reaching the objective of a reasonable peace that it makes me cynical of leadership and motivation. With an army sitting around doing nothing there’s a lower short term barrier to frivolously putting blood on the line.

The militia concept makes sense as a ready-if-needed reserve, i.e. state Guard units. However, these have a history of being thrown in ill prepared and poorly equipped. 

Memorial Day may not bring forth my most objective thinking. I make it a habit to surf the web to revisit a great kid I knew, Lt. John Anthony Prombo, Panel W33, line 81.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 26, 2013)

drgondog said:


> If our polls are to be believed, we are at a nexus point where a large percentage of our population do not truly understand, or particularly care, about both the Rights and the obligations inherent in our Constitution. Our Second Amendment and First Amendment and State Governments are the keys to holding an over reaching Federal Government at bay.
> 
> IMO -You are watching an historical change in our history unfold today... and remember my views and opinions are my own.



i wholeheartedly agree with this statement. the decisions made by our elected officials over the next several years are going to either steer us back on the road where we should be or to paradise lost...


----------



## pattle (May 26, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> What does being a republican democracy have to do with it? Do these comments not equally apply to other forms of democracy?


 I was thinking the same thing, in reality Britain is a republic in all but name as are the other Commonwealth states. The Queen is only really a figure head with similar authority to the German or Irish presidents whilst president in the American sense of the word seems to mean a substitute for an absolute monarch. In principle I am a republican myself but for reasons unknown to me the current system of the Prime Minister being The Leader of Her Majesties Government seems to work well enough for me not to want to tamper with it. I remember years ago my mother told me the Queen was there to keep an eye on the politicians for us and that is why we need the Queen. I think underneath politicians worry us all and that we need to feel that there is somebody keeping an eye on them who could sort them out for us should they over step the mark, perhaps this somebody is what America lacks? 
I hope everyone appreciates just how brave I was in writing that and anyway none of this has anything to do with the thread.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> What does being a republican democracy have to do with it? Do these comments not equally apply to other forms of democracy?



Buffnut - As I mentioned to Parsifal - my criticisms and comments are about us - not you, not Democrat People's Republic of China.. you have to make your own decisions relative to your form of representation and the embodiment of the inherent Rights of the People versus the Authority of your elected Representatives and Chief Executive... do not let my comments in any way represent anybody but myself..


----------



## gumbyk (May 26, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> What does being a republican democracy have to do with it? Do these comments not equally apply to other forms of democracy?



I was just thinking that myself.



> I think a country that allows some subset of its people to do its blood work is on a short road to tyranny probably in the form of a military coup.




That doesn't seem to have been borne out in other democratic countries that have not resorted to forced military (or any other) service.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 26, 2013)

gumbyk said:


> I was just thinking that myself.



Just referring to the USA and its governing system. My concerns are about my own government. Different countries have different means of preserving cultural values that keep their systems vital and working. I would argue that the USA, for many reasons, is undergoing cultural changes without the stabilizing influence of the commonwealth's long tradition or what history and/or cultural factors that perform a similar function in other countries. I see much cause for concern in my own country's future based on the rapid cultural changes occurring in my lifetime. Perhaps it's just an old man's jaundiced eye. 



gumbyk said:


> That doesn't seem to have been borne out in other democratic countries that have not resorted to forced military (or any other) service.



If you are happy with and see no problems in your own or other countries' future with its current and/or historical arrangement, then great. However, I think it's early days to make a case for the wisdom of citizenship as a simple birthright without some price to be paid. A free world is a very young and anomalous entity in the long view. What measures may preserve its perpetual freedom (assuming the unfree part eventually evolves to a state of freedom) may not yet be defined. perhaps human nature makes such measures impossible to achieve


----------



## parsifal (May 27, 2013)

> That doesn't seem to have been borne out in other democratic countries that have not resorted to forced military (or any other) service


.

When did NZ get rid of the Draft? Australia has spent more of its history relying on volunteers than it has conscripts, and those times when conscription was used was about as close as we ever got to a revolution. For us, the reverse is true than the maxim expressed here....it is conscription that is the devisive and destabilising issue. We have fought our most costly wars and campaigns using nothing but volunteers. Our serving personnel have showed a certain dislike of conscript manppower. I dont think that prejudice is at all justified....the activities of the militia Divs during the war especially in the jungle was pretty good actually, but saying we are going to implode because our nation tends to rely on volunteer forces over conscript forces is more than a little far fetched IMO.


----------



## meatloaf109 (May 27, 2013)

I was going to keep out of this.
I stepped up. I have never been prouder to have served with a fine bunch of individuals that also volunteered.
But I think that anyone that doesn't have the sand, for whatever reason, should not be required. Period. 
It is too big a job to let anyone in that doesn't have the motivation. 
There have been too many good men that have died.
100% is all that there is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I understand the value of a volunteer service and having served for 23 years in a mainly volunteer arm, do appreciate that it is generally more effective than a conscript military, but I disapprove of an all volunteer service for the very reasons delineated by drgondog. I think a country that allows some subset of its people to do its blood work is on a short road to tyranny probably in the form of a military coup. I consider an all volunteer force to be fundamentally undemocratic and as contrary to the nation's founding principles as forcing military service. Historically, it is my understanding that the all volunteer military was an outgrowth to some extent of the Vietnam experience and the fundamental cultural change in the attitude of the country toward military service. That shift could arguably be laid at the feet of politicians and military leaders. I think Drgondog is spot on when he implies that the existence of a volunteer military makes it easier for opportunistic politicians to abuse its use and preserves a tendency for detrimental careerism and conformism in military leadership.
> 
> In a republican democracy every citizen should have skin in the game. I believe the right to vote and hold public office should be contingent upon having worked in some 'service' capacity making a contribution to the national welfare even if only at a local level and could include the professions of police officer, teacher, medic or perhaps even community development worker. It's not about a willingness to pick up a rifle and kill an enemy in my mind, but rather a willingness to make a communal sacrifice of your time and energy; not just during war time but as a matter of pride and principle. ironically, while I type this I can hear the report of automatic weapons from the firing ranges of Academi, the company formerly known as Xe and before that, Blackwater. The new sound of democracy in action.



That is actually how it was in Germany. At 18 you had to serve in some capacity. Either military, ambulance driver, old age home, etc...


----------



## The Basket (May 27, 2013)

If a guy dont want to fight and you put him in a combat situation then that guy is not going to do well. You force him? The old put him against a wall and shoot him? So he has a choice between been shot by the enemy or shot by his own side. Some choice. Some loyalty.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 27, 2013)

parsifal said:


> . _*saying we are going to implode because our nation tends to rely on volunteer forces over conscript forces is more than a little far fetched*_ IMO.



I don't believe either Drgondog or I said that. To clarify, our history and culture are similar (to those of the commonwealth nations) in some respects but not identical to either those or other democracies. I consider all to be experiments performed with different initial conditions and with unique defining circumstances in their historical evolution. For example, Australia had an indigenous population which was subjected to severe discrimination. The USA _imported_ a large underclass and subjected it to far worse even while engaging in a campaign of virtual genocide of the indigenes. I suspect that these circumstances have produced long-lasting and quite different after effects. All government systems seem to me to be organizational overlays on established cultural and historical contexts. Democracies can be enlightened or despotic. Churchill said it best. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Cultural Institutions (religion, ethnic diversity, schools, family, media) play a huge role in whether a government's relative enlightenment can endure. Other of the world's democracies are overlain on populations enjoying somewhat greater traditional influences than that of the USA which is in contrast an almost anti-traditionalist society whose conceit seems to be that it is a government primarily governed by reason. I don't know enough about Australia or NZ or anywhere else to say whether volunteer or compulsory service would be better for now or in its future. But I would also argue it is just as far fetched to believe that today's circumstances will persist indefinitely. It seems to me that the only certainty is that the experimental conditions for all our democracies will change.

This is not a value judgment, just an observation. Perhaps the USA, in its tacit devaluation of tradition has run up a debt which may be coming due in the near future. As an example of erosion of traditional values relevant to this forum: it used to be that the USA enjoyed the benefits of its European derived tradition expressed as _Noblesse Oblige_'. In WWI, the sons of millionaires founded the US naval air reserve, fought and died in WWI out of a sense of duty and obligation to their country. I doubt that could or would happen today.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 27, 2013)

The Basket said:


> If a guy dont want to fight and you put him in a combat situation then that guy is not going to do well. You force him? The old put him against a wall and shoot him? So he has a choice between been shot by the enemy or shot by his own side. Some choice. Some loyalty.


 
The choice is between getting _shot right now and for certain_ or _maybe _ getting shot _later _by the enemy. Its a simple choice and self preservation prevails - ever wondered why people who fell to atrocities dug their graves even when they knew exactly what was coming for them..?

When war is on, fighting is NOT optional IMHO, its a civic duty of the individual to the whole community since immemorial times, to his best abilities. Those who do not want to fight are, in effect, want _others _to fight and die for them, because _somebody _will have to fight in the end. I do see and understand that there may be some exceptions to that rule - such as very special, and valid and long standing religious beliefs, real health problems - but simple "I don't want to shoot people" won't do in my book. Though luck, nobody actually wants to be in a situation of kill or get killed, most would very much prefer grabbing a beer in a bar, but that ain't make you any special.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Buffnut - As I mentioned to Parsifal - my criticisms and comments are about us - not you, not Democrat People's Republic of China.. you have to make your own decisions relative to your form of representation and the embodiment of the inherent Rights of the People versus the Authority of your elected Representatives and Chief Executive... do not let my comments in any way represent anybody but myself..



But this is an international forum and the original question was about Allied soldiers/sailors/airmen defecting to the Axis. The expansion of the discussion into wider aspects of service to one's country is entirely valid. The problem here is that "we" on the forum aren't all Americans and a more broad-minded approach to discussing the topic might be more appropriate.

I do believe that more people should serve their country, whichever country that may be. The modern era is too marked by selfish focus on the needs of "me" not the needs of "we". That said, forcing people into military service or any other form of national service is, IMHO, a huge mistake. Democracies should hold the moral high ground and not force their peoples to serve the national political agenda (that path leads to dark byways). I'm proud to have served my country for almost 20 years, most of which involved fairly close cooperation with the US military. I spent 2 years in the US training American military personnel from all services in my area of specialization. Even in an all-volunteer force, there are still individuals who will not give of their best (I believe the acronym on US parlance is "ROAD" - retired on active duty).


----------



## buffnut453 (May 27, 2013)

pattle said:


> I was thinking the same thing, in reality Britain is a republic in all but name as are the other Commonwealth states. The Queen is only really a figure head with similar authority to the German or Irish presidents whilst president in the American sense of the word seems to mean a substitute for an absolute monarch. In principle I am a republican myself but for reasons unknown to me the current system of the Prime Minister being The Leader of Her Majesties Government seems to work well enough for me not to want to tamper with it. I remember years ago my mother told me the Queen was there to keep an eye on the politicians for us and that is why we need the Queen. I think underneath politicians worry us all and that we need to feel that there is somebody keeping an eye on them who could sort them out for us should they over step the mark, perhaps this somebody is what America lacks?
> I hope everyone appreciates just how brave I was in writing that and anyway none of this has anything to do with the thread.



Pattle,

It's more practical than even what your Mum told you. The fact that officers in Her Majesty's Armed Forces have their commission signed by the Queen is a vital check and balance in the system. It affords military officers the right to disobey illegal orders that may come down from elected officials. In short, it prevents an elected Government from abusing their position. Does it work perfectly? No. There's no such thing as a perfect democracy. However, having the Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch does prevent a British version of Hitler coming into fruition and, as such, it's a vital component of Britain's implementation of democracy (despite its many faults).


----------



## altsym (May 27, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> but simple "I don't want to shoot people" won't do in my book. Though luck, nobody actually wants to be in a situation of kill or get killed, most would very much prefer grabbing a beer in a bar, but that ain't make you any special.


In regards to the draft:

Well lets see.. you force this guy/gal to go and fight.. thanks but no thanks, I wouldn't want him/her watching my back. Let them stay at home.
Same thing with somebody who's all revving up to fight, and freezes in the field. One can't be a Soldier a Babysitter. That'll get you both killed.

I think that some people, whether by choise or design, can't fight. They have no business on the battlefield. Stick them somewhere else to help the
war effort. I have zero problems with that.


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2013)

parsifal said:


> .
> 
> When did NZ get rid of the Draft? Australia has spent more of its history relying on volunteers than it has conscripts, and those times when conscription was used was about as close as we ever got to a revolution. For us, the reverse is true than the maxim expressed here....it is conscription that is the devisive and destabilising issue. We have fought our most costly wars and campaigns using nothing but volunteers. Our serving personnel have showed a certain dislike of conscript manppower. I dont think that prejudice is at all justified....the activities of the militia Divs during the war especially in the jungle was pretty good actually, but saying we are going to implode because our nation tends to rely on volunteer forces over conscript forces is more than a little far fetched IMO.



Parsifal - if you know our history, you have observed that our Founders both disdained and feared a Standing Army as history demonstrated (for others) that such are a double edged sword - both a protector and threat to Liberty.

Our first conscriptions started when we DID have revolution and continued through Vietnam. On the eve of the War Between the States our total officer corps was very small - IIRC around 400.. yet we raised a combined 4.5Million to fight in the next 4 years (both sides combined) - a note of significance to European powers.

IMO - the key motivator was a general if not universal belief that a job needed doing, that volunteers out weighed the conscripts in great numbers but the conscripts ended up fighting equally well. Each such convulsion of peace time to war was met with large mobilization until the Korean War, when mobilization occurred largely as recalls and call of National guard units with augmentation from draft pool. The difference is for the first time the question regarding "Why" had no real suitable answer.. to be followed by increased spending and dedication to chess moves in which We deployed but not the Soviet Union or China.

I didn't, and Oldcrow didn't, have much connection with your comments because we aren't thinking about implosion due to professional army philosophy. I think our common fear is the malaise that overcomes half our population that is content with status quo as long as the cell phones, cable network and basic food and lodging is taken care of by the other 50% tax dollars doled out by politicians who want votes. Our troops are being ground up with repeated deployments in a rotation because there isn't an adequate pool of fresh reserves and therefore suffering as the 'few serving the many' without regard to welfare of the trooper introduced back into our civilian society.

One solution - apart from a general withdrawal from the global crisis de jour - Anywhere and Everywhere" mentality - is to re-institute the draft... which won't happen because draftees Do ask questions regarding Why. There are consequences to politicians at the Polls for the next election if the reasons aren't deemed 'Life or Death of the Republic". 

A draft, however, would have to be accompanied by a draft board philosophy that is very egalitarian regarding deferments - namely few - and not based on social status of parents.

IMO - if we have an Implosion it will be at some point in time when a significant portion of our population reaches a flash point and a large part of that anger will be directed at our Federal Government - either from the Left because the goodie faucet is throttled down or from the Right because a power grab over reaches Federal authority on the Rights of the people.

What I do believe, should this be the case, is that both our former military and active duty military (large percentage) will remember the Oath to protect the Constitution and behave accordingly.


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Pattle,
> There's no such thing as a perfect democracy. However, having the Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch does prevent a British version of Hitler coming into fruition and, as such, it's a vital component of Britain's implementation of democracy (despite its many faults).



Buffnut - I have no argument with your philosophy as it pertains to you and the British - or any other country including mine. 

Where I disagree strenuously regarding your philosophy versus the average thinking American - is that we swear our Allegiance to a body of Law, not a sovereign or a leader of any persuasion. The Constitution is our foundation - not the Commander in Chief. If you wish to argue that our sovereign is our Constitution I have no argument to that but would point out that She is the one and the same for more than 200 years.

And yes I do recall the thread is about shirkers which stimulated my own thoughts based on root causes. One root cause is human nature - the instinct for survival, accompanied by a lack of conviction that there are causes that may be worth shortening the thread of life before the inevitable caused by disease, accident or .....


----------



## The Basket (May 27, 2013)

Dont agree with that. How can an undemocratic figure head like the Queen save democracy? 

By being undemocratic? 

Anyhoo. A standing army can be bad and always been eyed with suspicion historical speaking. They can overthrow the government or be used by said government as a tool of opression. Plenty of exampes too numerous to mention.

Not sure how this related to the US of A but I am open minded.

Talk about whether one dies for ones country is forgetting that British soldiers are being killed right now. While I am in bed typing this! I seemingly can choose.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 27, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> The choice is between getting _shot right now and for certain_ or _maybe _ getting shot _later _by the enemy. Its a simple choice and self preservation prevails - ever wondered why people who fell to atrocities dug their graves even when they knew exactly what was coming for them..?
> 
> When war is on, fighting is NOT optional IMHO, its a civic duty of the individual to the whole community since immemorial times, to his best abilities.


 
Maybe, when its a war against a power directly threatening your own state.

But what about the Vietnam War for the French or Americans? Or Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the Malay conflicts? 

Do those wars imply the same "civic duty"?


----------



## bobbysocks (May 27, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is actually how it was in Germany. At 18 you had to serve in some capacity. Either military, ambulance driver, old age home, etc...



i agree witht that. it should have been set up where you served in some capacity for so long...even if not in a full time position.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 27, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Dont agree with that. How can an undemocratic figure head like the Queen save democracy?



I'm not saying the Queen can save democracy. I'm saying that the allegiance that the military owes the monarchy is part of the checks and balances, like having 2 houses (Commons and Lords), that enable British democracy to function with due controls. All democracies are a compromise. There's no such thing as a perfect form of government created by man and all democratic forms need checks and balances that are created to prevent the abuse of power (the success of these checks and balances are undeniably variable in terms of results). We should also remember that western democracy isn't the only form of representative government that can work.


----------



## The Basket (May 27, 2013)

Yes but a monarchy didnt stop Oliver Cromwell. He was able to remove the head of state from the shoulders of state with a swift stroke.

Didnt stop Lenin either. 

Anyway...one can fight for God, Queen and country or David Cameron...or Alex Salmond in my case...well I dont bleed for Alex Salmond and you can take that to the bank. I will shirk and defect before that happens.


----------



## parsifal (May 27, 2013)

There is a subtle difference creeping in here...the difference between volunteer citizen armies and conscript citizen armies on the one hand, and professional standing armies on the other. The two issues are quite distinct and quite different to each other. 

Mass armies arose from the times of Napoleon and continued through to 1945 (in the west....elsewhere they continue to this day. in fact national service continued for some soome time after 1945, but for convenience, it appropriate to claim the death of the mass conscript citizen army in 1945). WWII in fact showed up significant weaknes in relying on the citizen army. It inherently is less well trained and less technically proficient than a standing professional army. In todays military, you can spend a million dollars just to get your lowly Infantryman kitted up, trained and into battle. That man is a killing machine, vastly more powerful and valuable than the millions strong mass armies that characterised WWI and WWII. Mass armies with vast numbers of vbbadly trained men, mostly poor shots and hugely vulnerable targets is really an obsolete concept in modern warfare. The Germans spearheaded this concept in the last war, the idea of super trained, super motivated and super equipped men able to hold back vastly more numerous, but less efficient opponents. The germans failed in the finish, but not because the concept was faulty. they failed for other reasons. 

If you are going to use a few highly traied men in place of a vast mass citizen based army, you want those guys to be as motivated as you can. There is no evidence to support that Conscripts wont fight (fighting is mostly a function of survival, not a function of motivation). The volunteers are more inlcined to be positive on entry, and this makes them more "trainable". Volunteers tend to have greater cameraderie, and this makes them, as a group more dependable and resilient. But the difference between colunteers and conscripts is not the same question as the difference between a professional careeer army and a mass citizen based army.


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2013)

Robert Heinlein - TANSTAFL..

There are no such things as free lunch..


----------



## buffnut453 (May 27, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Just referring to the USA and its governing system.



That's fine...I was just thinking that, in the context of this discussion, the US should take a much greater interest in how the armed forces of allied nations are organized. If the US wants the rest of the world to shoulder more of the burden of international peacemaking/keeping, then it's in America's interest that the countries who seek to support that agenda are capable of doing so. The last thing you want is a situation where American lives are threatened because weak allies can't adequately complete their missions. There's no point the US deploying world-beating force if allies on the flanks aren't doing their jobs properly because the soldiers of that allied nation are conscripts and hence less likely to undertake robust patrolling action. We saw hints of that sort of thing during NATO's engagement in the Balkans and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that similar issues are encountered in Afghanistan today.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 27, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Mass armies with vast numbers of vbbadly trained men, mostly poor shots and hugely vulnerable targets is really an obsolete concept in modern warfare. The Germans spearheaded this concept in the last war, the idea of super trained, super motivated and super equipped men able to hold back vastly more numerous, but less efficient opponents. The germans failed in the finish, but not because the concept was faulty. they failed for other reasons.



In fact the Prussian-German (French, Isreali etc.) army pioneered the concept of a reservist mass army (developed by Prussian Scharnhorst) of compulsory service demonstrated that conscription and professionalism does not rule each other out. The vast majority of the German army was always drafted, save a few services like U-boot. They were not super trained, super equipped, but sufficiently armed, still highly motivated and well lead both on tactical (NCO) and strategic (staff officier) level. Lessons learned on the battlefields were learned and employed. The composition was balanced - there was no weak spots to exploit for the enemy. 

Contrary to this concept, the Red Army demonstrated that vastly more numerous, but less efficient opponents can defeat a qualitatively superior army by maximum exploiting of superior numbers and the strategic opportunities presented thereof - exploiting them the same way revolutionary France and Napoleon did.

Both concepts of quality and quantity are therefore valid and were always were. But what was demonstrated since the French revolution over and over again is that a smaller, standing professional army cannot withstand the numbers of the _levee en masse_.

When you want to fight big wars, there is no alternative for a conscript army for maximum military effiency. When you want to fight small/unpopular wars, a professional army will ensure sufficient military hitting power with bearable political costs.



buffnut453 said:


> That's fine...I was just thinking that, in the context of this discussion, the US should take a much greater interest in how the armed forces of allied nations are organized. If the US wants the rest of the world to shoulder more of the burden of international peacemaking/keeping, then it's in America's interest that the countries who seek to support that agenda are capable of doing so. The last thing you want is a situation where American lives are threatened because weak allies can't adequately complete their missions. There's no point the US deploying world-beating force if allies on the flanks aren't doing their jobs properly because the soldiers of that allied nation are conscripts and hence less likely to undertake robust patrolling action. We saw hints of that sort of thing during NATO's engagement in the Balkans and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that similar issues are encountered in Afghanistan today.



In fact none of the allied soldiers deployed on foreign missions are "concripts" - they are voluntary professionals seeking military career opportunities. They do not lack in training, motivation, or hardware, especially compared to their opponents. What is lacking is the political backing and willingness to apply force for fear of political backfire, resulting in uncertainity in military leaders, in command and weird tactics and a surrealistic ROEs (from military POV).

BTW practically all "conscript" armies of today are very much like that of the US - except that in addition to the professional soldiers who form the core, every other male and sometimes, female citizen receives a short military training and and can be called upon on short notice to boost the ranks quickly for a major war. The effectiveness of the force is not as much dependent on employing this system, but on how serious military service is taken for society. Look up the Swiss or Isreali armies for positive examples. I doubt any "professional" army would cherish the tought of meeting them in armed conflict. The Swiss conscripts go through compulsory re-training every six months or so, have their rifle and ammunition at home at ready, and small home bunker along with foodstuff. Isreali "conscripts" used to serve _SIX _years, chicks _FOUR _ years.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 27, 2013)

-


----------



## Tante Ju (May 27, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Maybe, when its a war against a power directly threatening your own state.
> 
> But what about the Vietnam War for the French or Americans? Or Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the Malay conflicts?
> 
> Do those wars imply the same "civic duty"?



I do not think they did and I agree with drgondog on this one - civic duty does not apply to these. IMHO in these wars American, French or British national survival was not even remotely thretened and these wars were waged for other political reasons. The deployment of a professional army - as these were very much akin to colonisation wars - may be an answer because of the political fallout, but as histrory showed, they lack the numbers for decisive effect.

IMHO an even better question would be wheter possible national gains in these wars would even justify military action and the cost of war (in both blood and money)...? Purely political means would have been more effective and effecient in all cases IMHO (save for the 1991 Iraq war, which however correctly employed military means with maximum success). In most of these cases, it was more of a failure of politics to draft a proper goal and misusing the military.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 27, 2013)

parsifal said:


> There is a subtle difference creeping in here...the difference between *volunteer citizen armies *and _conscript citizen armies_ on the one hand, and *professional standing armies* on the other. The two issues are quite distinct and quite different to each other.
> 
> Mass armies arose from the times of Napoleon and continued through to 1945 (in the west....elsewhere they continue to this day. in fact national service continued for some soome time after 1945, but for convenience, it appropriate to claim the death of the mass conscript citizen army in 1945). WWII in fact showed up significant weaknes in relying on the citizen army. It inherently is less well trained and less technically proficient than a standing professional army. In todays military, you can spend a million dollars just to get your lowly Infantryman kitted up, trained and into battle. That man is a killing machine, vastly more powerful and valuable than the millions strong mass armies that characterised WWI and WWII. Mass armies with vast numbers of vbbadly trained men, mostly poor shots and hugely vulnerable targets is really an obsolete concept in modern warfare. The Germans spearheaded this concept in the last war, the idea of super trained, super motivated and super equipped men able to hold back vastly more numerous, but less efficient opponents. The germans failed in the finish, but not because the concept was faulty. they failed for other reasons.
> 
> If you are going to use a few highly traied men in place of a vast mass citizen based army, you want those guys to be as motivated as you can. There is no evidence to support that Conscripts wont fight (fighting is mostly a function of survival, not a function of motivation). The volunteers are more inlcined to be positive on entry, and this makes them more "trainable". Volunteers tend to have greater cameraderie, and this makes them, as a group more dependable and resilient. But the difference between colunteers and conscripts is not the same question as the difference between a professional careeer army and a mass citizen based army.



Pars, as usual, you provide a well thought out and articulate analysis of a complex topic. 

I am curious to know your thoughts on the Swiss or Israeli model, which AFAIK, is based on compulsory military training for virtually all able bodied male citizens, facilitated by a small professional core? 

With our volunteer military, many citizens can go from cradle to grave and never participate in any activity that provides them a sense of national community or their place in it. In fact many choose just such a life. I think what I am trying to say is that a citizen's participation in the countries military (or any community-oriented activity that involves some sacrifice of self for a greater good) pays dividends in enhancing societal integration that may balance its poorer efficiency on the battlefield. For the USA, an example of the benefits to the society of compulsory service might be the case of race. It seems likely that race relations in this country would have had a very different trajectory had the military remained integrated in the early twentieth century during the WWI draft. In other words, a citizen-military seems to provide both external and internal benefits. Ideally, it could or should act as a bulwark against national adventurism. Here I am blurring the very distinction you pointed out, to make the point that, a military is a very political entity and perhaps should be viewed in the context of its place in society beyond it's efficiency in battle. As Clauswitz said, "war is simply the continuation of politics by other means." Just throwing this out because I think it may underly much of the discussion here which is admittedly way off the topic.


----------



## parsifal (May 27, 2013)

> Pars, as usual, you provide a well thought out and articulate analysis of a complex topic.



Thanks im very flattered....



> I am curious to know your thoughts on the Swiss or Israeli model, which AFAIK, is based on compulsory military training for virtually all able bodied male citizens, facilitated by a small professional core?



Not sure about the Swiss......they have what looks like a very effective system, but we cannot be sure about its effectiveness because it hasnt been really tested for centuries....perhaps thats its mark of success...

For the Israelis, well, they certainly have a citizen army, and they certainly have a very effective military force, but then that effectiveness does come at a pretty high price in their personal liberties. Israel is a state that has been in a constant and imminent state of emeergency since its formation, and that has meant great inroads into the committments expected of its citizens. they are citizen part timers, but they train harder than most professional soldiers. Ive got friends that are Jewish with dual citizenship, and all of them disappeared for several years to fulfil their service obligations to the israeli state. 

So in effect they have both worlds, an army trained to a professional standard that is still a citizen militia. Theyve needed their high levels of training many times....inavariably theyve always been outnumbered in their wars, and simply cannot afford heavy casualties. 



> With our volunteer military, many citizens can go from cradle to grave and never participate in any activity that provides them a sense of national community or their place in it.



Yep, and essentially they are a wasted space in my opinion. i get that, but its an issue of effectiveness. I dont see masses of semitrained poorly equipped Infantry (the traditional model of the mass conscript army, as being very useful or relevant in the modern day military. 



> In fact many choose just such a life. I think what I am trying to say is that a citizen's participation in the countries military (or any community-oriented activity that involves some sacrifice of self for a greater good) pays dividends in enhancing societal integration that may balance its poorer efficiency on the battlefield.




Yep. One of your former presidents once said....."ask not what your country can do etc...." I agree with him. 



> For the USA, an example of the benefits to the society of compulsory service might be the case of race. It seems likely that race relations in this country would have had a very different trajectory had the military remained integrated in the early twentieth century during the WWI draft. In other words, a citizen-military seems to provide both external and internal benefits. Ideally, it could or should act as a bulwark against national adventurism. Here I am blurring the very distinction you pointed out, to make the point that, a military is a very political entity and perhaps should be viewed in the context of its place in society beyond it's efficiency in battle. As Clauswitz said, "war is simply the continuation of politics by other means." Just throwing this out because I think it may underly much of the discussion here which is admittedly way off the topic


.

well put, and I dont really have any issue with any of this. My issue was really about whether mass conscript armies (in the accepted sense) were still useful and whether a nation that relied on volunteer forces was in some way lacking.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 28, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Pars, as usual, you provide a well thought out and articulate analysis of a complex topic.
> 
> I am curious to know your thoughts on the Swiss or Israeli model, which AFAIK, is based on compulsory military training for virtually all able bodied male citizens, facilitated by a small professional core?



The Swiss model is very clever (copied to great success by Hezbollah in Lebanon). The concept is that everywhere is a battle ground with well prepared locals (with all the arms dumps, etc) all setup. They have already work out the choke points, dialed in the attack ranges, etc, they become experts on their local area.

If a conventional army invades it will hit the first resistance, which hurts it. The Swiss are trained to inflict the maximum damage possible then let the invader past, then re-arming from other arms dumps, start hitting behind the lines. As the invader moves forward it steadily slows, with its 'pointy end' getting ever weaker while every greater damage form behind in its supply lines. Eventually it halts, then it can be rolled back

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because he didn't want to, actually he really wanted to, but it would have cost him a million men to do so. Then you still have the issue with an ongoing guerrilla warfare situation, since there are still lots of trained (and motivated) people out there and still all armed, the country is practically an entire arms dump. Since those days the Swiss have just got stronger.


----------



## CobberKane (May 28, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> That's fine...I was just thinking that, in the context of this discussion, the US should take a much greater interest in how the armed forces of allied nations are organized. If the US wants the rest of the world to shoulder more of the burden of international peacemaking/keeping, then it's in America's interest that the countries who seek to support that agenda are capable of doing so. The last thing you want is a situation where American lives are threatened because weak allies can't adequately complete their missions. There's no point the US deploying world-beating force if allies on the flanks aren't doing their jobs properly because the soldiers of that allied nation are conscripts and hence less likely to undertake robust patrolling action. We saw hints of that sort of thing during NATO's engagement in the Balkans and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that similar issues are encountered in Afghanistan today.


 
I've got mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I'm very appreciative of the counterbalance the USA represented against totalitarianism post WWII. On the other hand I'm less impressed 'with the with us or against us' vitriol that preceded the wars in Viet Nam and Iraq. As a citizen of Australia I understand my country's need, as middling power in an important area, to align itself with the US as a powerful ally with broadly similar principals. As a citizen of New Zealand, I'm proud of that country's history of doing quirky things like banning nuclear weapons, even at the cost of a hand in glove relationship with the USA. I recall that when that happened the USA accepted the decision in good faith and there was an honest parting of the ways while Australia, as a reflection of shared history, continued the close relationship with their ANZAC mates. There is room for compromise and differing opinions in international relations between mature nations.
Incidentally, how long has it been since anyone mentioned anything to do with aircraft?


----------



## Aozora (May 28, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> As a citizen of New Zealand, I'm proud of that country's history of doing quirky things like banning nuclear weapons, even at the cost of a hand in glove relationship with the USA. I recall that when that happened the USA accepted the decision in good faith and there was an honest parting of the ways while Australia, as a reflection of shared history, continued the close relationship with their ANZAC mates. There is room for compromise and differing opinions in international relations between mature nations.
> Incidentally, how long has it been since anyone mentioned anything to do with aircraft?



Not so sure about the US parting from NZ "in good faith" - there was a huge amount of pressure, both political and economic, exerted on successive NZ governments to change the policy and its only in the past few years, under the Obama administration, that the pressure has been relaxed enough to start up free trade talks. Suffice it to say the policy has been hotly debated ever since it was promulgated, though not necessarily publicly. Some perspectives:

 NZ's non-nuclear stance from American perspective. pdf

Friendly Fire | Lange Tripped On Nuclear Linoleum... | Stuff.co.nz

I could throw up lots of other opinions, but that would be boring.
NZ should end the nuclear free status to gain a free trade deal with USA? - New Zealand Politics


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 28, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Incidentally, *how long has it been since anyone mentioned anything to do with aircraft?*



From the script of Monty "_*Python and the Holy Grail*_" "_It's a fair cop._" 

How about unsuccessful and unintentional attempts to defect? In navel warfare its reasonably difficult for an airman to defect, especially one who is carrier based. 

Yet, on May 7, 1942 members of the Shokaku and Zuikaku Air Group nearly succeeded when they mistook the USS Yorktown for their own home plate. Becoming disoriented in the wake of a brutal twilight dogfight with USN Wildcats in bad weather, pilots of the IJN strike in Vals and Kates made at least a pass at landing on the enemy carrier. However, the attempt was aborted when it was met with a rather unfriendly welcome. 

Also, we might consider broadening the discussion to include instances of collaboration with an enemy for ethical or humanitarian purposes. For example, Hornfischer in Neptune's nferno  tells the story of an IJN seaman who, in the wake of the Cruiser action on November 13, 1942, when the sea was filled with struggling survivors of both navies somehow managed to secure a launch and was motoring around Iron Bottom sound rescuing and giving aid to both USN and IJN sailors. 

I know that's not really following the thread's defined topic but seemed interesting anecdotes to provide some context that in wartime confusion reigns and unusual circumstances can arise that defy easy categorization. Besides it gave me a chance to respond to Cobber's admonition that this is an aviation forum and mention of aircraft was noticably absent. (consider it an act of contrition for my part in the deviation from the topic)


----------



## pattle (May 28, 2013)

Again nothing to do with shirkers and defectors but at least something to do with aircraft this time. I once heard a story that a group of British workman were spotted by a German recon plane in the North of England building some kind of wooden dummy invasion structure, the next day the German recon plane returned and this time dropped a wooden bomb!


----------



## tyrodtom (May 28, 2013)

pattle said:


> Again nothing to do with shirkers and defectors but at least something to do with aircraft this time. I once heard a story that a group of British workman were spotted by a German recon plane in the North of England building some kind of wooden dummy invasion structure, the next day the German recon plane returned and this time dropped a wooden bomb!



That's a variation of a tale that's gone around.

But when you think of it would somebody really risk their life to drop a harmless object. Plus if the enemy is trying to fool you on something, it would be really dumb to let them know they're wasting resources on something that isn't working.


----------



## altsym (May 28, 2013)

Come on tyrodtom... Even the Germans had a sense of humor!


----------



## pattle (May 28, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> That's a variation of a tale that's gone around.
> 
> But when you think of it would somebody really risk their life to drop a harmless object. Plus if the enemy is trying to fool you on something, it would be really dumb to let them know they're wasting resources on something that isn't working.



Yes your probably right and most likely it is just another urban myth, but it could have been done unofficially I suppose.


----------

