WWII shirkers and defectors

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.

meatloaf109 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Mennonite is a more modern form of Amish belief.

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.

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.

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.

tyrodtom said:

Dick Winters was a Quaker,

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

Njaco said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.