WWII shirkers and defectors
- Thread starter muscogeemike
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
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.
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
Major
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.
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
Colonel
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.
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
Major
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.
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.
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
Major
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.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
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.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
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.
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
Senior Airman
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.
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
Colonel
The war selects his manpower. WWI and WWII were the wars of mass industrialization. The fordism of the war.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
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
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
Last edited:
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
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.
Could be, but I do not think that has to do a lot in the present discussion.
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.
Last edited:
Greg,
I respect what your saying, but you also sidestepped the question. What would you do in regards to post #46?
GregP
Major
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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
Last edited:
GregP
Major
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.
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
Senior Airman
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.
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.
