WWII shirkers and defectors

[oldcrowcv63]

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]

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]

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

 

[Balljoint]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

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]

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 .....