WWII shirkers and defectors

[The Basket]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Robert Heinlein - TANSTAFL..

There are no such things as free lunch..

 

[buffnut453]

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]

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.

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]

-

 

[Tante Ju]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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