WWII attitudes to conscription and going into the service

[Fletch]

It was surprising to hear Stearman talk about trying to reach the individual recruit. This wasn't at all what I've read about during WW2 - the policy was more likely anybody who doesn't respond to the same old, same old, got the whole unit punished and they would take it out of him.

I'm going to get out of this thread now because it's clear there is not a lot of interest in a secondary point of view. I will add only that those who insist all opposition to war during the 30s was on the right don't know the 30s, or care much, probably.

 

[Paisley]

There were quite a few major league ballplayers who were good enough to play pro ball all thru the war, but didn't make the cut in the draft -- Stan Musial and Dixie Walker, two genuine stars, among them. They both got grief for not serving, but the army didn't want them, so what could they do? Both spent a good part of the war leading bond-selling drives and otherwise doing their part. Musial finally got into the Navy in early 1945, but Walker's chronic back problems kept him out for the duration.

Another outstanding ballplayer of the day, Bill "Swish" Nicholson, desperately wanted to be a Navy officer, but he was repeatedly turned away -- and not for the reason you're thinking because of his nickname. He was profoundly color-blind, and that was enough to make him a 4F.

Some who did go into the service did so unwillingly. Joe DiMaggio made every effort to stay out of the army in 1942, as did Ted Williams --but they both eventually went in. On the other hand, Hank Greenberg was one of the first players drafted during the Preparedness era, did his year, was discharged in late 1941 -- and turned around and immediately reenlisted the day after Pearl Harbor.

I'm glad that Musial, Walker and Greenberg did everything they were able to do under the circumstances.

There was another man who got the "Why aren't YOU in a uniform" remark from a complete stranger, and it bothered him. He couldn't tell her the reason: he was working on the Manhattan Project. I've forgotten his name, unfortunately.

As for the sergeants who trained me during basic, I'd be happy to take either of them to lunch.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Yes, war is war, but Vietnam was a total mind#¢!! on the character of the services, the people and the leadership of the country. Not the same deal as WW2 from that point of view.

I only know what I read myself, but bringing up Vietnam to explain WW2 seems a bit strange.

I wasn't bringing up Viet Nam to explain WW2....but since I served and trained recruites during wartime(both volunteers and draftees)it seemed appropiate from my point of view...especially after your remarks. Reading about something can be quite different than experiencing it first hand. There are political influences that are always present...and some would rather not realize or agree about what it takes to be a soldier. In fact...it becomes a sour note with some. However..if that entity is indeed needed..he must be not only physically prepared..but mentally as well.
As a Vet belonging to a couple of veteran organizations..I've been fortunate to be able to compare experiences with quite a few WW2 vets over the years. It all comes down to discipline..readiness...fitness..to perform or complete any mission...no matter what war. Certain circumstances can ignite the willingness...or even eagerness. However..there are also always those who would much rather leave that nastiness to others. It just never fits in their personal agenda..and they certainly wouldn't appreciate any hardcore training for such dastardly deeds. It seems much easier to intellectually lament and dissent from an armchair with open book of reference..looking down the nose at what actually may be required to succeed and defend.
Since lives are at stake..there is no good war...but,unfortunately,war is always a reality. Whether you like it or not..there are always those who want what you have..jealous of what you have...or hate what you have and what and who you are. Very willing to take it to great extreme. Through much of life..perhaps that hateful inconveniance can be avoided...especially if it seems to only effect you...and then all others are on there own.
The military doesn't work that way. It just can't. As a matter of fact..It has usually seemed to be a first established neccessity with good reason.
Any major attack can and will bring on first responders..volunteers. Others sit back and wait for the call. Some will look for any way out. Others don't want to be bothered and are more concerned with the 'why' of it from their sanctuary that shouldn't need to experience great sacrifice. Nothing new.
HD

 

[Paisley]

^That. :arated:

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

I don't know if this can be of interest: I'll post this only as a reference or a comparison.

In my country we had conscription since a very recent time.
No real war was in sight, and in the few occasions in which conscripted soldiers actually had to fight (Lebanon in the '80s or Somalia in the '90s) they sent only volunteers.

So the general consensus toward conscription and military service was very low, especially between the more educated and wealthy; comprehensibly, as you could postpone your service after University, you had no interest in losing one year of your life in some old fashioned barracks being shouted by some uneducated corporal who vented his own frustration in you.

I know that in the nearby Switzerland, where military service had been organized in a very different, and surely better, way, things were quite different; but here in Italy, at least between my friends, no one really wished to go, and actually the few who did, did it for mistake
(by forgetting to renew their postpone form or because they didn't pass the sufficient number of exams at University).

Obviously there were all kind of small bureaucratic errors, ending in people being enlisted despite medical conditions, or rejected while being a perfectly healthy athlete (I don't exclude small-time bribery), or in you being sent to one Corp or unit for no apparent reason
(one of my friends was sent to a unit of Combat Engineers and had to do with bombs and mines for 10 months, then they noticed a 3 instead of a 9 in his profile, of stuff like that, and understood that he really had to be trained as a truck driver...)

They even enlist me!
(well, my military experience amounts to a total of 2 days; then I postpone the service due to my studies, and when I graduated they finally suspended conscription and sent me a decorated document stating my status of "retired military")

Nowadays, with a fully professional army, things are very different both in mentality and... in budget (and you noticed it, in the barracks, food, equipment, training etc.); the Italian Army is on par with all the other modern forces and stuff;
so what I wrote regards only the times of the conscription.

Nonetheless, when I read of athletes being "4F-ed" or airmen receiving extremely limited weapons training etc, if I compare with what I personally have seen, I can understand those things very easily.

It's just how things inevitably go in a huge, bureaucratized and complex organization.

Ciao!!

 

[EmergencyIan]

My grandfather enlisted in early 1942 at the age of 17. At that age, he had to get permission from his mother in order to do so. He went to the "recruiting office" in Evansville, Indiana and joined up.

He was in the infantry, part of the 5th Army. He served in North Africa, Sicilly and Italy.

- Ian