Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

WWII attitudes to conscription and going into the service

Mr. 'H'

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,110
Location
Dublin, Ireland, Ireland
Conscription.jpg


During a recent discussion on Americans joining the war effort in WWII someone expressed an opinion to me that most people didn't want to volunteer for WWII service, but entered because of the draft.

This seems contrary to what I know about that time. I mean - according to one of the 101st vets - two guys had killed themselves when they were 4F'd.

Does anybody have reliable information or concrete sources about attitudes on going into the service, especially in the immediate post Pearl Harbor period?

I'm aware of the usual suspects, i.e. conscientious objectors, American communists but I'd like to get reliable sources of what the main body of men felt on this issue of volunteering vs. drafted.
 

Lone_Ranger

Practically Family
Messages
500
Location
Central, PA
If they volunteered, it was because they wanted to choose their branch, instead of being forced into the infantry. I believe the main body of men, saw either volunteering, or serving when drafted, as their "duty."

Case in point. The Sullivan Brothers enlisted on January 3, 1942 with the stipulation that they serve together. (Less than a month after Pearl Harbor)

I don't believe the attitude, of widespread resistance, to serving in the military, started until the 60's.
 

LizzieMaine

Bartender
Messages
33,757
Location
Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
There was a *lot* of grumbling in 1940, when the "preparedness" draft began -- most of it politically motivated -- but this evaporated immediately after Pearl Harbor. There were religious sects that claimed CO status, but most accepted alternative service -- if they didn't, they went to jail. And to claim pacifist status you usually had to be am active member of an established religious group with a pacifist tradition -- if you were just some random guy off the street who didn't want to go, it was very unlikely the draft board had any interest in what you had to say.

Slackers were actively despised by most people -- the most common question a man would be asked if he wasn't serving was "why aren't YOU in uniform?" And it was usually asked in a disgusted tone of voice.

The most famous CO of the war was probably actor Lew Ayers, who ended up in an alternative-service camp until he agreed to serve in the Medical Corps as a non-combatant. His movie career never fully recovered.
 

Fletch

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,865
Location
Iowa - The Land That Stuff Forgot
You know Ayres' (sp) 1930 role in All Quiet on the Western Front* probably didn't help his cause one bit. There had been a lot of attention called to the horrors of combat in the '30s, but by 1940 that amounted to siding with the isolationists, Oxford Pledgers** and others of questionable loyalty.

* a strongly anti-war picture based on a German novel.
** a manifesto against war service espoused by many students, most at left-leaning institutions.
 

Paisley

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,439
Location
Indianapolis
The book The Great Starvation Experiment says that quite a few members of the Historical Peace Churches volunteered for military service, and the military in general didn't want conscientious objectors in their ranks.

When James Stewart first tried to enlist, he was turned down. As I recall from reading one of his biographies a few years ago, he put on some weight, did some training to increase his strength, and was then allowed to enlist. I'm not so sure everyone in a similar position--comfortable and well-off but not quite up to military standards--bothered with a self-improvement program to go fight in the war.

When I was in the military 20 years ago, I never met one person who favored a draft.
 

kampkatz

Practically Family
Messages
715
Location
Central Pennsylvania
During a national energency having a draft is only logical. Of the WW2 vets from my father's generation whom I knew, some had volunteered, but most were drafted. My uncle joined up right after Pearl Harbor and he had no feeling of superiority over most draftees.
 

Guttersnipe

One Too Many
Messages
1,942
Location
San Francisco, CA
My Grandfather was drafted during 1940 "preparedness" draft because he was a physician with substantial surgical experience and was a well renowned heart specialist, so obviously, he had a very useful skill set. His feelings on the matter were complex. In '40 he'd only been in private practice for 2 years and being conscripted during peacetime completely destroyed his practice. . . needless to say, his captain's pay didn't come anywhere near to his income as civilian doctor. While he was proud of his WWII service, he disliked the army; he felt that regular Army medicos were sub-par hacks and resented taking orders from them.

Essentially his view was very pragmatic. He implicitly understood the Army's need for qualified surgeons, and consequently did his duty, however, he would say in no uncertain terms that a six-year hitch (1940 - 1946) set back his life by as many years and the economic repercussions for his family could not be understated. . .
 

LizzieMaine

Bartender
Messages
33,757
Location
Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
Paisley said:
When James Stewart first tried to enlist, he was turned down. As I recall from reading one of his biographies a few years ago, he put on some weight, did some training to increase his strength, and was then allowed to enlist. I'm not so sure everyone in a similar position--comfortable and well-off but not quite up to military standards--bothered with a self-improvement program to go fight in the war.

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.
 

Fletch

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,865
Location
Iowa - The Land That Stuff Forgot
I can't recall the author's name, but an online memoir I read recently claimed that (at least at his training camps in California) it was not uncommon for men to be sent to basic training despite serious health or psychological problems that would have exempted them from service - but somehow "just didn't."

Once you got there, the author wrote, the Army was really a trap - enlisted soldiers had few to no rights as citizens and were entirely at the mercy of "lifer" sergeants, typically men of very low moral character who had very little interest in the welfare of the recruits.

Military service under such conditions probably broke a lot of men who never saw combat, and thus were "not entitled" to much consideration for what they'd been thru.
 

Mid-fogey

Practically Family
Messages
720
Location
The Virginia Peninsula
I'm sure...

Fletch said:
I can't recall the author's name, but an online memoir I read recently claimed that (at least at his training camps in California) it was not uncommon for men to be sent to basic training despite serious health or psychological problems that would have exempted them from service - but somehow "just didn't."

Once you got there, the author wrote, the Army was really a trap - enlisted soldiers had few to no rights as citizens and were entirely at the mercy of "lifer" sergeants, typically men of very low moral character who had very little interest in the welfare of the recruits.

Military service under such conditions probably broke a lot of men who never saw combat, and thus were "not entitled" to much consideration for what they'd been thru.

...you'll find people who will say anything, but these are minority views that are overwhelmed by the vastly greater literature that doesn't support those views.

There have been any number of books that talk about how hard basic was in the war. Remember that the Army was impossibly vast even by modern standards and was built on the base of a tiny peacetime army. There is a long cycle of training difficulty that starts with returning combat veterans emphatically stating that basic has to be harder and it wasn’t hard enough to prepare them for the shock of combat. Over time the training becomes abusive, gets reformed, and then the next conflict drives it to be harder again.

After the first surge of enlistments in 1941/42, men were urged to wait until they were drafted to regulate the flow that the army could absorb. Even with that, men were still quitting high school and college and enlisting because they couldn’t stand to not be doing something. Where my dad grew up, they drafted the sons on the richest man in the county and made him the chairman of the local draft board. Very few got past him.

Many of these notions are people not wanting to go are inventions of modern people who can’t comprehend how the war really was – or don’t want to.
 

Harp

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,508
Location
Chicago, IL US
Fletch said:
Once you got there, the author wrote, the Army was really a trap - enlisted soldiers had few to no rights as citizens and were entirely at the mercy of "lifer" sergeants, typically men of very low moral character who had very little interest in the welfare of the recruits.


There are, of course, "bad apples" in any organization; including the US Army,
and to deny this would be foolish. Equally absurd is the bias that professional soldiers; especially
non-commissioned officers lack moral character. Quite the opposite was my own experience while
serving in the US Army during Vietnam; and I rather doubt that the Army in World War II was all that different.
It is fashionable in smug society to look down at the professional soldier,
for whatever cause or reason. But such sentiment is typically held by those
protected who never were forced to race Death. I would not be alive today
were I not trained by the best men I have ever known. And I learned much
more about character inside the US Army than academe ever taught.
 

p51

One Too Many
Messages
1,119
Location
Well behind the front lines!
My late uncle signed up right after Pearl Harbor, and he always said that the volunteers got the first crack at things over the people who were drafted.
Keep in mind, by late 1944 the war was going BADLY for manpower and they relaxed the draft standards. People who had been passed up earlier were being re-classified as “1A”.
 

Ruptured Duck™

New in Town
Messages
26
Location
The United States
Harp said:
There are, of course, "bad apples" in any organization; including the US Army,
and to deny this would be foolish. Equally absurd is the bias that professional soldiers; especially
non-commissioned officers lack moral character. Quite the opposite was my own experience while
serving in the US Army during Vietnam; and I rather doubt that the Army in World War II was all that different.
It is fashionable in smug society to look down at the professional soldier,
for whatever cause or reason. But such sentiment is typically held by those
protected who never were forced to race Death. I would not be alive today
were I not trained by the best men I have ever known. And I learned much
more about character inside the US Army than academe ever taught.

I thought this was well-said.
 

1961MJS

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,370
Location
Norman Oklahoma
Hi

My Dad went down to join up. He was supposed to be drafted in Late 1941, but joined the Army Air Corps to get out of the Infantry. His favorite professor from Western Illinois University (then Western State Teacher's College) taught Weather to the USAAC. Dad's basic wasn't that tough, at least he hasn't mentioned it. He did mention that the only weapon he fired in during the war, was a Thompson he had to qualify with before going overseas. Apparently there weren't any rifles for airman in basic. I'll have to ask him again because it sounds very strange, but I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

01My_Home_at_Scott_Field.jpg


Basic was at Scott AFB.

Later
 
Messages
15,563
Location
East Central Indiana
I was born shortly after WW2. Most of my family on both sides had volunteered for service immediately after Pearl Harbor or when they became old enough to serve...as well as many from my hometown.
I was a Drill Sgt during Viet Nam. A trainee in Basic Training has few 'civilian' rights. He is under military rules..and for good reason. Not to break him..but to make him. To follow orders unquestionably... even though any war can be controversial for many. My 'interest' was 'only' for their welfare. To have the training and mindset to make it through life and death situations...with perhaps better capabilities to drag themselves and others to safety. Also to kill the enemy. Yes..that's what war is all about. Training for war is meant to be hard and harsh...for that IS war. My moral charactor as an NCO had little to do with it. I got up every day and worked hard..all day(rain,sleet,or snow)training many boys to be men..who must grow up to face what lay ahead for most...real war. It wasn't the training that broke alot of men. For some it was just the horrors of war. Imagine if they had had no strict training at all.
I swear...many today are living in MambyPamby Land....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA
 

Stearmen

I'll Lock Up
Messages
7,202
Anti War

Fletch said:
** a manifesto against war service espoused by many students, most at left-leaning institutions.[/SIZE]
I'm not sure where you got that from, it was the very very far right that did everything they could to keep us from going to war with Hitler! Henry Ford had his virulent anti Jewish news paper, and we all know about Charles Lindbergh and his German families. Both men proudly accepted medals from Adolf, Ford to his credit, sent his back to Berlin attached to a bomb dropped from one of his B-24s! Lindbergh proudly displayed his until his dieing days! As for the draft, most were drafted, like my father although, he was lucky and ended up in the Air Corp. The army virtually stopped all volunteers, after January 1943, because the draft was working to well, they were having trouble assimilating so many men! The other branches were all volunteer right up to the end. Although, just like Vietnam, I have heard several say that as soon as their number came up, they ran down to the local Navy recruiter. Most DIs are good men, father, mother, friend, and sometimes worst nightmare, just depended on what the individual recruit responded to! I remember one telling me, he longed for the days when he could hit the recreates, not because he was a sadist, but as he said, "I could teach all the recreates more with just one hit to the solor plexus on one big recruit, then with an hour of yelling. When the biggest guy falls to his knees, every one listens!"
 

Rookie1

New in Town
Messages
44
Location
Cleveland,Ohio
My Grandfather was drafted in 1945 as a replacement for the 1st infantry division. He was 25, married and had a son. I never remember him saying he didnt want to fight just that he didnt want to leave his family. He never seen combat by the time he got to Germany the War ended. He did stay and occupy Europe than later got honorably discharged.:)
 

Fletch

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,865
Location
Iowa - The Land That Stuff Forgot
HoosierDaddy said:
I swear...many today are living in MambyPamby Land....
Yes, war is war, but Vietnam was not the same war, not the same army, and not for the same reasons.

Training in WW2 was usually totally up to the individuals doing the training, a lot of whom were peacetime career NCOs who went in when the Army was tiny and would take literally anybody with two eyes and a full head of teeth. The account I read gave them little credit for anything but keeping their immediate superiors happy.

I only know what I read myself, and I appreciate that there is a lot that is eternal, even sacred, about basic training. But bringing up Vietnam to explain WW2 seems a bit of a reach.
 

JimWagner

Practically Family
Messages
946
Location
Durham, NC
Fletch said:
Yes, war is war, but Vietnam was not the same war, not the same army, and not for the same reasons.

Training in WW2 was usually totally up to the individuals doing the training, a lot of whom were peacetime career NCOs. The account I read gave them little credit for anything but keeping their immediate superiors happy.

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

I think he was addressing the civil rights issue of recruits. And why drill sergeants do what they do. And always have. And pretty much always will.

Those who have experienced it know.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
109,264
Messages
3,077,562
Members
54,221
Latest member
magyara
Top