Conscription

[jaF0]

How does it work? Why do some 'western' countries do it, but not others? When their term is complete, are the conscripts better members of society? Does it help as far as 'unruly' youths?

 

[Porkwarrior]

How does it work? Why do some 'western' countries do it, but not others? When their term is complete, are the conscripts better members of society? Does it help as far as 'unruly' youths?

What Western countries? Even the French dropped conscription decades ago.
The only country off the top of my head that wear shoes and has conscription is Israel...but they are their own kettle of fish.


Why was it dropped? Simple, a volunteer army is multipliers worth more than a conscripted army. I can't recall a single instance going back to Republican Rome that a conscript army beat a volunteer army. The Falklands in the 80's is a closer example. Gulf War Mk. I is another (Desert Storm), the Serbs vs Croats vs Bosnia in the Balkans.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I've always liked the idea of 'National Service'. I believe it would make for more mature young adults. Women should be conscripted too. But not everyone should be taken. You don't want known drug abusers and such serving. And not shove them all into infantry positions. Engineering or pioneer type units would be great. Would have been handy to call up a few during the Fort MacMurray firestorm. Throw in some post secondary education. Not all Canadian kids can even afford college let alone university (we differentiate between the two levels). Wouldn't have to be all military service. Some countries allow opting for civil service of some sort.

Arguments for and against conscription.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Arguments_against_conscription

 

[Hard_Rom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

During WW II 80% of British army was conscripted. I would imagine same percentage ran through all armies. All you need is a core of trained professionals to train the conscripts.

Finland, Greece, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway all have some form of conscription or national service.

 

[magicalmoments]

How does it work? Why do some 'western' countries do it, but not others? When their term is complete, are the conscripts better members of society? Does it help as far as 'unruly' youths?

Although we no longer have conscription when it was in force here all males were required by law to register for military service when they turned 18. Each year there was a ballot at which a number of dates of birth were drawn at random. If your date of birth was drawn you were conscripted for compulsory military service.

Does it make them better members of society? In a word, No. The ratio of good citizens to bad is the same as any group in society. Does it help unruly youth? In a word, No. Unruly youth do better on outward bound type courses, military training is to make them soldiers ready to fight in a war, not to make them less unruly.

 

[Hard_Rom]

But it doesn't have to be military service. Some of the countries still with conscription allow civil service and not military. Even conscientious objectors and pacifists can serve in a non-military capacity. Most of us are stuck in the drafted to go to war idea.

 

[Porkwarrior]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

During WW II 80% of British army was conscripted. I would imagine same percentage ran through all armies. All you need is a core of trained professionals to train the conscripts.

Finland, Greece, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway all have some form of conscription or national service.

And during WWII the Prime Minister of Canada ordered a sub to bombard a lighthouse pretending to be a Jap sub. Because conscription for WWII wasn't going over too well in French Canada. Even after the fake Jap "invasion" conscription numbers weren't meeting demand, so MacKenzie King added an addendum...Canadian service members could choose, if they had a choice and wanted to check a box, which theater they would fight in. Europe or Asia.

Tough choice. Well one mess room lawyer on a Canadian frigate read the declaration, spread it around the mess...and the HMCS Uganda has since gone down in naval infamy as the only warship that has voted itself out of a combat zone. They spent the war in the Bahamas & Jamaica, lol.

So much for Canadian conscription.

...Does it make them better members of society? In a word, No. The ratio of good citizens to bad is the same as any group in society. Does it help unruly youth? In a word, No. Unruly youth do better on outward bound type courses, military training is to make them soldiers ready to fight in a war, not to make them less unruly...

What an utter, steaming, pile of horseshit.
I've had the privilege to do both, I can not for the life of me remember who my Outward Bound chief instructor was. But I will NEVER forget the voice of Warrant Officer MacAdams.

 

[colddiesel]

Because conscription for WWII wasn't going over too well in French Canada.

What did you expect, it was French Canada.

I did 18 years in a Scottish regiment. Perhaps half were volunteer youngsters from the Highlands and Islands who couldn't find jobs; the other half were some of the vilest scum on the planet - Scots Irish criminal filth from the slums of Glasgow, the courts often gave them the option of sign on or prison. But after training that filth generally made pretty decent soldiers - but they hardly ever got promotions - decent soldiers but still criminal filth.

 

[domroger]

I've always liked the idea of 'National Service'. I believe it would make for more mature young adults. Women should be conscripted too. But not everyone should be taken. You don't want known drug abusers and such serving. And not shove them all into infantry positions. Engineering or pioneer type units would be great. Would have been handy to call up a few during the Fort MacMurray firestorm. Throw in some post secondary education. Not all Canadian kids can even afford college let alone university (we differentiate between the two levels). Wouldn't have to be all military service. Some countries allow opting for civil service of some sort.

Arguments for and against conscription.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Arguments_against_conscription

I served after conscription ended ,but regulars who had served with them said they were a waste of time and training for the most part .They did not want to be there and slacked off at every chance .

 

[Hard_Rom]

And during WWII the Prime Minister of Canada ordered a sub to bombard a lighthouse pretending to be a Jap sub. Because conscription for WWII wasn't going over too well in French Canada. Even after the fake Jap "invasion" conscription numbers weren't meeting demand, so MacKenzie King added an addendum...Canadian service members could choose, if they had a choice and wanted to check a box, which theater they would fight in. Europe or Asia.

Tough choice. Well one mess room lawyer on a Canadian frigate read the declaration, spread it around the mess...and the HMCS Uganda has since gone down in naval infamy as the only warship that has voted itself out of a combat zone. They spent the war in the Bahamas & Jamaica, lol.

So much for Canadian conscription.



What an utter, steaming, pile of horseshit.
I've had the privilege to do both, I can not for the life of me remember who my Outward Bound chief instructor was. But I will NEVER forget the voice of Warrant Officer MacAdams.

Less than 2500 conscripts made it to Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944#Introduction_of_conscription

False!

Yes the Uganda incident and actions were unpatriotic and embarrassing but it served in the Pacific theater.

On 4 April 1945, the Canadian government changed the manning policy for all ships deploying to the Pacific theatre. All those heading to the Pacific would have to re-volunteer. Upon volunteering again, the serviceman would be eligible for 30 days leave in Canada before deployment.[12] Controversially this policy change was applied to those already there and Uganda's RCN crew were polled by the Canadian government on 7 May 1945 to determine whether they would volunteer for further duties in the Pacific War.[12][14] Widespread discontent had grown amongst the crew, due to poor living conditions and the lack of a Canadian identity for the ship and the result saw 605 of her crew of 907 refuse to volunteer.[14] The crew of Uganda felt that they had volunteered for "hostilities only", (i.e., hostilities against Nazi Germany) but now found themselves fighting a different enemy in a quite different part of the world.

The vote on 7 May was held onboard Uganda and 605 crew out of 907 refused to volunteer for continuing operations against Japan. The British Admiralty was furious and said it could not replace the ship until 27 July at the earliest. However, the cruiser continued her deployment in the Pacific throughout June and July while the Naval Staff sought an answer to the problem. An embarrassed Royal Canadian Navy offered to replace Uganda with HMCS Prince Robert, an anti-aircraft flak ship that was being refitted in Vancouver.

Uganda took part in Operation Inmate, a carrier raid on Japanese installations at Truk. Sailing on 12 June from Manus Island, the cruiser was among the ships detailed to bombard the island of Dublon. The force returned to Manus Island on 17 June.[15] In July, Uganda, now part of Task Force 37, sailed to join up with the Americans performing carrier air strikes on the Tokyo area, arriving on 16 July.[16] On 27 July, Uganda was relieved by HMS Argonaut.[17]

HMCS Uganda was detached from the US Navy's Third Fleet on 27 July when Argonaut arrived. Uganda proceeded to Eniwetok, and then to Pearl Harbor for refuelling before heading for Esquimalt. En route to Pearl Harbor, one boiler suffered a liner collapse which would have resulted in the ship's withdrawal from active combat at any rate. Uganda limped into Pearl Harbor on 4 August but was not welcomed because of the resentment that her crew was "quitting" the war.[citation needed] Uganda departed after refuelling and proceeded for Esquimalt. En route to Canada, the crew heard news about the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan. They arrived in Esquimalt on 10 August, the day that Japan announced its acceptance of the Instrument of Surrender.[18][19][20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Uganda_(66)

More fake news or at the most a lame conspiracy theory.

Jean Morin, a historian with the Department of National Defence, said the "latest scholarship" on the Estevan Point incident and Japanese naval operations off the Pacific Coast of North America has produced "not a clue that there might have been American involvement."

The argument advanced in The Beaver "is not something we can corroborate. ... To us it seems very improbable."

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2004/020404lighthouseattack.htm

 

[HisArpy]

I served after conscription ended ,but regulars who had served with them said they were a waste of time and training for the most part .They did not want to be there and slacked off at every chance .

I doubt this is true.

61% of the US military in WWII was drafted (conscripted). 73,000 US troops landed on the beach on D-Day. I doubt ANY of them "wanted" to be there but they were. Yet, over 46,000 of them were draftees who stormed the beach. And died for the most part.

The Pacific theater was just as bad. And the draftees just as brave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima - 8000 dead, 20K wounded. 60%=4800 drafted dead, 12K drafted wounded.

I don't see much "slacking off" there.

 

[AnAmericanDarling]

How does it work? Why do some 'western' countries do it, but not others? When their term is complete, are the conscripts better members of society? Does it help as far as 'unruly' youths?

I don't believe in conscription. I just don't believe it does any good. It doesn't seem that conscripts are better off in society after there term has ended; they now have to get used to home life again and others have PTSD that others essentially assigned them. As for unruly youths, I would think it would just cause them to be more rebellious.

 

[domroger]

I doubt this is true.

61% of the US military in WWII was drafted (conscripted). 73,000 US troops landed on the beach on D-Day. I doubt ANY of them "wanted" to be there but they were. Yet, over 46,000 of them were draftees who stormed the beach. And died for the most part.

The Pacific theater was just as bad. And the draftees just as brave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima - 8000 dead, 20K wounded. 60%=4800 drafted dead, 12K drafted wounded.

I don't see much "slacking off" there.

I'm not that fucking old .
I joined in 64 .

 

[jaF0]

I think it could help some by exposing them to opportunities and situations that might not be otherwise.

Some could be assigned to the Forest Service for example planting trees in past fire areas. Some to FEMA for disaster relief services.

Remember the old WPA? 'Rump wants to work on infrastructure, right?

Some could be taught skills to help them find work later.

Some would still be worthless punks for sure.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Obviously a difference between peace time and war time conscription. Probably also a difference between such total war conflicts like WW II and regional police actions like Vietnam. Still liking civil service as an option to military. Planting trees to replace those logged out or burnt out is a great idea. Just picking up garbage off streets and highways or shovelling snow in winter.

And no fucking deferments for rich kids. They can wait a year or two before heading of to school.

 

[Stuart_Pidd]

Obviously a difference between peace time and war time conscription. Probably also a difference between such total war conflicts like WW II and regional police actions like Vietnam. Still liking civil service as an option to military. Planting trees to replace those logged out or burnt out is a great idea. Just picking up garbage off streets and highways or shovelling snow in winter.

And no fucking deferments for rich kids. They can wait a year or two before heading of to school.

bro, you spelled shovelling wrong

it's shoveling

 

[Hard_Rom]

bro, you spelled shovelling wrong

it's shoveling

Normally I would quote you as an expert in shovelling but not this time, barely literate Yank!

 

[Stuart_Pidd]

Normally I would quote you as an expert in shovelling but not this time, barely literate Yank!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMa2IK1qS7E

 

[ishtat]

I doubt this is true.

And died for the most part.

.

No. The vast majority survived.

 

[about_average]

Why was it dropped? Simple, a volunteer army is multipliers worth more than a conscripted army. I can't recall a single instance going back to Republican Rome that a conscript army beat a volunteer army. The Falklands in the 80's is a closer example. Gulf War Mk. I is another (Desert Storm), the Serbs vs Croats vs Bosnia in the Balkans.

Yeah, good thing Germany, Italy and Japan used conscription, otherwise the allies would have gotten the shit beat out of us.

 

[magicalmoments]

What an utter, steaming, pile of horseshit.
I've had the privilege to do both, I can not for the life of me remember who my Outward Bound chief instructor was. But I will NEVER forget the voice of Warrant Officer MacAdams.

I think you have rather proved my point. Thank you.

 

[magicalmoments]

I think it could help some by exposing them to opportunities and situations that might not be otherwise.

Some could be assigned to the Forest Service for example planting trees in past fire areas. Some to FEMA for disaster relief services.

Remember the old WPA? 'Rump wants to work on infrastructure, right?

Some could be taught skills to help them find work later.

Some would still be worthless punks for sure.

As always when having conscripts undertake civil work care needs to be taken to avoid displacement of private citizens and firms that rely on that work to make a living.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think it could help some by exposing them to opportunities and situations that might not be otherwise.

Some could be assigned to the Forest Service for example planting trees in past fire areas. Some to FEMA for disaster relief services.

Remember the old WPA? 'Rump wants to work on infrastructure, right?

Some could be taught skills to help them find work later.

Some would still be worthless punks for sure.

Paying people to do busywork is an economically unproductive waste of resources.

It takes money out of the real economy and puts it into an artificial economy that goes away the instance the funding cuts off. It's a transfer of wealth from the productive who have to support the projects with their tax dollars to the government so that it can engage in nothing more than campaign stunts.

 

[jaF0]

The idea would be to train new workers to take the place of older workers as they retire or move on.

As it is now, we're training kids to play videogames and do not much more.

 

[water505]

Paying people to do busywork is an economically unproductive waste of resources.

It takes money out of the real economy and puts it into an artificial economy that goes away the instance the funding cuts off. It's a transfer of wealth from the productive who have to support the projects with their tax dollars to the government so that it can engage in nothing more than campaign stunts.

So you got a problem wit dat?

There are plenty of people who think that's the government's job.