3 ms·

Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for de

Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for desertion are very rare in western culture armies. Not that western culture armies couldn't be cruel. Field Punishment No. 1 is culturally engrained in my country: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 That said, you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. If simply because my step-father, an Englishman touring the world, happily volunteered to fight the North Vietnamese as part of the RNZA, as did many others, all of NZ's troops in that war were volunteers. No conscription at the barrel of a gun. Hell, during WW1 and WW2, people were faking their age to join up. Reality is a lot more nuanced than you're making out. I mean, we're social animals, for millennia we've lived or died by the group.

WalterBright 6y ago
WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. > you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not allow soldiers to desert. Deserters are imprisoned or shot. The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Being in the military is a good career, and there are many benefits making it attractive. But you can bet if we get into a war where they start dying in large numbers, the government will start drafting. After all, all young men are required by law to register for the draft when they turn 18. Even now. When I was young, I considered joining the Air Force or the Navy. But not to sacrifice myself. I seriously doubt many of those join up, nor would I really want to serve with someone who wanted to sacrifice himself.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. Vietnam was the only 20th century war with a fairly limited draft rather than the broad drafts of the World Wars and Korea. That actually played a lot into the political controversy.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  > WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides Yes, sorta. Once again, you can't generalise about this stuff. Every country approached it differently. Often conscription only happened after all the volunteers were depleted - i.e., it wasn't the first port of call. > So did the Vietnam War. Not in my country. The US, and Australia, yes, but New Zealand hasn't used conscription since WW2, despite fighting in Malaya, Borneo, Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Afghanistan etc. > Deserters are imprisoned or shot. I thought it was just executed? At least it was in your prior comments. > The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Sure. Military discipline being what it is, well, yeah, I'm not overly surprised. But a) no-one forced them there at the muzzle of a gun, as you alleged, and b) no-one is shooting them for leaving. So... well, not really sure what your point was.

WalterBright 6y ago

WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. > you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not allow soldiers to desert. Deserters are imprisoned or shot. The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Being in the military is a good career, and there are many benefits making it attractive. But you can bet if we get into a war where they start dying in large numbers, the government will start drafting. After all, all young men are required by law to register for the draft when they turn 18. Even now. When I was young, I considered joining the Air Force or the Navy. But not to sacrifice myself. I seriously doubt many of those join up, nor would I really want to serve with someone who wanted to sacrifice himself.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. Vietnam was the only 20th century war with a fairly limited draft rather than the broad drafts of the World Wars and Korea. That actually played a lot into the political controversy.
EdwardDiego 6y ago
> WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides Yes, sorta. Once again, you can't generalise about this stuff. Every country approached it differently. Often conscription only happened after all the volunteers were depleted - i.e., it wasn't the first port of call. > So did the Vietnam War. Not in my country. The US, and Australia, yes, but New Zealand hasn't used conscription since WW2, despite fighting in Malaya, Borneo, Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Afghanistan etc. > Deserters are imprisoned or shot. I thought it was just executed? At least it was in your prior comments. > The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Sure. Military discipline being what it is, well, yeah, I'm not overly surprised. But a) no-one forced them there at the muzzle of a gun, as you alleged, and b) no-one is shooting them for leaving. So... well, not really sure what your point was.