Draft Dodgers: Traitors?

[David Floyd]

[Alexander's Horse]

About the only interesting thing this thread has established is that right wing extremists, as identified by their pro draft views, make up about 20% of the forum community.

[David Floyd]

I found the whole debate interesting...even more interesting, though, is the fact that certain people who vehemently disagree with me won't respond to my posts

[Sikander]

Regarding some of the 'what if' history put forth by David, Chris and IIRC Seeker.

David seems to see history as some sort of deterministic exercize, where by merely subtracting an element we can easily come up with another 'correct' answer. Thus by removing the draft in the U.S. it is possible (if he believes his own posts anyway) to determine the course of alternative history. This is problematic at best, where a single 'what if' is addressed and speculated about. The magnitude of the complexity of the events David speculated about in his first post make these sorts of assumptions very tenuous. These aren't just battles or campaigns, but entire wars. When done in a compound fashion the speculations are virtually meaningless.

Addressing the historical points individually with an eye firmly on the point made above, I have to put myself in the doubting camp along with David and Seeker regarding the viability of a Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland. I tend to agree with both of these posters that even a concentrated effort on Hawaii would have been unlikely to have been successful. While there is always a small chance that something could work by a lucky convergence of events, I wouldn't bet a dollar that the Japanese could have siezed the Hawaiian islands, nor would I risk a penny on the prospects for a Japanese attack on the mainland of the U.S. capable of taking out both Seattle and Los Angeles. Chris' points about Singapore and Hong Kong falling are comparing apples and oranges, because both were islands cut off from supply, and neither were defended by people who were fighting for their homeland.

The analysis provided earlier by the other doubters is good, especially the points about the lack of available forces and the political intransigence of the Japanese Army. Attacking Hawaii would have been a reasonbly prudent move had the Japanese had enough internal cohesion to properly plan and outfit an expedition to do so at the outset of the war. Of course they did not, and also could not have predicted that the Pearl Harbor attacks would have neutralized the U.S. navy, which btw was only a partial truth to begin with. Another problem for the operation has to do with staging. There were no decent sized Japanese controlled ports anywhere near Hawaii. Resupply for a protracted battle would have had to come all the way from the home islands directly, leaving the landing forces fighting with their basic ammunition load for a period of weeks, or stripping the troops responsible for all of the other operations across the Pacific of their supplies in order to make up the shortfall.

On the plus side, seizing the islands and mopping up Palmyra and the other small islands to the south would have been the sort of strategic blow that might have actually given the Japanese a chance to negotiate a decent peace for themselves. A good first move might have been grabbing Johnston Island in conjunction with the Pearl Harbor attack. It was undefended and had enough airfield capacity for the superior Japanese pilots and aircraft (Bettys and Zeros) to keep a lot of pressure on Pearl Harbor while supplies and forces were built up for eventual operations in the Hawaiian islands proper. While Japanese fighters could escort their bombers attacking Pearl Harbor etc., the allied bombers stationed there could not strike Johnston at all in numbers, and the few who could reach it would have had to fly in without escorts. All in all though, it is a very unlikely scenario.

I am not sufficiently convinced that either side would have 'won' WWI had the U.S. not intervened at all, though I think even with a purely volunteer U.S. element the odds have to strongly favor the Allies. I do not think that the draft was the decisive element, though if Germany had not completely collapsed I do think that a 'tie' would have been much more likely. Unfortunately none of the Governments involved had the courage to tell their people that the millions of killed had been sacrificed in order to uphold the status quo. The odds favor Chris' interpretation of events, though I'm not convinced that the answers are as cut and dried as either Chris or David state. This war in 1918 resembled two beat up fighters leaning on each other in the 12th round. One is ahead on points, but if he slips to the floor there is no guarantee that he can even stand up again.

[Berzerker]

Are draft dodgers traitors? No, the Constitution defines traitor/treason and that definition does not apply to people who refuse to fight. Those who dodged the Vietnam War did the right thing because Congress never declared war (which is why they called it a "police action") and because the draft is immoral. And I will never support Democrats or Republicans for oppressing those who refused to fight in their illegal war(s).

I don't have the right to force you to risk your life or die for me, therefore the draft is immoral. But since we have a volunteer force, court martialing people who volunteered and refused to fight - thereby violating a contract - is appropriate.

Would I volunteer to fight for "my country"? Hell no! I would volunteer to fight for myself, my family, my friends, and for those people I consider worthy of such a sacrifice - and that doesn't include the people who've outlawed my freedom -Democrats and Republicans (even though they would benefit from my sacrifice). And obviously I would only volunteer once I determined those people I listed favorably were actually in danger from a foreign enemy, not because politicians in this country have geo-political goals that have nothing to do with our freedom.

While I'm sympathetic with those coerced to fight in illegal wars, I have no sympathy for people who condemn others for not risking their live's for us. How ******* arrogant! "You won't die for me? Shame on you!" That's what these people are saying!!!

[Berzerker]

AH -

About the only interesting thing this thread has established is that right wing extremists, as identified by their pro draft views, make up about 20% of the forum community.

Does that mean libertarians are no longer right wing extremists in your book?

[Alexander's Horse]

I don't see how people who believe in stuff like the death penalty and the draft can be libertarians. Its only in America that such people call themselves libertarian. In the rest of the world they'd be laughed at for claiming that title. I mean point at them and roll on the floor laughed at. They are just right wing extremists.

*can't wait till Imran or Wraith goes overseas*

But we've been over this ground before.

[Chris 62]

Sikander,

Chris' points about Singapore and Hong Kong falling are comparing apples and oranges, because both were islands cut off from supply, and neither were defended by people who were fighting for their homeland.

You can simply cut in any large Chinese city if you like, the principles are the same, isolate the target and reduce it.

I never said it was likely, but that it was within Japan's capability.

David lauched into a large scenario, even getting into specific ships, but a US west coast attack would have likely included a Panama canal attack (this was planned, Flying boats refueled by subs were to carry it out, in fact, Japan tried to convince Germany to fuel their flying boats with Nazi subs for an attack on NYC!
This was never tried, however, it was felt the results wouldn't match the effort). The Pacific thus isolated, an attack on the US mainland would have been a very real possibility. Also, for David, the Japanese armor (type 97 Chi-ha) had a 57mm cannon, capable of destroying both Lees and Shermans, as was proved on Saipan and other islands, so your bit about USA armor is totally inaccurate. Add to it, Japan would have air superiority over the invasion area, making armored reinforcement difficult at best to the WC.

It must also be understood that Japan was outnumbered in the Phillipennes, Malaysia, Burma, and Indonesia, yet managed to win via tactics and airpower and seapower against larger enemies.

The forces to launch a US attack certainly would have come form China, the Army wasn't as cut and dried as David thinks, the Japanese generals might very well have gone for USA over China, hell, they wanted Australia over China! He's looking back in hindsight, we are speaking in terms of what ifs.

David also far over-estimates the U-Boat campagin's effectivness in WWI, as Britain never even declared a crisis state because of them. Unterseeboot technology was not yet what it would be in WWII, U-Boats had short ranges and Britain was producing flying boats and other weapons to deal with them. No way would Britain have been starved out in WWI.

[Alexander's Horse]

[Chris 62]

Hey horse, I put a lot into that post.

[Alexander's Horse]

I dunno, what can I say? You're just naturally boring I suppose

[Chris 62]

You must be rubbing off.

[Berzerker]

AH -

I don't see how people who believe in stuff like the death penalty and the draft can be libertarians. Its only in America that such people call themselves libertarian. In the rest of the world they'd be laughed at for claiming that title. I mean point at them and roll on the floor laughed at. They are just right wing extremists.

Leaving aside the death penalty which you just introduced, you said right wing extremists were in favor of the draft. Yet, no libertarian in this thread expressed support for the draft - hence my question. As for the rest of the world laughing (quite an exaggeration), libertarianism is an ideology based on freedom/free will. If there are libertarians inhabiting other parts of the globe, they are a very small minority just as they are here. Most people in the world want "government" to steal for them so their opinions about the meaning of libertarianism are suspect to say the least. Instead of making ridiculous claims about how the rest of the world defines libertarianism, why don't you actually show how the views of American libertarians are incompatable with freedom?

[Alexander's Horse]

yeah sorry - I had a few drinks at lunch.

Working graveyard shift at the Pizza Hut huh Berz?

[Berzerker]

It's 10 pm here, and Pizza Hut doesn't stay open all night.