The draft during world war II

"A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression."

Ayn Rand said that. What I'm wondering is, why was it necessary for the U.S to have a draft during World War II? Didn't we, as the quote implies, have enough volunteers?

Thanks for the help.

Pan

Post 1

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 2:29am

Hi Pan,

I don't have all the details, but the draft was started in 1940, before we were ever attacked. Roosevelt was getting ready for a war that most Americans didn't want to be involved in.

There were some Americans that volunteered for the British and French (quelle horreur!) armies who wanted to fight Fascism, but for the most part they weren't interested.

A lot of people signed up after Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war -- I don't know how many or if it would have been enough to take the war to Europe and Japan as we did. But because of the draft, we will never know if it would have been enough.

Post 2

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:32am

The quote by Rand is entirely correct. A truly free nation does not require a military draft. A truly free nation is one that possesses (1)productive citizens guided by rational self-interest,(2) an independent and delimited government of unasssaible laws to protect the individual rights of those citizens, and (3) the sovereign region or land upon which the government and the citizens reside. While the third premise did exist at the time of the draft, the first and second did not. America at the time was in constant upheaval, from economical and political, to moral and legal--which are all inherently related. So while the quote by Rand is correct, the scenario of the quote did not exist. America was not a completely, truly free nation. Quite the contrary. That period of time saw the emergence of the great Welfare State in America, and its antecedent the New Deal. Social and economic programs increased the influence of government, and created a reliance ~on~ the government. So while the voluntary enlistment of thousands still occurred, many saw no reason to fight for something that was already being given to them freely. "It will be here if I fight or not, so why fight?" The draft would have been completely unnecessary if all Americans had realized that the "tree of liberty" had to be watered from time to time with their blood. As it was, "the tree of'liberty'" at the time was being chopped up and handed out to them as firewood . Free People will gladly fight to preserve their freedom; dependant or complacent people will fight only if forced to on behalf of another, not themselves.
Luckily, many still saw the need to fight, and did so gladly and without reserve, to defend what the government could never give them: pride and life.

Post 3

Monday, October 6, 2003 - 4:34pm

Jeremy (or anyone),
As far as the draft goes, I don't think any state has a claim on any citizen's life. However, in the perfect Objectivist nation, where everyone IS truly free, and looks out for their self-interest first, wouldn't many people decide that it is in their best interest to let others fight and die for their nation, while they sit at home?

Post 4

Monday, October 6, 2003 - 10:09pm

Of course they may decide such a thing. They may change their minds when the enemy (this can only be an initiator of force, in a perfect Objectivist nation) is leveling their homes with tanks and artillery. "Rationally selfish" means the exact opposite of "selfish at the cost of core values, or human lives".

I can't say how many Objectivists would voluntarily fight against a clear-cut, hostile enemy. Most people are--rightly so--not keen on dying, or making others die. But until the situation arises, speculation is futile. Perhaps every single able-bodied person would sign up. Perhaps no one would. Such a situation would be a dire test of free nation. Whether or not the nation survives the test will be determined by how truly free it is, and if its citizens ask themselves an important question: "Is my nation, and the freedoms I have within it, worth risking myself?" The answer determines whether or not the nation is "a perfect Objectivist" one.

J

Post 5

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - 8:58pm

You convinced me.

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - 9:09pm

Okay, cool.

J

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:31am

But not me.
Defensive war is a special case since there's no way for the fighters to opt not to share the benefit of their actions with the non-fighters.

Worse, while the fighters are off getting shot at, the non-fighters are at home exploiting the situation.

Wouldn't it be rational for the fighters to expel those who refuse to fight?
O

Post 8

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:25pm

If by a defensive war, you mean a war on American soil, then there is no choice but to fight. The non-fighters CAN'T be at home exploiting the situation, because that's where the war is.

Post 9

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:40pm

The only defensible Objectivist position on the draft is to pay our military porsonnel enough so that if the number of volunteers dries up others will join up strictly for the money. If the war is not popular then the voters will have their say and get rid of the legislators who voted for the pay increase. Those who choose not to volunteer will pay for those who do out of their taxes.

This is an non-coercive as it gets in a democracy.

Post 10

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 2:19am

Interesting responses:

"...a war on American soil, then there is no choice but to fight."

By then it's too late - you've already lost the ability to fight - it takes time to train soldiers, and being invaded damages your economic base, and hence your ability to fight a sustained war.

Historical experience suggests that the best place to fight a defensive war is in somebody else's country. (As a Brit I can tell you that this is usually France.)

"The non-fighters CAN'T be at home exploiting the situation, because that's where the war is."

True, but they can sell out to the enemy for personal advantage instead. This is what happened in Europe under the Nazis.

"...pay our military personnel..."

To a point, though a very large mercenary army may damage your freedom - e.g. see the decline of Rome and Byzantium, and Machiavelli's thoughts ont he subject. There's a lot to be said for having an army with a stake in civillian life.

"The only defensible Objectivist position..."

Surely an objectivist stance would be based on self interest and a clear sighted understanding of war.

In a war for survival there can be no neutrallity, so by being a dead weight, non-fighters have effectively joined the enemy side and are fair game. Also, through non-action, non-fighters have already surrendored their rights - it's just a question of who coerces them, rather than whether coercian exists.

Finally, since the alternative is my own destruction, isn't there a point where it's in my rational self interest to force other people to join me in the fight?

O

Post 11

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 10:29am

Observer has a point.

If you don't institute a draft, and the war is just, then by fighting the war you are living for the sake of others, in the sense that they recieve a value from you without giving you any value in return.

On the other hand, if there is a draft, and you conscript people who don't want to fight, then you are forcing others to live for you.

The way I see it, by allowing the government to draft under certain circumstances, you practically guarantee abuse. Look at Vietnam.

This is one thing where I think we are better off trusting in the individual over the state. Look at all the patriotism after 9-11. People value freedom, and will fight for it. This is one area where we can, for the most part, trust in the general public.

Post 12

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:03pm

If you take the population of the US as an example, just a very small percentage of individuals would be required (required meaning necessitated by the logistics of war, not law) to fight out of that population. Any portion larger than about one percent is superfluous.

There's a reasonable assumption that some individuals would choose not to fight. This is fine, logistically, because they aren't necessary to win.

Should the soldier on the front line feel resentment towards those in the rear, who contribute little but reap the reward--freedom--while the fighter risks the ultimate denial of that reward--death? Sometimes. If his efforts are rewarded with egg-throwing, name-calling, and protests, then those utilizing their freedom to denounce the one who protected it for them deserve his resentment. But the soldier should realize that there will be some who laud his efforts, appreciate what he's done for them, would reward him with anything in their power to give for the price he paid--but still were unable or unwilling to face the enormous risks as he did. Not all men are suited for war. (I would think this is a good thing.)

And the simple truth is, I wouldn't wish to fight next to a man who wasn't willing to fight.

Good analysis in this thread. The bottom line is-- ~anything but a draft.~

Post 13

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:19pm

Observer
"Finally, since the alternative is my own destruction, isn't there a point where it's in my rational self interest to force other people to join me in the fight?"
If the war is popular there is no need. If you are the only one wanting to fight then a true democracy is telling you that you are out of step. Your problem is then with democracy.

You have portrayed a well-paid military as being composed of mercenaries. I suppose that if they were foreign troops you would have a case but there is nothing wrong with attracting recruits away from civilian jobs when there is a national emergency. The pay should be commensurate with a shortage of recruits if the voters perceive there is one.

Post 14

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 2:51am

Thanks for all the considered responses. I agree that you don't need a big percentage of the population to fight a just war, so a professional army should do the job - as e.g. The Falklands War - without compromising freedom.

(I also agree that there's something sickening about smug pacifists pontificating from the safety of the ring of steel created by the working class young men that they denegrate.)

However, the original thread kicked off with discussion of WWII.

For us Europeans, justice had nothing to do with our reason to fight. It was a simple matter of national and personal survival: win or watch enemy soldiers rape your women and children and play football with live babies, shortly before they make you dig your own grave. France still has ghost villages...

I really want to know how Objectivism copes with this sort of emergency situation.

Imagine a more modern, smaller scale situation: Suppose we're a group of rational (former) Yugoslavians who decide to band together to form an Objectivist city state.

Would not a condition of membership be the readiness to fight anybody who tried to wipe us out? When the Ethnic Cleansers turned up with their guns and petrol barrels, would it not be entirely reasonable to expel anybody who refused to fight?

Cheers
O

Post 15

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 3:44am

"(I also agree that there's something sickening about smug pacifists pontificating from the safety of the ring of steel created by the working class young men that they denegrate.) "

I find it more sickening that that the corporate Warfare-State needlessly sends working class men to their deaths in the first place.

Post 16

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 4:42am

I agree. During the 1914-18 fiasco, my great uncle returned to the lines from delivering a despatch: "Anybody seen the Sherwood Foresters?" "Er... sorry mate. There was a push." All of them gone. Just like that. Lions led by donkeys. And for what...?

However, this is a digression.

You tell me - since you're online - how do you handle a do-or-die emergency without something like the draft?

Imagine: it's 1850 and you're in a log cabin besieged by irrate Native americans. You and your wife are manning the loopholes, while your 12 year old daughter keeps the guns loaded. In there with you is an entire family of - say - religious pacifists who eat your dwindling food supply but refuse to sully their hands with violence, let alone take the risk of exposing themselves to incoming arrows. What do you do?

Post 17

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 5:36pm

The first thing you do is kick those f***ing freeloaders out of your cabin and let them fend for themselves. It is YOUR cabin, and if they don't agree to the terms of remaining in your cabin (fighting being one of those terms) then you have every right to send them packing.

Post 18

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:18am

OK... now suppose it's not your cabin. Suppose it's abandoned and you just ended up taking shelter there after the stage coach was hit?

Post 19

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:43pm