I sincerely believe volunteer soldiers make a better job than those who were conscripted.
Based on my own experience during national service,I can guarantee that the state of the French army was really poor regarding their conscripted regiments.
We were affiliated paratroops in the Air force and couldn’t give a toss about guarding radar and transmission sites.
This was before the change from a conscript to a volunteer army (1993/94) so maybe nobody cared anymore at that time.Still I do think people who do sign up for the army make better soldiers than the ones taken from their jobs or studies.
Well, purely theoretically speaking, Conscripts should make worse soldiers than Volunteers.
A Conscript was pushed into a war they (theoretically) didn’t want to fight. Of course they’ll fight hard to survive, build bonds and have heroic and definitely respectable achievements.
But in the end they are still conscripts, who were forced to subject themselves to a danger they did not want, and therefore are more likely to try to avoid unnecessarily dangerous actions.
This of course doesn’t mean they won’t still do them, depending on their patriotism, feeling of obligation towards their unit and personal bravery.
But with such a general subject, you have to live with generalizations.
A Volunteer would typically much more ideologically motivated. Whether it is a strong patriotism or a believe in the cause the war is fought for, they would theoretically be more likely to fight harder for the victory than people who were pushed into it and maybe don’t even believe in what they’re fighting for.
Again, there’s the potential for cowardice with Volunteers just as with Conscripts, but I would expect it to be lower. If you signed up for fighting, you obviously did so because you wanted to fight, so you’re more likely to fight.
Again, I’m not trying to say that Conscripts are necessarily inferior to Volunteers, but from a theoretical point of view, there’s more speaking for Volunteers than for Conscripts.
Do you think it might depend upon whether or not the troops, both regular and conscript, think they are doing something worthwhile to defend their nation in a time of perceived need or threat rather than just filling in some comfortable or pointless years in uniform when there is no immediate military threat to their nation?
Our conscripts in Vietnam thought they were defending their nation and fought well.
Conversely, some conscript mates of mine were disparaging about regular soldiers who had ‘gangplank fever’, being a fear of boarding a ship or plane heading for Vietnam. Many of those regulars signed up in quieter times as an alternative to harder lives on the farm or in industry or trades and thought it would be a comfortable existence in a peacetime army.
I have been told of several instances where regulars, all volunteers, in that period upon being listed for Vietnam said something to the effect of “I didn’t sign up for this.” and then tried to to find ways out of the army while some of the conscripts were happily heading for action.
I don’t think that one can generalise about the quality of volunteers or conscripts as both groups have people who make good and bad soldiers.
Wait, Rising Sun, what is your definition of conscript?
The person who got a letter from the Government one fine day telling him that he has to report to the recruitment bureau, where he will be assigned a unit, trained and then sent to a currently waging war? (My definition)
Or the person who, when the war started and the Government made a public call that all men capable to fight are expected (though not yet individually forced/requested) to serve, went to a recruitment bureau, let himself get assigned and then went to fight the war. (Which I would refer to as a volunteer)
Those are all fair comments, but they assume that a war is going on and that all volunteers volunteer from pure motives of national defence and self-sacrifice.
I have no idea of the numbers, but I’d guess that in many nations far more soldiers joined and served as volunteers and conscripts in peacetime. That’s rather different to the situation in a hot war, especially for volunteers who signed up expecting not to have to fight, which I’ve referred to in my last post as far as some regular bronzed Anzacs were concerned during Vietnam.
I know from reading various personal accounts and from a few personal contacts that some, perhaps many, Australian men volunteered in both world wars as much from perceived social pressure (which as usual came from people who could not or would not join but who expected others to do it to defend them) as from any other motive.
Once conscripts are forced into the service, some and maybe even many will discover or build on a martial spirit which was always there, but which needed them to be forced into service to discover.
On the other hand, and despite careful selection processes, some volunteers will prove to be major disappointments but will be retained in the service in lesser roles because they can perform there and it is a return on the service’s investment in training them. But great soldiers they are not.
A conscript is someone who is drafted / press ganged / compelled / whatever to join an armed service by his or her government. They are civilians forced to be military slaves to their government’s whim.
A volunteer joins voluntarily. They are civilians who chose to be military slaves to their government’s whim.
Most regulars and conscripts in Western, and for that matter Eastern, Europe since WWII weren’t even in countries which were remotely at risk of deploying conscripts, or regulars, to any current war in which their nation was engaged. I don’t think we can draw too much from their service about the likely fighting qualities of conscripts and regulars, although I’m willing to bet that if their country’s back was to the wall the vast bulk of them from any nation would fight hard to defend it, conscript or volunteer.
I would have personally paid more attention and be less of a wanker if there would have been a risk my country would be involved in a war.At the time I was conscripted (93/94),the only place France was military involved was with the U.N in Sarajevo.I would have to sign for an extra 14 months to go there,something I wasn’t very keen on.I was more thinking about my girlfriend and my friend who were still studying and have a good time.Not the best material for a good soldier now is it?All my section was in the same mood,trying to do as less as possible due to a shit pay(around £50 a month) and the fact that we lost our jobs or a year of study.My section was composed of a winemaker son(from Chablis,very nice),a shepperd,a baker,2 students of physics, a mechanic and a few more students and we all ended up as a sort of hybrid between paratroops and MP’s with the pompuous bname of fusilier commando.
Commando?Still makes me giggle.
I feel more secured now that my country adopted the same model of Army Britain embraced a long time ago.
Again personal opinion from personal experience.
How was the French model different back then?
How does it compare to the modern German model (If you know anything about it)?
Back when?in the 90’s or in the 30’s?
and no I don’t know much about German model let alone any modern armies.Only what I have tasted myself.
The 90s.
Conscripts or regulars?..well, I would imagine that in a prolonged war/campaign such as ww2 it made little difference in the end. A conscript who might have been sent to, say, Burma in 1942 would more than likely have remained there until the end of hostilities. As the campaign progressed, they were relieved from the front on a rotational basis and trained intensively for future operations. As the war continued even the average soldier/conscript became more effective on account of his trainig and experience.
A very good account is ‘The Little Men - a Platoon’s Epic Fight in the Burma Campaign’ by Ken Cooper.which gives an account of a platoon’s progress through the campaign, written by the platoon commander - very gritty reading and compares more than favourably with anything Ambrose produced - they don’t come better than this.
i think volunteers make the best soldiers. they don’t have to fight for anyone but themselves and there squad mates.
Irrespective of this solemn comment…what exactly would conscripts fight for?
Clearly not themselves on colonel hogan’s incisive view, so I guess they’d just be in it for the money.
they’d be in it for the fun
duh :rolleyes:
It’s still about the training.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v8H75Lp-wCY&feature=channel_page
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nclFIutvISI&feature=channel
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iHQ_BqQE7DE&feature=related
Mac in action:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7yD4iD71uOw&feature=related
Here’s a quote from a book I picked up second-hand, highly recommended by the way*. “A Child at Arms” by Patrick Davis - who was a war time KCO in the Gurkhas in Burma.
"That obscure little fight at Singu, … . … . … was the last time I went confidently into battle, the last occasion I was in full command of my fears. … . … .
Yet so far my encounters with the Japanese had been remarkably unbloody. I had not fired a shot in anger, though some had been fired at me. … Many of our men had been through two campaigns against the Japanese, each more severe than this, and were still serviceable.
Nevertheless, whatever it is that keeps us going willingly and ardently into battle had for me run out. Will-power and pride bore me along after a fashion. Maybe no one noticed the difference. But from now on I never volunteered. I shrank inwardly at the news of fresh assignments. I most wanted to be where the Japanese were not."
I’d suggest that if officers don’t show it as easily or as quickly, it is mostly that the constraints on giving way are greater, for senior NCO’s and WO’s too. Also it is possible for officers to cope in ways an infantry private can not.
For some it can happen in one moment, terrible just for them, for others it takes years.
But IME&O it can get anyone. Highly random and strange, stalwart people can be undone by things that don’t affect comrades in action with them. And nervous nelly’s come through their service without cracking.
It is often not until much later, when it will surface, and in MOST such soldiers IME&O. Very few front-line soldiers are free of the psychoses of battle.
I have a friend who works with our Vietnam veterans, I knew that most of them are a mess, which he has strongly confirmed. We were both trained in the same militia/part-time unit . For officer / senior NCO training, straight from school. He a decade before me, and was commissioned, I went the other route.
Heaps of civilians who drive themselves too hard, can crack.
*Davis’ book is at least as valuable as John Master’s biographic trilogy - the middle one "The Road past Mandalay -, or George MacDonald Fraser’s book (Flashman series?), when Fraser he was a private soldier in a British infantry battalion in the 14th Army.
The criminals in jail WWII fought in wars for a chance to escape jail term.
The criminals had a choice,stay in jail or fight,if survived the war,the criminals walk free.
The Dirty Dozen (US films) is a great example for this.
well educated men are put into better war jobs,they are happier,willing to fight for there country meaning they have more of a heart to fight much harder than the criminals.
Yup. Hollywood movies are generally underestimated as a historical source.:rolleyes:
I really don’t know what is being asked. IMHO, the best soldier is the best human being. Someone who is smart, brave, strong, tireless and forthright would make an excellent soldier able to understand and carry out orders. From my experience such stock can come from anywhere: universities, factories, farms, reservations and, yes, even prisons. All war is is Darwinism kicked into high gear and only the best and luckiest survive.
Your question is that of eugenics.