Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Thumpalumpacus]

In the US, the Amish are exempted from the draft. Amish!!!

The supply-chain contract for their weaponry has been stopped up since the GAO investigation ... something about $8000 spears.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's highly speculative to say that Hitler would not have appeared, in some form, after WWI. The issue of the stab in the back still remained.

Yes and yes, but it is no more speculative than to say that Hitler would have risen to power even if there had been a Marshall Plan rather than the Verailles Treaty. At any rate, I do not claim that Hitler would not have appeared, in some form, after WWI. I opine that he would have been little more than a footnote in the history of early 20th century Germany. History is awash with movements and their leaders that caused quite a stir in their time, but turned out to be a bit of a blip in the long run. They are out of the public eye for that very reason. In many cases you'd have to read more or less obscure monographs by historians to find them. For instance, I don't think many people have ever heard about "The Levellers". They were a noted and significant movement for a short time in 17th century England, but ultimately a fizzer. Or, many people have at least heard about Bolsheviks. What about Mensheviks? Nada. Even though they were more powerful than the bolshies for a while on the runup to, and at the beginning of, the October revolution, they are practically unheard of now.

Hitler was only one of the folks trying for a totalitarian position. If he hadn't been there somebody else would have.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

His party got the most votes in that election.

In 1932 Hindenberg got 53% of the vote. Hitler 36% and the Communist Party guy got like 11%.

And Hindenburg's votes were for President. The National Socialists were running for seats in the Reichstag.

[Hermit]

Hitler was only one of the folks trying for a totalitarian position. If he hadn't been there somebody else would have.

Highly speculative.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hitler was only one of the folks trying for a totalitarian position. If he hadn't been there somebody else would have.

Highly speculative.

It's pretty well based in fact.

Neither of Hitler's two major contestants for the Chancellorship, General von Schleicher nor Franz von Papen, had democracy in mind; they were both strong authoritarians. "Totalitarian" to the extent of death camps and such? Doubtful. But certainly they each had every intention of wiping out the Weimar Republic and replacing it with a dictatorship, each imagining himself at the head of it. It happened that Hitler outmanuevered them.

[Warren Dew]

However, Hitler was not wildly popular, except with a relatively small minority of Germans, early on. His Beer Hall Putsch failed, he lost his first attempts at election, and was never elected to any position by a majority vote of the German people.

So when was the last time that, say, a British prime minister got a majority of the popular vote, do you know?

[Hermit]

Hitler was only one of the folks trying for a totalitarian position. If he hadn't been there somebody else would have.

Highly speculative.

It's pretty well based in fact.

Neither of Hitler's two major contestants for the Chancellorship, General von Schleicher nor Franz von Papen, had democracy in mind; they were both strong authoritarians. "Totalitarian" to the extent of death camps and such? Doubtful. But certainly they each had every intention of wiping out the Weimar Republic and replacing it with a dictatorship, each imagining himself at the head of it. It happened that Hitler outmanuevered them.

All true. Neither Papen nor Schleicher had any sympathy for democracy at all. The former's allegiance was to Kaisertum and the latter was a Hitler-wannaby. The fact remains that Hitler came to power without him - or his party - ever getting anywhere near a majority vote, and neither Papen's nor Schleicher's Chancellorships, or any other position of power were due to votes at all. Instead of collapsing, the Weimar Republic would have led to a bourgeois democracy just like post-WWII Germany, were it not for the Versailles Treaty. That treaty led to a polarisation of opinion and both extremes tried to outmanoeuvre each other, frequently employing the "enemy of my enemy" technique. Its punitive effects, not the least of which was the seizure of the coal fields of the Ruhr valley, drove a sufficient number of German voters to nationalism through embitterment to enable Hitler's seizure of power. It's a tragedy that the allies were smart enough to avoid a repeat of by going nowhere near a Versailles type treaty again. Look at what happened to the axis powers after WWII.

In conclusion, I do agree that, given the implementation of the Versailles Treaty, it was probably inevitable that Germany's attempt at becoming a democratic nation would fail. Even if Hitler had not succeeded, some other undemocratic government would have been implemented. It need not even have to be of the fascist variety. The communists were very strong early on, and a return to government by a Kaiser would not have been out of the question either, but none these scenarios would have been likely without that treaty.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, my points are certainly not arguing that Versailles didn't matter. As I pointed out to GZ upthread, the fact that the terms were so harsh, especially when the German public knew of the Fourteen Points, meant that Hitler had that resentment as a base on which to build his movement. The occupation in 1923 further drove home the point. The use of hyperinflation to address reparations killed public trust in Wiemar, too; so that when the Depression hit, the German public was pretty much fed up with uncertainty, and many if not most positively wanted authoritarianism, I think.

It's really cool to be a part of a forum that actually knows history and can have such a smart discussion about it. Thanks for such an interesting discussion.

[Tyrannical]

My memory is a bit vague on this, but the US earlier had a clever way to keep the populace ready for war but without peacetime conscription
They gave out free ammo at gun clubs so that people would practice their marksmanship on their own.

I believe after Pearl Harbor, fearing a possible California land invasion thousands of people drove to California with their rifles.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My memory is a bit vague on this, but the US earlier had a clever way to keep the populace ready for war but without peacetime conscription
They gave out free ammo at gun clubs so that people would practice their marksmanship on their own.

"Clever", if one thinks that marksmanship is the main quality of a body of fighting troops. Those who actually know a little bit know that what differentiates an army from a mob is not its skill with weapons, but the discipline it uses in their application.

I believe after Pearl Harbor, fearing a possible California land invasion thousands of people drove to California with their rifles.

I believe that without a reputable source, such a claim is probably not worth consideration.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

My memory is a bit vague on this, but the US earlier had a clever way to keep the populace ready for war but without peacetime conscription
They gave out free ammo at gun clubs so that people would practice their marksmanship on their own.

"Clever", if one thinks that marksmanship is the main quality of a body of fighting troops. Those who actually know a little bit know that what differentiates an army from a mob is not its skill with weapons, but the discipline it uses in their application.

It's cheap, and buys people in to the idea of war - the fact that it doesn't create soldiers is a secondary matter / is not the purpose.

In any event I recall that during WWII that most folk in the Army did not try and kill anyone - even when the enemy was in their sights......and a lot of time and effort and thought went into understanding that and rectifying the problem. I think one of the things they came up with was not to demonise a specific enemy, but to dehumanise them by simply turning them into a target. and using weapons that did not require much by the way of face time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My memory is a bit vague on this, but the US earlier had a clever way to keep the populace ready for war but without peacetime conscription
They gave out free ammo at gun clubs so that people would practice their marksmanship on their own.

"Clever", if one thinks that marksmanship is the main quality of a body of fighting troops. Those who actually know a little bit know that what differentiates an army from a mob is not its skill with weapons, but the discipline it uses in their application.

It's cheap, and buys people in to the idea of war - the fact that it doesn't create soldiers is a secondary matter / is not the purpose.

That is incorrect. The point of peacetime conscription is to build and maintain a body of trained troops. This is why militaries around the world have a reserve obligation which must be fulfilled after an active-duty commitment is completed; that military wishes to keep that recent training available in the event of emergency. That is why the European countries adopted peacetime conscription in the late 19th century. Check out War in the Modern World by Theodore Ropp, for an in-depth discussion of this point.

The fact that handing out a few rounds to civilians doesn't create a military force is entirely the point.

In any event I recall that during WWII that most folk in the Army did not try and kill anyone - even when the enemy was in their sights......and a lot of time and effort and thought went into understanding that and rectifying the problem.

This contention, originally made by Gen S.L.A. Marshall, is a matter of some contention (see also here and here as well).

It should be noted that if Gen Marshall's assertion is correct, that would place more, and not less, value, upon soldierly training, making such a scratch force of civilians even less effective, because they haven't had military training to overcome the natural inhibition to killing.

I think one of the things they came up with was not to demonise a specific enemy, but to dehumanise them by simply turning them into a target. and using weapons that did not require much by the way of face time.

Actually, what the US Army did was switch from rifle training using classic roundel bull's-eye targets to using targets with human shapes. If I remember correctly, that did result in a rise in reported fire rates. I'll see if I can find some hard data on that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hitler was only one of the folks trying for a totalitarian position. If he hadn't been there somebody else would have.

Highly speculative.

It's pretty well based in fact.

Neither of Hitler's two major contestants for the Chancellorship, General von Schleicher nor Franz von Papen, had democracy in mind; they were both strong authoritarians. "Totalitarian" to the extent of death camps and such? Doubtful. But certainly they each had every intention of wiping out the Weimar Republic and replacing it with a dictatorship, each imagining himself at the head of it. It happened that Hitler outmanuevered them.

I think he was joking. You are right that the Germans didn't like the imposed political system much. But the fact that von Hindenburg was Prezzy for so many years says it all, I think. The Germans approved of him and his monarchist attitudes. He was contemptuous of the democracy that put him in power.

[Hermit]

I think he was joking.

Tongue in cheek, yes, but with an underlying point: we're all speculating here.

You are right that the Germans didn't like the imposed political system much. But the fact that von Hindenburg was Prezzy for so many years says it all, I think. The Germans approved of him and his monarchist attitudes. He was contemptuous of the democracy that put him in power.

Germany never had a democracy, ever, before Weimar. The Versailles Treaty torpedoed (sorry) any chance of the republic succeeding, but (West) Germany became one with alacrity after the Marshall Plan. I still contend that the Weimar Republic would have stood an excellent chance of warding off would-be dictatorships, fascist, communist or monarchist alike, and notwithstanding Hindenburg's presidency, if Wilson had prevailed over Clemenceau. [/high speculation]

[MrJonno]

Do you oppose civil disobedience, a la hippies and Occupy Wall Street?

I support the right of the police to arrest people if they do so, I think our drug laws are bonkers but if I smoke a spliff outside a police station and get arrested for it I'm not going to shout police state.

You need some really extreme circumstances in a democracy to break the law and claim a moral justification when the option of persuading your fellow citizens to vote to change the law exists