marharth Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Well that's what happened to my uncle in WW2, marharth. Nineteen years old, reading Chemistry and had left Oxford to fight for King and Country - he volunteered. He thought, he could always go back - there was a promise that after the war college places would be kept open for servicemen who wished for them and they were. But not, as it happened, for him as he and his Lancaster along with the rest of his squadron (quite famous) left Scampton one night and he bought it over the Ruhr. It was what it was. And officer and gentleman that he was, he would have been appalled at any suggestion that the lives of the less intellectual grunts were worth less than his. After a cataclysmic war, we needed both the brains AND the muscles working in industry in order to rebuild.If you get pulled out of college for a draft you will not be helping with strategy, engineering, or anything that requires advanced thought. The entire reason the draft exists is to get more firepower. Someone who could help with engineering a new weapon later on, or help with advancing the entire world with their knowledge, IS worth more then a average solider. You shouldn't risk their lives as firepower. Sorry but that is simply the truth. The scientists working on the atomic bomb were of the same importance of a single solider fighting from a trench for days? The people who planned Operation Overlord were of the same importance as a solider storming the beach? The president, who could probably end humanity if given the right situations, is of the same importance of a single person fighting overseas? Can you seriously say that, or is that just an attempt for some kind of moral high ground? Edited July 17, 2012 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If you get pulled out of college for a draft you will not be helping with strategy, engineering, or anything that requires advanced thought. The entire reason the draft exists is to get more firepower. Someone who could help with engineering a new weapon later on, or help with advancing the entire world with their knowledge, IS worth more then a average solider. You shouldn't risk their lives as firepower. Sorry but that is simply the truth. The scientists working on the atomic bomb were of the same importance of a single solider fighting from a trench for days? The people who planned Operation Overlord were of the same importance as a solider storming the beach? The president, who could probably end humanity if given the right situations, is of the same importance of a single person fighting overseas? Can you seriously say that, or is that just an attempt for some kind of moral high ground?If we're talking about the value of just life. Then yes, the president has the same value as each soldier that is sent into the field, and should be honored and respected for their service to the country. But if we're talking about the value of one's position and capacities in the world, there will always be an inequality because not all people are given the same advantages and accesses as others, for practicality reasons. What is being discussed here is not about the value of life, but the value in how that life is allocated towards a given cause. A scholar would have more value and benefit towards intellectual pursuits than they would necessarily have on the front lines, just as a someone without any advanced education probably would not offer much benefit in a planning meeting. I would however point out that it was likely one of those "uneducated" folks who thought to weld pieces of steel from the beaches to the front of tanks to help break through the hedgerows that would have otherwise delayed progress on the eastern front, and could have probably cost the war. So there are certain skills and bits of ingenuity which cannot be accounted by a piece of paper or wealthy upbringing. To regard any soldier as simply cannon fodder is a mistake. While we're on this topic, how about compulsory basic training? We're not exactly drafting them into the army, but just basic training (ie. leadership skills, firearms handling, map-reading, etc). Would that be an equally bad alternative?The thing is that most people encounter these skills in one way or another, they just don't have a reason to maintain those proficiencies so they lose those skills. If the skills aren't something that can be put to use in normal jobs it is mostly a wasted effort. This is why most people can't draw very well. Certainly they learned to draw earlier in life, and may have even been decent at it, but since they likely did not have much need to draw during middleschool or highschool, their ability to draw diminishes and they lose confidence. Most everyone has used a map in some point in their life, but the frequency of that usage and confidence plays a large factor in how well they can read the map. Any skills should be those which are either immediately applicable to a type of service, or ones which are common in many fields, otherwise people are quick to forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If you get pulled out of college for a draft you will not be helping with strategy, engineering, or anything that requires advanced thought. The entire reason the draft exists is to get more firepower. Someone who could help with engineering a new weapon later on, or help with advancing the entire world with their knowledge, IS worth more then a average solider. You shouldn't risk their lives as firepower. Sorry but that is simply the truth. The scientists working on the atomic bomb were of the same importance of a single solider fighting from a trench for days? The people who planned Operation Overlord were of the same importance as a solider storming the beach? The president, who could probably end humanity if given the right situations, is of the same importance of a single person fighting overseas? Can you seriously say that, or is that just an attempt for some kind of moral high ground?If we're talking about the value of just life. Then yes, the president has the same value as each soldier that is sent into the field, and should be honored and respected for their service to the country. But if we're talking about the value of one's position and capacities in the world, there will always be an inequality because not all people are given the same advantages and accesses as others, for practicality reasons. What is being discussed here is not about the value of life, but the value in how that life is allocated towards a given cause. A scholar would have more value and benefit towards intellectual pursuits than they would necessarily have on the front lines, just as a someone without any advanced education probably would not offer much benefit in a planning meeting. I would however point out that it was likely one of those "uneducated" folks who thought to weld pieces of steel from the beaches to the front of tanks to help break through the hedgerows that would have otherwise delayed progress on the eastern front, and could have probably cost the war. So there are certain skills and bits of ingenuity which cannot be accounted by a piece of paper or wealthy upbringing. To regard any soldier as simply cannon fodder is a mistake.I am not saying that solders are cannon fodder or that they are not important. I am saying someone who can engineer a weapon or plan strategy is more important for the overall war effort. Wasting resources by putting those people onto the front lines is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) . To regard any soldier as simply cannon fodder is a mistake. Perhaps "To regard some soldiers as simply cannon fodder is a mistake" would be a more reasonable statement. That term itself describes a tactic basically. Soldiers can be and are considered expendable and some operations will require high causalities to achieve. The people in charge had to make a judgement call and use the resources however they thought best, you can find lots of examples in history where soldiers were knowingly used en masse and were knowingly probably going to be mostly obliterated or suffer appalling numbers of casualties. Being used as human shields to soak up arrows or bullets, suicide squad, even WW1 trench warfare saw a lot of this. Perhaps some of those soldiers could have been more useful not being used as cannon fodder but can one say that any and all being considered cannon fodder is a mistake, considering thousands of years of history of it? Edited July 17, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) . To regard any soldier as simply cannon fodder is a mistake. Perhaps "To regard some soldiers as simply cannon fodder is a mistake" would be a more reasonable statement. That term itself describes a tactic basically. Soldiers can be and are considered expendable and some operations will require high causalities to achieve. The people in charge had to make a judgement call and use the resources however they thought best, you can find lots of examples in history where soldiers were knowingly used en masse and were knowingly probably going to be mostly obliterated or suffer appalling numbers of casualties. Being used as human shields to soak up arrows or bullets, suicide squad, even WW1 trench warfare saw a lot of this. Perhaps some of those soldiers could have been more useful not being used as cannon fodder but can one say that any and all being considered cannon fodder is a mistake, considering thousands of years of history of it?Since the discussion is about the modern American armed forces not Pershing's AEF, Pickets Virginian's or Caesar's 12th Legion using all of history as a reference to back your argument is hyperbole. Mass of maneuver was only practiced in modern times when accuracy of firearms was limited and imprecise in delivery culminating in WW-I on the Western Front. Care to cite an example of Americans knowingly being used as cannon fodder post 1918? Edited July 18, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The Normandy invasion is an obvious one. You would always try to minimise the loss of resources, however waves of soldiers were sent en masse to overwhelm a fortified enemy position. Like chess, the role of the pawn. It is by definition cannon fodder, It fulfils a useful role but like all the pieces besides the king it is expendable in achieving the goal. I don't believe for a second that if the army could have sent 100 soldiers to their certain deaths to have definitely secured those beaches instead of what they actually had to do, they wouldn't have taken that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The Normandy invasion is an obvious one. You would always try to minimise the loss of resources, however waves of soldiers were sent en masse to overwhelm a fortified enemy position. Like chess, the role of the pawn. It is by definition cannon fodder, It fulfils a useful role but like all the pieces besides the king it is expendable in achieving the goal. I don't believe for a second that if the army could have sent 100 soldiers to their certain deaths to have definitely secured those beaches instead of what they actually had to do, they wouldn't have taken that route.It seems that the term 'cannon fodder' and opposed amphibious invasion are interchangeable in your lexicon. Let me enlighten you, sending men over the top from the trenches to gain several hundred meters and sustaining heavy losses is aptly termed 'cannon fodder'. Invading a heavily fortified beach successfully from the sea with numerical superiority is not. Out of the five beaches in the Normandy Invasion only one was a deadly killing zone, we just drew the short straw that day. War is not chess and certainly not to anyone who has had to order other men to risk their lives for an objective. One of the hallmarks of the American battle philosophy is that we prefer to lose material over men, commanders that have turned in unacceptable combat losses are usually relieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The definition I am using for Cannon fodder is http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cannon+fodder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The definition I am using for Cannon fodder is http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cannon+fodderYour definition.. "soldiers regarded merely as material to be expended in war. Though not a wiki fan a far more apt definition."Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal. An example is the trench warfare in World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced soldiers from supposedly more valuable veterans." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's fine that you prefer wikipedia over the Oxford English Dictionary. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on what is more "apt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now