No Conscription in America

Super_Cool

What happens if America doesn't resort to conscription in the four wars that had used it (World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam)?

Does it change the outcome of any of them or will things stay the same?
 

Whanztastic

Well I am thinking that the biggest change would be why there is no conscription, meaning a shift towards isolationsim/continuining focus on national guard etc. and how that would affect American history. Let's say that conscription does not happen in WWI for whatever reason, well, that changes everything...
 

Tom Veil

All four of these wars would have turned out noticeably differently without conscription. The US Armed Forces today actually have less personnel than they did in 1918, even though the total US population has tripled since then. And that's with recruiting efforts at pretty much all-time highs due to the recession (and the easier time that recruiting officers have in selling the Afghanistan campaign).

Oddly, I think that it's WWII that would stand the closest chance of coming out the same, if only because it was the Soviets who were supplying the sheer numbers, anyway.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
jaybird said:
No difference in WW1 - the colonials who stayed with Her Majesty won that one :p
Click to expand...

It's a little of both. The Americans didn't do as much as the other Allied forces; mostly because we got roped in at the last minute. But the presence of a fresh, large amount of American Expeditionary troops onto the Western front scared the shit out of the Germans. In terms of psychological warfare, the AEF was unintentionally very effective.

Sure, it's stupid to claim that the US saved Europe in WWI. But it's equally stupid to claim that we did nothing.
 

Super_Cool

In my opinion, to answer my own question, I think think things would turn out either the same or perhaps better. In all cases, more money would lilely be poured into technology to make up for the lack of people so we could kill more with less.

World War I: We barely did anything, turns out the same. Psycological effects of us entering on the Germans are still present.

World War II: The Pacific theater, the one section where we did the most work, would probably be different but would have the same conclusion. I suspect, because of less people, there would only be a campagn through Micronesia, forgetting about the Solomons or the Philippines. More emphasis on starving the Japanese to death while a possible invasion is out of the question. Europe turns out the same, but more Russians die.

Korean War: The UN supplies more people. Problem solved. Same.

Vietnam War: We actually win it! With no conscription, people won't protest. It will be similar to the Iraq War, people don't like it but because they are not affected, won't bother to try to get us out. With an indifferent populace, Vietnam could be won.

Larrikin said:
Don't forget the ACW.
Click to expand...

I was talking about post-1900. :p
 
Last edited:

jaybird

Super_Cool said:
In my opinion, to answer my own question, I think think things would turn out either the same or perhaps better. In all cases, more money would lilely be poured into technology to make up for the lack of people so we could kill more with less.

World War I: We barely did anything, turns out the same. Psycological effects of us entering on the Germans are still present.

World War II: The Pacific theater, the one section where we did the most work, would probably be different but would have the same conclusion. I suspect, because of less people, there would only be a campagn through Micronesia, forgetting about the Solomons or the Philippines. More emphasis on starving the Japanese to death while a possible invasion is out of the question. Europe turns out the same, but more Russians die.

Korean War: The UN supplies more people. Problem solved. Same.

Vietnam War: We actually win it! With no conscription, people won't protest. It will be similar to the Iraq War, people don't like it but because they are not affected, won't bother to try to get us out. With an indifferent populace, Vietnam could be won.

I was talking about post-1900. :p
Click to expand...

I'd disagree on WW2 and Vietnam. Without America, there is no Overlord. No Overlord, no Western Front, all of Germany goes to the Soviets. You can figure out those ramifications yourself. As for Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government...well, let's say it wasn't the model of transparency. Would not have lasted a week without American rifle barrels.
 

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
Perhaps US leaders (and that part of the business community backing some wars) simply do as they've done with the current Iraq War, turn to mercenaries, so called contractors. Really, that's how Bush was able to avoid turning to the draft, which would've made the war unpopular in a NY minute. Mercs provide most of the support functions for US troops in Iraq and now Afghanistan as well. Imagine earlier versions of Blackwater. IOTL the closest thing to that was using Pinkerton for intel in the ACW. Mercs aren't practical for the world wars, but for Korea and Vietnam, perhaps. Vietnam may not even have become as spectacularly unpopular without the draft.
 

Mikestone8

Super_Cool said:
World War I: We barely did anything, turns out the same. Psycological effects of us entering on the Germans are still present.
Click to expand...

Not to mention economic.

Remember that without a Declaration of War, there won't be any unsecured loans to the Allies, and there's no security left for the other kind. Imports from the US were already being cut back at the end of 1916.

There's also shipbuilding. The US had built only about 400,000 tons in 1916, but in 1918 it was over 2.5 million tons, mostly directed to the war effort.

If you mean the Entente could stil have won without the AEF, you could be right, but the AEF was only the tip of avery large iceberg.
 
von Adler

von Adler

jaybird said:
I'd disagree on WW2 and Vietnam. Without America, there is no Overlord. No Overlord, no Western Front, all of Germany goes to the Soviets. You can figure out those ramifications yourself. As for Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government...well, let's say it wasn't the model of transparency. Would not have lasted a week without American rifle barrels.
Click to expand...

What? So just because the USA has a few divisions less, (perhaps 60 instead of 90, voluntary recruitment was very effective with propaganda, after all) there's no Overlord?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top