# Draft dodgers get memorial



## meni0n (8 Sep 2004)

Unfreaking believable. Only in Canada can draft dodgers get a memorial.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/08/draft_dogers040908.html


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Sep 2004)

So far it's only a pipe dream.

Here's hoping it stays that way.

Who would fund such a piece of garbage?  A memorial for "courageous draft dodgers"?  A memorial to cowards is more like it!

What garbage!


----------



## Shec (8 Sep 2004)

If they wouldn"t serve their country what makes one think they would serve ours?

I can only trust that any such memorial would feature a big yelllow stripe.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (8 Sep 2004)

Could be worse....anybody see that Simpsons episode where they visit Toronto, and see the "Dodgers of Foreign Wars" legion/museum?

Just imagine using your taxes for that!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2004)

Well as long as it's far enough back in the bush up there, where it can't be seen by the civilised population, who cares. It's a free country. they're entitled to their opinion. We fought for it, they take advantage of it. It'll give the bears and birds somewhere to congregate as a waste station. Maybe it'll get cleaned once a year when the draft dodgers show up to harvest the wacky tabaky they've been growing out there for the last forty years. More likely one of them will steal it, smelt it and turn it in for cents on the pound at the nearest scrap yard. They've always been lost in the fog of self righteousness and aren't worth the time to bother about. There's a reason most of them are in BC ;D


----------



## ackland (8 Sep 2004)

If they are all so proud of themselves why don't they ante up and try and put the memorial in there home country? Oh yeah that is bcause they are chicken S***s in the first place. Only here would we allow people to errect amemorial to cowards. Standing up for their rights my a** they should get no rights. If you are not willing to sacrifice for your freedom then you should lose it. :mg:


----------



## big_castor (8 Sep 2004)

Will the memorial also honour those who joined the National Guard to avoid being sent overseas ?


----------



## Slim (8 Sep 2004)

This will mark the courageous legacy of Vietnam War resisters and the Canadians who helped them resettle in this country during that tumultuous era,"

If the Canadian Government allows that go up on public land I will offically be ashamed of this country! :rage: Nothing more than a slap in the face and the message thats its ok to run and hide when your country needs you. Fucking pathetic! :

Slim


----------



## nbk (8 Sep 2004)

Squadron CO said:
			
		

> Will the memorial also honour those who joined the National Guard to avoid being sent overseas ?



Ohh snap!

Check mate.

But its still a dumb idea.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Sep 2004)

_PLATOON WILL URINATE ON DRAFT DODGER MEMORIAL  BY SQUADS_.....
_SQUAD ONE_.......ZIPPPPPPPPPPPPP


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Sep 2004)

I certainly don't think a memorial is due, but it does take a certain bravery to oppose something as unpopular as the Vietnam War.   You're assuming that all the "draft dodgers" were simply cowards.   Probably true in many cases, but many of them also acted on deeply held convictions.

Considering the US did lose the war, the south did revert to Communism, and seeing that the world, capitalism or democracy didn't come to a crashing halt, one doesn't see the logic in criticizing those who refused to serve, especially in light of some of the many unfavourable things to come out of that war - the high civilian losses, for example, or the fact that those directing the war (McNamara, for one) knew there was no "exit strategy" in place.

I am reading Shelby Stanton's history of US Ground forces in Vietnam right now.   Masterfully written.   Avoids the political aspects utterly and concentrates on pure military history.   I suspect many of those posting in this thread are using the same lens.   It's a faulty lens, however.   As much as I admire the soldiers who fought there, and moreover, the ideals which they claimed to have been fighting for, I find it hard to criticize those who didn't want to serve in what can properly be called the costliest foriegn policy mistake the United States ever made.

I wouldn't build a memorial to them, either, though. More like one of those subjects best left alone.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Sep 2004)

heh. Losers.

What about a memorial for that Kandahar family? 

These guys remind me of people who lie about their military service or soldiers who give themselves medals. They want to be recognized for nothing.


----------



## GDawg (8 Sep 2004)

I have no sympathy for their cause. They refused to fight in Vietnam, thats understandable, but they also refused to fight for political change in their homeland. These men chose the path of least resistance, how does that make them admirable political activists? Buddist monks were setting themselves on fire in protest to the war and all these guys do is light a piece of paper on fire and hop on a bus? I call them cowards. 

How about a memorial for the upwards of 40000 Canadians who volunteered to fight in Vietnam?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Sep 2004)

GDawg said:
			
		

> How about a memorial for the upwards of 40000 Canadians who volunteered to fight in Vietnam?



There already is one, or at least, to the Canadians that died.  I thought it was similar to the Wall in Washington - can't remember where it is located, somewhere in Ontario.  A google search ought to find it for you.

As for fighting for political change in the US, what would that have done? They already won - LBJ refused to run for a second term, and Nixon put the finishing touches on US withdrawal from Vietnam and negotiated the Paris deal.   That being the case, why volunteer for a war that was already lost?

I think it is an incredibly sensitive issue and not nearly as black and white as many of you seem to think.

As for pissing on said commemoration, all I have to say is remember the Golden Rule.  Picture someone urinating on the cenotaph next Rememberance Day.  The values these servicemen supposedly fought for in Vietnam include the right to dissent, to free speech, and to freedom of expression - as long as others aren't being hurt.  I don't see what urinating on a memorial would prove, other than the lack of class of the perpetrator.  If the draft dodgers want to think of themselves as heroes, that's their right.  Why turn them into martyrs on top of it?

Now, if the government were to actually approve of this, that is a different story, but I don't see it as really all that different from the pathetic ninja club we have on the board here - call yourself whatever you want, just don't expect official sanction when it defies the precepts of what are normally considered the maintenance of good order.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2004)

The Viet Nam Veteran's Memorial is located here in Windsor on the riverfront, facing Detroit. It is a mini representation of the wall in Washington, but with only Canadian names. It has a large turn out from both sides of the border whenever a service is held. It has only been defaced once to my knowledge (a brick broke the marble facing of one of the facades) but was immediatley fixed. The bunch here in Windsor are a quiet lot, but always get the utmost respect whenever they show themselves in public.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Sep 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Viet Nam Veteran's Memorial is located here in Windsor on the riverfront, facing Detroit. It is a mini representation of the wall in Washington, but with only Canadian names. It has a large turn out from both sides of the border whenever a service is held. It has only been defaced once to my knowledge (a brick broke the marble facing of one of the facades) but was immediatley fixed. The bunch here in Windsor are a quiet lot, but always get the utmost respect whenever they show themselves in public.



We have an active Vietnam Veterans of Canada chapter here in Calgary.  I've seen them in "uniform" a couple of times, I always make a point of saying "Welcome Home" to them, which is the thing to say to a Vietnam Veteran.  They seem a bit stunned at first, but they always know what it means.

I would probably not as much as shake hands with one of the so-called "draft dodgers" but I probably wouldn't call them cowards either.  They are in a different class than the scum who enlist for college money then head for the hills when a shooting war erupts.

Vietnam was simply bad for everyone involved; everyone who lived through it made their choices.  I have more respect, like you all, for those who chose to serve their country and do what they thought was right.   I have to seriously wonder about the motives of those erecting this memorial - what good does it to do reopen old wounds?

Seems about as revisionist as granting pardons to the so-called "cowards" we executed in the First World War.  Just leave it be.


----------



## ackland (9 Sep 2004)

I again ask if they are such heroes are they not heroes in the states not here. why use our land and possibly our tax dollars for an american set of ideals. If their veiw was so comendable then why not erect this back in the stats purhaps beside teh memorial in D.C. they had teh right but only on the spilt blood of thier fathers or grandfathers. Who fought in europe for the freedom of others. Why respect these people who were not willing to do the same for the vietnamese. Yeah the war was unpopular and the Command Element was all F***ed but Look at our armyu today and we see lot's of people willing to serve in less than ideal conditions.


----------



## logau (9 Sep 2004)

Nelson BC is the Home Base of the 54th Bn from WW1 and supports a great memorial to all Canadian Service persons from all our wars.

I am from this area and they sure have their share of wackos. 

Two Naval VCs came from Nelson - Roland Bourke who ran a PT boat at Ostend in 1918 and Hampton Grey who sank a Jap Cruiser and gave his life in the attempt.

See the link below at the bottom.   

As for these artists...................... hoo boy!

The topic of draft dodgers is still hot after many years.

Keep in mind that from the Civil War onwards it was not   un American to avoid service and many sold their call up places to less wealthy indivs.

In Canada - the Governments of the day have done all they can to avoid coalition DRAFTS since the end of WW1. So I ask the tough talking ruff puffs in this thread (that's a Vietnam term in case you don't know) is turn about fair play? It only invites such stuff as the links that Stephen Harper is making that if we don't support the USA - we don't sell beef to them - we have trouble selling wood to them. And if China has its way we'll sell less and less to them. 

In the early 20s Winston Churchill wanted to get us ensnared in a contingency op called the CHANAK crisis (look up CHANAK and CHURCHILL on the Web)

We dived back in WW2 - but tried to keep as much manpower in Canada and did not implement a draft until late in the war (actually both wars WW1 and WW2). We were in deep with the Brits until 1956 at the Suez Crisis when we wised up and said - no more open ended quagmires like South Africa - WW1 - WW2.

The USA only had the draft from 1949 to 1969 so you're really only talking say six years of active draft dodgers - maybe marginal people at the best - and marginal soldiers when led by a marginal pipeline which was only marginally committed to the war in South East Asia.

My take? The USA in the Vietnam War was as reliable as the Canadian Government is now with respect to Defence matters and both treat their soldiers like cannon fodder.

So we should be careful on jumping on the America Love it Or Leave it Bandwagon because change starts at home and the love it or leave it routine always ends up with some REDNECKS who may have no idea of why they say what they say getting the crap kicked out of them.

The draft dodgers may well have taken a page from Canada's books but saying we'll sit this one out. And note what war we are sitting out now?

To conclude now - the draft dodger generation is now in power and has been for some time.

Read your Ranger Handbook - you've only got you and your team to help you out of the next tight spot these idiots at the top of the Government will gladly send the stern jawed boys and girls off to.

Quick! Where the heck is SUDAN?

Finally - for all your future RSM's Generals and defence fans - Get this book - The History of Military Thought by Azar Gatt - you will be pleasantly surprised. 900 pages covering topics on organized militaries from 1500 forward. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryOther/Military/?ci=0199247625&view=usa


----------



## dutchie (9 Sep 2004)

Memorials should be erected for extraordinary people who acted in a commedable and exempary manner. IMHO, Vietnam draft dodgers fall into three categories:
1-Cowards:those who didn't necessarily oppose the war, but were unwilling to risk their lives under any curcumstance.
2-'Contientious objectors': Those who's morals or beleifs were in direct conflict with the war.
3-Anti-government/establishment types: those who oppose anything the government wants them to do. They aren't necessarily cowards, but could be, and thet might not have any moral objections, but again, they could have. Their real problem is an unwillingness to conform to anything the governemt/establishment wants.

We could argue the merits of the basis of resistance to the draft, but none of these people acted commedably. Draft dodgers are people we should tolerate, not commemorate.


----------



## ackland (9 Sep 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> Memorials should be erected for extraordinary people who acted in a commedable and exempary manner. IMHO, Vietnam draft dodgers fall into three categories:
> 1-Cowards:those who didn't necessarily oppose the war, but were unwilling to risk their lives under any curcumstance.
> 2-'Contientious objectors'. Those who's morals or beleifs were in direct conflict with the war.
> 3-Anti-government/establishment types-those who oppose anything the government wants them to do. They aren't necessarily cowards, but could be, and thet might not have any moral objections, but again, they could have. Their real problem is an unwillingness to conform to anything the governemt/establishment wants.
> ...



I'll buy that for a dollar


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Sep 2004)

logau, Canada had the draft beginning in 1940, which was not "late in the war" at all.


----------



## logau (9 Sep 2004)

We may have had legislation but we didn't seem to get any ground troops out of the deal until later in the war

The government may have assigned factories and resources early in the war but not troops - see below

English Canada wanted conscription and Quebec did not. 

By the fall of 1944, it became clear that the Canadian Army needed infantry reinforcements that would be created only if the government invoke conscription for overseas service. King delayed as long as he could and finally agreed that conscription had become necessary. Slightly more than 12,000 conscripts were sent overseas before the war came to an end. That the country did not fragment further during the Second World War was largely a credit to Prime Minister King who strived throughout his long political career to keep the nations united.... more 

http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/debates/conscription.html

and then in post war analysis they found the Airforce had too many highly qualified pers assigned to joe jobs. (I can find that ref too - believe its in a Canadian official history from the mid 80s to mid 90s.)

here's the bit about a lesser effort oveseas http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/Downloads/ahq/ahq067.PDF see p 36 where they struggled with manpower shortages in early 1943 due to fact they only took volunteers and the system screwed around through the fall of 43

However withthe government trying to do its bit here in CaNADA - the WW2 Air trg in Canada was quite successful see http://www.angelfire.com/trek/rcaf/ammq0107.html

And - we made heavy use of Americans who wantred to fly against the HUN see above

Finally - These young hippies and pot heads may well have been the grand sons of the Americans who served in the Canadian Army in WW1 - wold you believe about 40,000 in uniform in France with the RCR being at one time more American than Canadian.

"Some 35 to 50,000 Americans (citizens and permanent residents) enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces during WWI. There was a 1907 U.S. law on books stating that American citzens who enlisted in a foreign armed force forfeited American citizenship. This law was never closely enforced. Indeed it was widely ignored. Canadian recruiters operated in the States without USG authorization before April 1917. 

Recall that some 13% of Americans 1913 were recent immigrants. Many of these who were naturalized or even native-born American citizens were dual nationals. One of these dual nationals was Major Raul Lufberry, who fought in both the French and the American Air Corps. His situation was not uncommon. 

After the U. S. declared war, the Wilson administation allowed Allied governments to recruit openly in America from among their nationals resident here. This privilege was even extended Polish, Czech and other governments in exile. Following the end of the conflict, Congress passed a legislation holding harmless Americans who served in Allied armies or navies." ref http://p210.ezboard.com/ftheworldatwar70879frm2.showMessage?topicID=1817.topic&index=1

In 1927 we did erect a monument to these troops in Arlington Cemetery http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/Canadian_Cross.html

It is hard to believe but a guy   is actually working on a book about this.

More!

5 US Citizens won the VC 

One of the 25 CEF soldiers shot for desertion a was a US Citizen

Out of hot air for today 

Peace Man!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Sep 2004)

logau said:
			
		

> We may have had legislation but we didn't seem to get any ground troops out of the deal until later in the war



We sent an entire infantry brigade, including many conscripts, into a combat zone in 194*3*, which is hardly in line with your earlier comment about "not having the draft until late in the war."   Your comment was misleading and erroneous.  We DID have the draft early in the war, and we did send a sizeable portion of draftees into a combat zone midway through the war.   

In 1945, some 16,000 draftees did finally get employed in actual combat.

We had plenty of ground troops "out of the deal" beginning early in the war - you are misreading the sources.  The problem was that the legislation did not allow for their combat employment.  The fact that the combat operation in 1943 took place on North American soil was the technicality that led the government to be able to so use them.

Take a look at the long list of active army battalions in the 6th, 7th and 8th Divisions and you will see that we did indeed have "many ground troops" from "out of the deal."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Sep 2004)

> Two Naval VCs came from Nelson - Roland Bourke who ran a PT boat at Ostend in 1918 and Hampton Grey who sank a Jap Cruiser and gave his life in the attempt.



Not to diminish Lt Gray's sacrifice but he was attacking the _Amakusa_ an Etorofu class escort. Not a cruiser believe me there is a big difference between the two vessel types. Next point is the term is _Japanese_ not Jap...Jap is considered derogatory.


----------



## logau (9 Sep 2004)

We are probably all looking at the same references and getting a different spin.

I believe Canadian draftees were a factor after 1944 not before 

see the DND Website Second World War as a National Experience (2.0 MB)
Edited by Sidney Aster
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/downloads/Official_Histories/Natl_exp.pdf

Of the issues that divided French and English Canada in the two wars, the greatest was of course conscription. The introduction of compulsory service in 1917 came close to tearing the country apart. It was the memory of this division and its political consequences that frightened Canadian politicians most as the Second War loomed on the horizon. In March 1939 the two chief political parties found a formula which went a long way to keep the country united when war came six months later: a pledge against conscription for overseas service. But in 1944 mounting casualties led to an increasingly strident demand from English Canada that the trained conscripts being held in Canada supposedly for home defence should be sent overseas. Only a threat of mutiny in his Cabinet forced Mackenzie King to yield to the demand. It was obvious, however, that he had fought against compulsion as long as he dared French Canada, whose defection would have meant his political ruin, continued to stand by him; and the right in the country never became quite as serious as it had been a quarter of a century before.

check that link for conscription on the pdf file ------ it leads away from your views


----------



## nULL (10 Sep 2004)

On the subject of draft-dodgers....

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9556221.htm





> Young Republicans support Iraq war, but not all are willing to join the fight
> 
> By Adam Smeltz
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Sep 2004)

logau said:
			
		

> We are probably all looking at the same references and getting a different spin.



There is no "spin" to put on it.  You stated categorically that Canada did not have a draft until late in the war.  I called you on it.  We had the draft beginning in 1940.  You were wrong.

Your exact words, in case you have forgotten them:



> and did not implement a draft until late in the war



You then tried to say we got few ground troops out of conscription.  I called you on it.  You will find that large numbers of draftee ground troops served in Canada in 1942-43 and in fact a brigade containing Canadian conscripts was sent into a combat zone in 1943.  You were wrong.

It's not that hard to just admit it, is it?  ???


----------



## logau (10 Sep 2004)

Michael

No intent to call you on anything. I welcome any discussion so lets not track on who called who.

if we look at this from a political level and the receivers being the Army - the draft act in Canada does not seem to have been a benefit to the Army.

As for the large numbers of drafted troops serving in Canada -- not in the danger zone were they? So how much benefit do you think they were to the operational commanders?

Thats my point.

See you on the weekend!


----------



## gozonuts (10 Sep 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I certainly don't think a memorial is due, but it does take a certain bravery to oppose something as unpopular as the Vietnam War.   You're assuming that all the "draft dodgers" were simply cowards.   Probably true in many cases, but many of them also acted on deeply held convictions



Is it brave to oppose a war such as the Vietnam War or Operation Iraqi Freedom? It sounds brave at first thought, but in reality the opposite was/is true. The Americans who dodged the draft and ended up living in Canada were predominantly white! And when they fled to Canada, the poor Black or Hispanic bugger had to, in most cases, fill in for the dodgers. It wasn't as easy for a visible minority to enter our country, but whites would obviously blend in much easier. It really pisses me off when people like Jack Todd, a local Montreal Gazette writer and Vietnam draft dodger, constantly espouses his anti-American views from the comfort of our country â â€œ that is tantamount to some loud mouth jerk who yells threats at pedestrians while in the safety of a moving car. Maybe they didn't agree with the war, and that is any civilian's prerogative, but fleeing the war and leaving your less-privileged brother to take your place is just plain self-serving!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Sep 2004)

logau said:
			
		

> Michael
> 
> if we look at this from a political level and the receivers being the Army - the draft act in Canada does not seem to have been a benefit to the Army.
> 
> ...



The Army benefited from having enough soldiers to garrison coastal defences at home, by having enough men to send a combat brigade to fight the Japanese in 1943, and in providing 16,000 badly needed infantry reinforcements to depleted units in 1945.  Why do you say the Army received no benefit from it? ???


----------



## logau (10 Sep 2004)

Don't water down your arguments

Ah! Kiska in the Aleutians see http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/aleutian_e.html 

The Aleutian campaign was no help (in my view) to the Pro-conscription argument since it did not help generating combat power of the Canadian Army in Sicily in July 1943. Garrison forces outside of the European Theatre did not add to combat power. In addition, it appears others looking back at this operation feel the same way - Think of it this way - the pipeline was open in July 1943 and where were the Kiska troops? At the other end of the world.   And then they stayed there for 3 months. See http://www.multipointproductions.com/heroes/henri/henri2.htm

The government did need soldiers and certainly had lots but we have to ask. Where were they? Guard duty in Canada and chasing non-existent Japanese Forces. No one can argue with the past efforts except that until they went into Sicily it may have made no sense to send more troops overseas. A more likely reason is England was full of troops and more troops overseas until Sicily might have not added value. Experience is experience â â€œ but that attitude got the Dieppe troops lots of experience they may have been better off without.

As to the effectiveness of the 16,000 troops you mention - those who finally made it to the front were quite small 

"In the end a total of 9,667 NRMA (National Resources Mobilization Act) men reached the front as conscripts...of that number 2,463 saw duty in operational units, 69 were killed, 232 wounded and 13 taken prisoner." Without them many battalions would have been short of men in the last phase of the war." See http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/03-09.asp

Now the Army needed troops in more places than the infantry - so I cannot say that they did not fill the gap but it seems fair to say that this was not a lot of troops for the front given the total they enrolled. 

The country was contributing greatly to the Allied War Effort as shown in this speech by Mackenzie King in April 1942 http://collections.ic.gc.ca/canspeak/english/wlmk/sp1.htm

And King was an incremental conscriptionist "Mackenzie King managed Canada's second war effort far less divisively, through calculated muddling and incremental conscription which he famously described as "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription." http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v18n2p06.htm

Another source leans in this direction 
"However, only 13 000 men were conscripted, most of whom were from the home service conscripts drafted under the NRMA, rather than from the general population. Home service conscripts, who had been waiting for two years to be sent overseas, were by this time called "zombies" by many pro-conscription Canadians. The "zombies" had had few opportunities to do anything productive in home service, and they were one of the strongest pro-conscription groups in the country. Few of them saw combat in Europe though, as the war was over within a few months of their call-up. " See http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944 ----

I personally can't see the need looking back but we weren't the first to hold back troops - the Brits had the B men in the UK in 1918 - who could have been overseas with Douglas Haig but weren't as Brit PM Lloyd George had broken with the approach to throw troops into the meat grinder

Newpapers of the day had interesting views --- see this item from the Archives http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/conscription_e.html

Anyway, I think you have made some very good points and we can check into this more off line if you want 

My final word on Conscription

Mismanaged for the trouble it caused them â â€œ the Airforce had the manpower the Army could have used


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Sep 2004)

logau said:
			
		

> Don't water down your arguments
> 
> Ah! Kiska in the Aleutians see http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/aleutian_e.html
> 
> ...



They didn't know the Japanese weren't on Kiska though, so you speak with the benefit of hindsight.  The fact that no one knew where the Japanese were - or might have been - was what led to the tying down of badly needed men in Canada, and in the Kiska operation.  Don't downlplay their importance.



> As to the effectiveness of the 16,000 troops you mention - those who finally made it to the front were quite small
> 
> "In the end a total of 9,667 NRMA (National Resources Mobilization Act) men reached the front as conscripts...of that number 2,463 saw duty in operational units, 69 were killed, 232 wounded and 13 taken prisoner." Without them many battalions would have been short of men in the last phase of the war." See http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/03-09.asp



A combat infantry battalion had four rifle companies, each with 120 men.  These took the brunt of the casualties.   Your 2,463 men would have completely filled 20 rifle companies with two platoons left over.   An infantry division only fielded 36 rifle companies, so you're talking potentially of the fighting strength of half a division.



> Now the Army needed troops in more places than the infantry - so I cannot say that they did not fill the gap but it seems fair to say that this was not a lot of troops for the front given the total they enrolled.



See above.  The Army's main needs were infantry - see Burns MANPOWER IN THE CANADIAN ARMY.



> Mismanaged for the trouble it caused them â â€œ the Airforce had the manpower the Army could have used



I'm not saying it wasn't poor manpower planning that put them into the mess - again, see Burns.  The Army had enough volunteers, but they were wasted in an unnecessary corps headquarters in Italy, as well as disastrously inaccurate casualty predictions based on the Western Desert Fighting being used in Normandy.  So inadequate were these casualty predictions, they had to invent a new rate for use in Normandy - "Double Intense" - to calculate manpower needs.

I am simply refuting your assertion that Canada did not have conscription until "late in the war."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Sep 2004)

Just for something different than you guys arguing.  .. and on the subject of deserters.



   
CAMP ZAMA, Japan (AP) - Accused U.S. army deserter Charles Jenkins surrendered at a U.S. military base near Tokyo on Saturday to face charges that he left his army unit in 1965 and defected to North Korea. 

Jenkins, 64, turned himself in at the U.S. army's Camp Zama accompanied by his Japanese wife and two daughters. 

He saluted and stood at attention before entering the provost marshal's office to be put back on active duty as a sergeant. 

"He'll be treated with dignity and fairness, and he's innocent until proven guilty," said army spokesman Maj. John Amberg. 

Earlier, Jenkins, looking grim but determined, had left the Tokyo hospital where he has lived since arriving in Japan in July. 

Jenkins is charged with defecting to the North, where he lived for 39 years, and faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted. While in the reclusive Communist state, he made propaganda broadcasts and played devilish Americans in anti-U.S. films. 

The Rich Square, N.C., native is widely expected to strike a plea bargain with military authorities in order to receive lighter punishment. He has met several times in recent weeks with an army-appointed lawyer to prepare his case. 

"I expect we have a lot more to face in the days to come," Jenkins's wife, Hitomi Soga, said as she left a Tokyo hotel earlier Saturday. "But we hope that the four of us can live together as soon as possible." 


Jenkins's fate has become the focus of intense concern in Japan because of Soga, who was one of more than a dozen Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents in the 1970s and '80s and taken to North Korea. 

She and Jenkins met soon after she arrived in the Communist state in 1978. Soga was allowed to return to Japan after a historic Japan-North Korea summit in Pyongyang in 2002, but Jenkins and the couple's daughters remained in the North until this summer. 

The Japanese government has argued for leniency so Jenkins can live in Japan with Soga, whose plight has inspired widespread sympathy in her homeland. 

Tokyo arranged a reunion of the family in Jakarta, Indonesia, in July, and then convinced Jenkins to come to Japan for treatment for ailments linked to an operation he had in North Korea. 



The United States turned down Japanese requests for special treatment for Jenkins and insisted on pursuing a case against him. 

Jenkins announced in a statement last week that he would soon voluntarily surrender to U.S. authorities to face the charges against him. 

He did not address the charges against him, but family members in North Carolina fighting to have him pardoned have argued that Jenkins was kidnapped by North Korean agents and taken there against his will. 

Once in U.S. custody, Jenkins - who was never discharged from the military - will be put in uniform, given his army salary and possibly put up in base housing with his family like other soldiers while his case makes its way through the justice system. 

_That probably has changed a bit, wonder if he will get any back pay? :_


----------



## lfejoel25 (13 Sep 2004)

I think it's kinda funny, although there's nothing funny about it.  In this country, i've seen WW1 memorials, WW2 memorials, Korean war memorials, a vietnam war memorial (even though it wasn't a canadian war).  but a draft dodger memorial?  i think somebody else on here mentioned about how they provide memorials for great acts of bravery or what have you.  but, i'm just kind of confused about what these people did?  they didn't want to abide by the laws of their country, so they broke the law and hid in canada.  just like the outlaws headin' to mexico.  how i feel about the whole thing, what your opinions are on the vietnam war are irrelevant, as is your opinion on the draft, as is their opinion about the war and why they left.  to me, they didn't do anything, except leave a country because they didn't agree with the laws.  is that heroic?  no.  common sense maybe, my mother always used to say "THOSE ARE THE HOUSE RULES, WHEN YOU DON"T LIVE HERE ANY MORE YOU DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEM".  and i don't live there anymore.  are they going to build me a memorial?  no.  vietnam war was an emotionally charged time, and maybe those people thought they were making a point by dodging the draft.  did they make their point?  maybe.  but ask the people that didn't escape the draft whether or not they wanted to be there.  ask the families of the people that never came back whether or not draft dodgers deserve a memorial.  building one for them is giving them the same article of respect this country has bestowed upon its bravest.  and i refuse to give some hippie draft dodger the same honour as a canadian soldier that marched the beaches on dieppe, the battle of the sommes, normandy, etc etc...  with this country the list of the brave goes on and on.  if they do build a memorial to them, i won't piss on it, but if you ask me, building them a memorial would be the equivalent of pissing on every canadian war memorial we have in this country.


----------



## sdimock (13 Sep 2004)

If the Draft Dodgers said â Å“I morally object and will not fight.â Å“ and faced the consequences, then agree or not I would say â Å“they've got ballsâ ?.

History then could have judged them on their actions and decided if they merited some acknowledgement or recognition.

Running away to dodge the consequences of your actions, or to save your own skin certainly deserves no â Å“acknowledgementâ ? and should be recognized for what it is.

From Dictionary.com

*Cowardice*

Cow"ard*ice (-[i^]s), n. [F. couardise, fr. couard. See Coward.] Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit.

There is a military term incorrectly used in the past that can be correctly applied here,

"Lack of moral fiber"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Sep 2004)

sdimock said:
			
		

> If the Draft Dodgers said â Å“I morally object and will not fight.â Å“ and faced the consequences, then agree or not I would say â Å“they've got ballsâ ?.
> 
> History then could have judged them on their actions and decided if they merited some acknowledgement or recognition.
> 
> ...


You presume that was their motives.  In many cases that presumption is false, hence your definition doesn't apply.

The dictionary says that Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor, yet history has looked at him as a hero.  Not always so black and white.


----------



## sdimock (13 Sep 2004)

Ok, if it wasn't moral grounds and they weren't running to save their own skin, what was their motive? and what motive is it that they are deserving of a memorial?

I will have to look into Claus von Stauffenberg to determine how he fits the dictionary def. but a historically different one.

Taking into account that the victors often write the history books  .


----------



## sdimock (13 Sep 2004)

***Sorry, misread your post,    thought you meant that von Stauffenberg was a coward thus following post.***

*Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg*

Count Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg is remembered as one of the tragic heroes of World War II.

Born into an aristocratic German family, von Stauffenberg was a German army officer during the war but grew disillusioned with the Nazis.

Eventually he joined a plot to kill Adolf Hitler. Von Stauffenberg planted a briefcase bomb during a staff meeting with Hitler in July of 1944; though the bomb went off as planned, Hitler was not killed. Von Stauffenberg escaped the blast but was captured and executed the same day. 

No, I don't see how he fits into the dictionary definition of cowardice, the German high command would definitely label him traitor to his leader.

Traitor to his people is a debateable issue.

But not coward.

A coward would have run away to Switz. or South Am., having not planted the bomb.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Sep 2004)

You missed the point entirely.  Stauffenberg was a traitor, by the dictionary definition, but history tends to look at him as someone who carried out a necessary act.  Hence dictionary definitions don't always apply.

I would say the same thing applies to "cowards" who evaded service in Vietnam.  Not all did so just to "save their own skin."  In fact, many of the so-called "draft dodgers" expressed great anguish at having to leave their home, and did so not to save their own lives, but because of what they viewed as an illegal war in SE Asia.

Technically, if you want to talk about dictionary definitions, the US was indeed engaged in illegal hostilities in SE Asia since Congress never approved military action.  One evidence of that is the fact the National Guard and Reserves were never called up.  

So call the naysayers "cowards" all you want, the label doesn't even remotely fit some of them. No doubt some were motivated by self-preservation, but even that doesn't necessarily make them cowards.

Nor would I be inclined to build monuments to them, naturally, but the black and white attitudes here only betray the biases of the posters.


----------



## sdimock (13 Sep 2004)

"You missed the point entirely."

 Ok, that happens, 

The problem isn't with dictionary definitions it's with the application of the wrong word.

The German high command would definitely label him traitor to his leader (which he was).

Traitor to his people is a debateable issue (most would probably say no).

"but the black and white attitudes here only betray the biases of the posters."

The title of the thread is "Draft dodgers get memorial".

As can be expected on a military forum, most, if not all, are not in favour of giving the same honour to people who avoided fighting as those who paid with there lives.

The 60's was a different time, context is important, (people shoud search the CIA and United Fruit in Central America).

The environment existed in the world where people saw the government of the US prove it could not be trusted.

Put yourself there, here are your choices if you don't agree with what the government is doing,

1. Stand up and be counted against the government and pay in prison.

2. Submit to the authorities and take your chances with the Vietcong.

3.   Move out of the country, giving up your homeland so you have your life even if it's in a foreign country? 

No it wasn't necessarily a black and white issue, but a memorial, that's black and white. 

1 & 2 take Balls, 3 takes feet.


----------



## Acorn (13 Sep 2004)

3. Takes more than feet. Consider how many who went to Canada knowing that they could lose their families. They avoided jail in the US, but were still branded as criminal 'till Carter's pardon. Even after the pardon many are still despised, ironically much as Vietnam veterans were when they returned late in the war.

I don't think a memorial is justified though. In fact I look at it as another typically Canadian nose-thumbing at the US. Of course, I also don't think it is our business building memorials to Canadians who fought in Vietnam, or other foreign wars that Canada's government chose to avoid - Spanish Civil War for example.

Calling those who made their statements by fleeing to Canada cowards is overly simplistic.

Acorn


----------



## ackland (14 Sep 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> 3. Takes more than feet. Consider how many who went to Canada knowing that they could lose their families. They avoided jail in the US, but were still branded as criminal 'till Carter's pardon. Even after the pardon many are still despised, ironically much as Vietnam veterans were when they returned late in the war.
> 
> I don't think a memorial is justified though. In fact I look at it as another typically Canadian nose-thumbing at the US. Of course, I also don't think it is our business building memorials to Canadians who fought in Vietnam, or other foreign wars that Canada's government chose to avoid - Spanish Civil War for example.
> 
> ...




What if Nelson Mandela had decided to fight rascism in South Africa by runnig away and hiding in comfort with his drugs and such. Wouldn't have been quit e the same statement would it. So why give respect to people who protested the war by hiding and taking no real risk of there own. 
 loose their families? why there families didn't have phones couldn't travel. I'm sure most stayed in touch.


----------



## sdimock (28 Sep 2004)

Greatings all,

Here is the latest from   http://www.kbsradio.ca/shownews.asp?ID=93362

"War resistors monument plan scrapped.

THE MAYOR OF NELSON SAYS THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE DRAFT DODGERS MONUMENT HAVE RECONSIDERED. 

DAVE ELLIOT SAYS HE HAS CONVINCED THEM THE STATUE IS DIVIDING THE COMMUNITY. 

BUT ELLIOTT IS UPSET WITH DOUG JAY AND IAN MASON FOR PLANS TO HAVE THE CITY OFFICIALLY STATE IT'S NEUTRALITY ON THE PROJECT 

(Councillor Jay and Councillor Mason are trying to enflame this issue only for political reasons. This is a minor issue in the scheme of world events.) 

ELLIOT SPOKE WITH THE PROJECT PROPONENTS MONDAY."

Hopefully this idea will quickly fade from peoples minds.

Chimo


----------



## sdimock (29 Sep 2004)

Alas, a speedy death to this idea is not to be.

 http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_nelson20040928

May they never find a place that wants to take it.


----------



## pappy (2 Oct 2004)

A Draft Dodgers Memorial?  I hope the Canadians have more sense then that.  Pretty sad day to say the least....

Lets all remember that John Kerry has his own Memorial (be it just part of a larger one for the Vietnamese) in Vietnam 
that celibrates not his swift boat days , short as they where, 
but for his part in the Anti-War movement.  

Maybe he will be getting the French, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to "hlep in Iraq and Afganistan"

Lets hope for the US and world Kerry Loses.

If he does get elected lets hope his presidency lasts as long as the first JFK, opps did I say that outloud? just kidding John-boy.

Can't we just get two new canidates and start over?

 ;D


----------



## logau (2 Oct 2004)

As a dual Citizen USA/Cdn who grew up in the Nelson*Creston*Trail*Rossland area - they should rest assured that   a pickup truck from Colville Washington with a nice trailer hitch and tow cable, will probably come up and see the statue when it is unveiled - and then promptly drag it back across the border........ :

Here's 20,000 American Troops - my grandfather among them - who never hung back.

www.donlowconcrete.com/Engineers​


----------



## foerestedwarrior (8 Oct 2004)

I also grew up in Nelson, and you have to realise that 90% of the population is all hippies and anti war activists, the rest are all ski bums. So a bunch of "artisits" taht want to do a memorial like this, is feasable cus they think that "make love not war" works on a wordl stage, and tehy dont realise that th rest of the world fights, regardless if we have an army or not. I think this is junk, and if made, it should be promptly destroyed, it is an insult to the memory of the hundreds of thousands of people, Canadian and American, the lost their life in the war.


----------



## dmsdbo (7 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> A combat infantry battalion had four rifle companies, each with 120 men.  These took the brunt of the casualties.   Your 2,463 men would have completely filled 20 rifle companies with two platoons left over.   An infantry division only fielded 36 rifle companies, so you're talking potentially of the fighting strength of half a division.



Sorry for the late reply but...

This is absolutely a statement that needs to be played up more often.  The NRMA conscripts arrived at a time late in the war in NW Europe, but many Canadians forget that the fighting from Feb-April 45 was remarkably harsh for the infantry and armor.  The Virtual War Memorial attests to this.  The 2,463 NRMA who entered combat as combat replacements were desperately needed, especially by the units arriving from Italy, which had less access to replacements.  Most of the these men would have seen some action and some would have experienced quite a bit.  Don't forget - the Cape Breton Highlanders had 24 killed almost immediately before the war ended in house-to-house fighting on a single day.  There were likely many NRMA men in action there.  Not to mention the thousands of others that were sent to the RCEME, RCA, RCASC or other branches that were short of personnel.  Although some NRMA acted badly in late 1944 in Canada, by all accounts most aquitted themselves well when sent into NW Europe, and were judged to be better reinforcements that those stripped from excess rear area personnel in Nov-Dec/44 before NRMA men began arriving from Canada via the UK.

The NRMA contribution to the hard fighting of the last three months of the war should not be overlooked as an essential part of the unified Canadian 1st Army.  A book on their experiences in the infanrty, armour and artillery would be tremendous.


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Aug 2005)

a draft-dodger monument....next we'll erect a monument to all those who refuse to pay taxes...

I could understand if they levied for a display in the CWM, as the "Draft-dodger exodus" is a part of history, but, a monument to commemorate them?

Here's hoping that this idea is shot down anytime it's suggested


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Aug 2005)

This thread started almost a year ago. IIRC, the flak caused by the whole fiasco, put the kibosh on the monument. It never got built. Anyone have a factual update?


----------



## scm77 (7 Aug 2005)

I do!



> *B.C. city rejects draft-dodger monument*
> Last Updated Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:36:36 EDT
> CBC News
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/29/nonelsonstatue_040929.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Aug 2005)

Thanks scm77

So endeth this one.


----------

