You are right a lot of the Americans in WWII were drafted, but they fought bravely anyway.
Actually, my father was one of the "greatest generation." He did a number on the Japs. 
He volunteered and signed up after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was 18.
Actually, the US participation help keep the communist in check.
You are right 90% of the Americans landing in Normandy probably did not fire their weapons, but that's because they were getting zapped by machine guns in all directions. 
Originally Posted by kingorpawn
My hat is off to your Dad as it is to any other veteran of any war our Country has fought. I have nothing but respect for anyone that volunteered during such a dangerous and difficult time in our nation's history following Pear Harbor. Volunteer or Draftee, most of the veterans of WWII carried themselves with honor, fulfilled their duty and came back home to help lead the way in making our Country one of the most prosperous of the world during that time.
As to TAE's 90% "myth".. Let's not forget the number of weapons that went to the bottom of the ocean when landing crafts were hit, the number that jammed up with sand from the beach, the number that were discarded when men had to swim for their life. The best part however is....... DESPITE all that, they still managed to kick some German ass
and make it off the beach!
Although TAE would struggle to tell you where he got the 90% figure from, I'll be a PAL and help him out. It came from S.L.A. Marshall in his book: "Men against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War"
( I managed to read that despite not having been to graduate school)
Although Marshall's numbers were often quoted in years past, no serious scholars give much weight to them. Here's one example of why they don't...from the
Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies:
quote:"This calculation assumes, however, that of all the questions Marshall might ask the soldiers of a rifle company during his interviews, he would unfailingly want to know who had fired his weapon and who had not. Such a question, posed interview after interview, would have signalled that Marshall was on a particular line of inquiry, and that regardless of the other information Marshall might discover, he was devoted to investigating this facet of combat performance. John Westover, usually in attendance during Marshall's sessions with the troops, does not recall Marshall's ever asking this question. Nor does Westover recall Marshall ever talking about ratios of weapons usage in their many private conversations. Marshall's own personal correspondence leaves no hint that he was ever collecting statistics. His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in Men Against Fire.
The "systematic collection of data" that made Marshall's ratio of fire so authoritative appears to have been an invention.
The author was professor Roger J. Spiller, and his task was an unpleasant one because he believed that Marshall was basically right about the primacy of ground combat. Nonetheless, Spiller pulled no punches. He writes: Marshall had no use for the polite equivocations of scholarly discourse. His way of proving doubtful propositions was to state them more forcefully. Righteousness was always more important for Marshall than evidence....
The foundation of his conviction was not scholarship but his own military experience, experience that he inflated or revised as the situation warranted. Marshall often hinted broadly that he had commanded infantry in combat, but his service dossier shows no such service. He frequently held that he had been the youngest officer in the American Expeditionary Forces during the Great War, but this plays with the truth as well. Marshall enlisted in 1917 and served with the 315th Engineer Regiment—then part of the 90th Infantry Division—and won a commission after the Armistice, when rapid demobilization required very junior officers to command "casual" and depot companies as the veteran officers went home. Marshall rarely drew such distinctions, however, leaving his audiences to infer that he had commanded in the trenches. Later in life, he remarked that he had seen five wars as a soldier and 18 as a correspondent, but his definitions of war and soldiering were rather elastic. That he had seen a great deal of soldiers going about their deadly work was no empty boast, however. This mantle of experience, acquired in several guises, protected him throughout his long and prolific career as a military writer, and his aggressive style intimidated those who would doubt his arguments. Perhaps inevitably, his readers would mistake his certitude for authority." -End quote for all the above
Sorry to include all the above but I found it relevant. It shows that TAE bases his opinions and "facts" on discredited historians who often exaggerate about their own exploits. Sound familiar TAE?
If the opinions of theRoyal United Services Institute for Defense Studies aren't credible, one can also proceed to the U.S. Army War College publication. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...n/chambers.htm
Simply type in "S.L.A. Marshall" in the search window and you'll find their conclusions on why the myth that 90% didn't fire their weapons is completely false and unsupported by any evidence or documentation.
Now, I'm in NO WAY saying we should hold TAE accountable for the above. The man attended Strategic Studies classes in the early 80's and should be commended for it. The fact that he isn't aware that most of his "sources" were debunked by serious historians, defense institutes, universities and war colleges just means that perhaps his graduate level learning is a bit dated.
Hopefully the sources listed above will be enough to get me out of the "denier" category and put me back in the "debater" category? What say you Mr. Mitty? (TAE)
We finally agree on something. Actually, you are correct, the Chinese are still getting the oil. In my opinion, we gave it to them because of the money we borrowed from them. We got screwed. 
