[jhbadger]

The US military thought a lot about how to entertain its soldiers because there was a lot of downtime during a war and most of them were draftees who didn't necessarily want to be there, Another thing they did was publish pocket paperback editions of books back when paperbacks were less common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Editions

[throw93949449]

> most of them were draftees who didn't necessarily want to be there

It is called forced labour or slavery.

[multjoy]

It wasn’t slavery as they were paid and could be expected to be discharged at the cessation of hostilities.

Conscription is as old as society itself.

[danaris]

I mean, to be fair, so is slavery.

I think it's important to acknowledge that conscription is a violation of human rights, and absolutely a violation of human autonomy and dignity.

The reason it exists is because historically, the primary source of military power has been the number of armed humans you can put on the battlefield. That's much less true now, but even in WWII the technology wasn't yet up to that point.

And while the US did not end up being materially at risk in WWII (aside from some very small exceptions like Pearl Harbor), that was not a guarantee going in. The Nazis were hellbent on wiping out all opposition to them, and the fear that, if Europe was lost, they would cross the ocean to attack us was not at all crazy. Furthermore, our allies absolutely were under existential threat—and in such a situation, it's frankly irresponsible of a nation not to use conscription if that's actually likely to make a difference.

Either saying "conscription is slavery, therefore it is never justifiable" or "conscription is nothing like slavery, soldiers get treated well" ignores enough of the truth that they're misleading at best. Sometimes you really do have to deal with nuance.

[dmbrThnYou]

By saying that conscription is a violation of human rights, you're implying that we are entitled to land; obviously false.

Like you said, though, there is nuance.

[throe94944i]

Yeah, they were paid!! Plastic ocarinas!

[freedomben]

You're both right. We don't want to water down the term "slavery" by using it for draftees, but it is a form of temporary slavery. Slave's have always been "paid" in the form of room and board (however meager), but it's still slavery.

[dctoedt]

> It is called forced labour or slavery.

In war, people who tolerate military conscription and discipline will conquer those who're slaves to pigheaded "you're not the boss of ME!" individualism.

It'd be nice if humans would voluntarily abandon war someday. But a corollary of the First Commandment is to face facts.

[cucumber3732842]

That doesn't make it not forced though.

Most of this sub thread people who are unwilling to say "yeah it's forced labor and that's fine considering the details" doing mental gymnastics to make it not forced.

[derektank]

Just because something is forced, doesn’t make it slavery. I’m forced to pay taxes; that doesn’t make me a slave. Nor was a tenant farmer in the Middle Ages when required to provide corvée. I think the primary objection in this thread is to the use of the word slavery, which is simply not the same thing.

[bloomingeek]

I agree with your account, the problem is how many perceive slavery. Here in the south (USA) many still think the slaves before the Civil War were "happy". They obviously weren't slaves. Until ALL mankind looks slavery fully in the eye for understanding, we will continue to undervalue those other then ourselves.

[cwmoore]

I don’t think there can be a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable coercion of liberties.

[TomK32]

In peacetimes, yes, but if it's defensive war I don't see many arguments against a draft, it can't be generalized though.