A Question About the Pacific War (WWII) and the US Entering the War

[Director]

If I remember correctly, during the Civil War volunteers received a substantial bonus and some other perks. If you waited to be caught up in conscription, then you didn't get those benefits.

There were a lot of deferments for various occupations (like plantation overseer). The Union was never close to hitting its manpower limit and thus could keep a lot of men at home, on fields and in factories. In the South, the manpower limits were hit early and there was a constant struggle to find labor for things like railroads and factories - the trained men were pulled into the army and the army commanders would not agree to let them out.

Encouraging volunteers is always politically easier than requiring service by conscription, so that was always the preferred method. But yes, there was always a desertion problem - volunteers could 'take the money and run', conscripts could 'vote with their feet' and, as the war went against the Confederacy, a lot of Southern men went home to take care of their families. Sherman's 'March to the Sea' was covered by a mass of 'bummers' who were foraging and deserters from both armies who were pillaging for what they could get.


In WW2, the US never remotely approached its manpower limits. The interwar army planning was built around assigning men first to industrial production and limiting the size of the army to the minimum required to beat the enemy. During the war, planned divisions were constantly scrapped, so the final armies in Europe and Japan were actually a good bit smaller than pre-war calculations provided for.

 

[Jopa79]

Before WW2, didn't the US have an enlistment bounty system and a resulting bounty-jumper problem? As I understand it, you got a cash bonus for joining up during the War of 1812 and Civil War, which led to people joining one regiment, collecting their bonus, deserting and then joining another regiment under a different name to get paid again.

This is (rather cleverly I thought) represented in the mechanics of the classic wargame ACW: From Sumter to Appomatox (1996), where you decide each turn what percentage of your resources to devote to recruitment bonuses and your allocation increases or decreases the recruits you get some turns later, meaning you had to plan ahead or find yourself with no replacements available when you needed them.

A good reminder. A few years ago I watched a tv-document-series, America in Colors - 1920’s-1950’s. The 1930’s episode featured, for instance, the Bonus Army riot. The America’s WWI Expeditionary Forces were promised to have cash payments.

I cannot remember, were the payments delayed due to the Great Depression, but at least, while the US WWI veterans asked for an early redemption of their bonus certificates, they were refused, leading to the veterans rioting and to serious conflicts between the veterans, the police and the US Army.

 

[Director]

The WW1 'Bonus' payments were approved by Congress in 1924 but not scheduled for actual payment until 1945. When the Depression hit, veterans wanted to receive their payments immediately and peaceably marched on Washington in protest, in 1932. The House voted to make the payments but the Senate rejected it.

General MacArthur, then commanding general of the Army, was tasked by President Hoover with clearing out the shantytown. Over the protests of his chief assistant, Dwight Eisenhower, MacArthur sent in troops (including tanks) and a wild melee erupted, far more violent than Hoover had intended.

Another Bonus march occurred in 1933 and was met by Eleanor Roosevelt - but still no payments came. Many of the veterans found work in the Civilian Conservation Corps, and $2 billion dollars in Bonus payments were finally made (over a Presidential veto) in 1936.

This is generally held to be the spur for the creation of the GI Bill of Rights in 1944.

 

[Frank_Costello]

Before WW2, didn't the US have an enlistment bounty system and a resulting bounty-jumper problem? As I understand it, you got a cash bonus for joining up during the War of 1812 and Civil War, which led to people joining one regiment, collecting their bonus, deserting and then joining another regiment under a different name to get paid again.

This is (rather cleverly I thought) represented in the mechanics of the classic wargame ACW: From Sumter to Appomatox (1996), where you decide each turn what percentage of your resources to devote to recruitment bonuses and your allocation increases or decreases the recruits you get some turns later, meaning you had to plan ahead or find yourself with no replacements available when you needed them.

Yes, but primarily during the Civil War because the other wars where bounties were paid the bounty was usually in land after the war with a smaller cash payment up front.

The US Civil War set bounties between Federal, State and Locals where a man could make $1,000 up front then get paid $12 a month for the duration. Bounty jumping was very lucrative and created several famous bounty jumpers, including the 'Napoleon of Crime' who was believed to be the inspiration for Moriarty - Adain Worth.

John Larney, aka 'Molly Matches' was a famous pickpocket who used to dress up like a match girl as a boy, and who spent many years in various lucrative crime rackets like bank robbery after the war, claimed to have jumped the bounty on 93 Ohio, Massachussets, New York and Pennsylvannia regiments

 

[Frank_Costello]

A good reminder. A few years ago I watched a tv-document-series, America in Colors - 1920’s-1950’s. The 1930’s episode featured, for instance, the Bonus Army riot. The America’s WWI Expeditionary Forces were promised to have cash payments.

I cannot remember, were the payments delayed due to the Great Depression, but at least, while the US WWI veterans asked for an early redemption of their bonus certificates, they were refused, leading to the veterans rioting and to serious conflicts between the veterans, the police and the US Army.

In 1924 a bill was passed whereby US Soldiers in WWI were to be paid a bonus of $1 per day of wartime service up to $500 paid out / $625 for overseas duty. The funds would paid yearly into a central account, the certificates would mature in 20 years with a payout in 1945, and the money would be there to make the payments according to the Congressional budgetary schedule.

The Depression brought the soldiers in to protest because they wanted their money - or to borrow against it - NOW!

Alas, the 3rd Cavalry commanded by Major George C. Patton sent them on their way; unpaid.

 

[Jopa79]

General MacArthur, then commanding general of the Army, was tasked by President Hoover with clearing out the shantytown. Over the protests of his chief assistant, Dwight Eisenhower, MacArthur sent in troops (including tanks) and a wild melee erupted, far more violent than Hoover had intended.

The Depression brought the soldiers in to protest because they wanted their money - or to borrow against it - NOW!

Alas, the 3rd Cavalry commanded by Major George C. Patton sent them on their way; unpaid.

It kind of feels so strange and makes me thinking…you know, I can see and understand the distress and the neediness of those WWI US veterans, many of them probably were without jobs since the beginning of the Great Depression. About 15 years earlier, they answered the call while their country asked for them, but now, their plea was rejected and the Army suppressed them, the same Army to which they earlier had enlisted for.

 

[CV10]

In 1924 a bill was passed whereby US Soldiers in WWI were to be paid a bonus of $1 per day of wartime service up to $500 paid out / $625 for overseas duty. The funds would paid yearly into a central account, the certificates would mature in 20 years with a payout in 1945, and the money would be there to make the payments according to the Congressional budgetary schedule.

The Depression brought the soldiers in to protest because they wanted their money - or to borrow against it - NOW!

Alas, the 3rd Cavalry commanded by Major George C. Patton sent them on their way; unpaid.

One of the marchers (Joe Angelo iirc) served under Patton during the war and had dragged Patton to safety after Patton was wounded in action. The two ran into each other when the Army drove the marchers out of their camp. Patton ordered him sent on his way without speaking to him.

 

[Frank_Costello]

It kind of feels so strange and makes me thinking…you know, I can see and understand the distress and the neediness of those WWI US veterans, many of them probably were without jobs since the beginning of the Great Depression. About 15 years earlier, they answered the call while their country asked for them, but now, their plea was rejected and the Army suppressed them, the same Army to which they earlier had enlisted for.

Everyone agrees but what can you do?

 

[Jopa79]

Everyone agrees but what can you do?

Well, nothing, I guess. Nothing can be done to make the happening undone. But maybe we can remember and take an advantage about what we know. If we can recognize our past, it might help us to invest for the future.

The Bonus Army riot in 1932 in my opinion is exceptional event, the development leading to it, the event itself and the aftermath. I’ve heard, it might have even influenced the voting, Hoover losing to FDR?

I also experience, the US Army unnecessarily using force while suppressing the rioting and was ready to go even further? I think, some of the leading US officers showing their true nature during this event, for instance, showing indefferency towards their old brothers-in-arms.

I know, the veterans weren’t yet ’entitled’ (is that right word to use in this case) for their bonus certificates as the set redemption date was far away, but surely the urgency was real. If one was a US WWI veteran, suffering of the Great Depression and maybe the Dust Bowl also, I can see the extremity.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Well, nothing, I guess. Nothing can be done to make the happening undone. But maybe we can remember and take an advantage about what we know. If we can recognize our past, it might help us to invest for the future.

The Bonus Army riot in 1932 in my opinion is exceptional event, the development leading to it, the event itself and the aftermath. I’ve heard, it might have even influenced the voting, Hoover losing to FDR?

I also experience, the US Army unnecessarily using force while suppressing the rioting and was ready to go even further? I think, some of the leading US officers showing their true nature during this event, for instance, showing indefferency towards their old brothers-in-arms.

I know, the veterans weren’t yet ’entitled’ (is that right word to use in this case) for their bonus certificates as the set redemption date was far away, but surely the urgency was real. If one was a US WWI veteran, suffering of the Great Depression and maybe the Dust Bowl also, I can see the extremity.

I'm confused that you seem to believe generals and other professional officers would consider former conscripts who served as grunts under their command as "brothers"? Worlds separate the common man from the pre WW1 professional officer.

Or that the status of a "veteran" was something special at that particular moment in time. WW1 was a short event for the USA, they were in it for barely a year before it was already over. A very large number of people served, all of them voluntarily, so the state didn't feel any particular obligation to be nice to them after their service. Just another group begging for money from the state during a time of economic crisis

 

[Frank_Costello]

Well, nothing, I guess. Nothing can be done to make the happening undone. But maybe we can remember and take an advantage about what we know. If we can recognize our past, it might help us to invest for the future.

The Bonus Army riot in 1932 in my opinion is exceptional event, the development leading to it, the event itself and the aftermath. I’ve heard, it might have even influenced the voting, Hoover losing to FDR?

I also experience, the US Army unnecessarily using force while suppressing the rioting and was ready to go even further? I think, some of the leading US officers showing their true nature during this event, for instance, showing indefferency towards their old brothers-in-arms.

I know, the veterans weren’t yet ’entitled’ (is that right word to use in this case) for their bonus certificates as the set redemption date was far away, but surely the urgency was real. If one was a US WWI veteran, suffering of the Great Depression and maybe the Dust Bowl also, I can see the extremity.

The problem is orders. I am sure the soldiers paid to remove the economically disadvantaged vets did not like the job they were given. But at that moment they are no longer 'brothers in arms' but insurgents trespassing on Federal grounds these soldiers are sworn to protect.

The bigger problem is the fact a third of the nation was in economic distress at that point so where were they going to get the money? This is when they still actually paid attention to cash flow and monetary systems were tied to gold and monstrous deficitis like the past few years of pandemic payouts were not possible.

 

[Jopa79]

I'm confused that you seem to believe generals and other professional officers would consider former conscripts who served as grunts under their command as "brothers"? Worlds separate the common man from the pre WW1 professional officer.

Like it was said here earlier, George Patton was a veteran of WWI and one of the leading officers, suppressing the Bonus Army revolt. Joe Angelo was also an American veteran of the WWI and a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross. Angelo had saved Patton’s life in the WWI during the Meuse-Argonne offensive. Angelo was unemployed and joined the Bonus Army movement.

The both were present in 1932 at the Bonus Army revolt. While Angelo approached Patton there, he was harshly rejected, further Patton claiming, he doesn’t know Angelo at all. Eventually Patton forcibly ordered Angelo away.

I have to say, if someone saves my life, I will surely remember and recognize that person through the rest of my time. Patton showed very bad behaviour here and it’s not acceptable at all. It’s the same if I told to my staff, ”Go to hell.”, after they have finished a first-rate job. Patton here is showing some remarkable and serious lacks in his superior position.

Or that the status of a "veteran" was something special at that particular moment in time. WW1 was a short event for the USA, they were in it for barely a year before it was already over. A very large number of people served, all of them voluntarily, so the state didn't feel any particular obligation to be nice to them after their service. Just another group begging for money from the state during a time of economic crisis

No, I haven’t stated anything about having a status, ’an American WWI veteran’ would be something special. Or, did I?

Even while the US era in the WWI was rather short, still, it’s estimated, the US role in the war significantly affected the final result. Further, approximately 117 000 US soldiers lost their lives. I wouldn’t send a word, their effort was for nothing and they pushed just for vain.

And while you claim, the Bonus Army veterans were just begging for the money, yes, they were. But have you considered the conditions? And to be more precise, the veterans were asking for an early redemption of their bonus certificates. Have you tried living withouth food, home, shelter and money, all those in combined? I can honestly say, I haven’t, but even while suffering a lot more minor adversity, I have asked for help.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Like it was said here earlier, George Patton was a veteran of WWI and one of the leading officers, suppressing the Bonus Army revolt. Joe Angelo was also an American veteran of the WWI and a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross. Angelo had saved Patton’s life in the WWI during the Meuse-Argonne offensive. Angelo was unemployed and joined the Bonus Army movement.

The both were present in 1932 at the Bonus Army revolt. While Angelo approached Patton there, he was harshly rejected, further Patton claiming, he doesn’t know Angelo at all. Eventually Patton forcibly ordered Angelo away.

I have to say, if someone saves my life, I will surely remember and recognize that person through the rest of my time. Patton showed very bad behaviour here and it’s not acceptable at all. It’s the same if I told to my staff, ”Go to hell.”, after they have finished a first-rate job. Patton here is showing some remarkable and serious lacks in his superior position.

When your job is to feed human material into the meat grinder of war, then disregards for the individual comes with the job. The Prussians higher officers largely had the same view of common soldiers.

No, I haven’t stated anything about having a status, ’an American WWI veteran’ would be something special. Or, did I?

Even while the US era in the WWI was rather short, still, it’s estimated, the US role in the war significantly affected the final result. Further, approximately 117 000 US soldiers lost their lives. I wouldn’t send a word, their effort was for nothing and they pushed just for vain.

That's just how it is in many wars. For nothing, in vain, better to never have been part of it. The US role in WW1 was like that too, mostly futile as the peace that was won fell so far short of any of the ideals proclamed by President Wilson upon entry of the USA into that war.

And while you claim, the Bonus Army veterans were just begging for the money, yes, they were. But have you considered the conditions? And to be more precise, the veterans were asking for an early redemption of their bonus certificates. Have you tried living withouth food, home, shelter and money, all those in combined? I can honestly say, I haven’t, but even while suffering a lot more minor adversity, I have asked for help.

There was a huge homelessness crisis in the US at the time, which affected millions. The veterans were just one of many, many groups. At the time it was not felt that the state owed these veterans anything in particular beyond that to which they had written entitlement. There was not yet the sense of widely felt patriotic obligation of the nation to its veterans.

Keep in mind this was the heyday of industrialization, and the way industry (and falling!) operated at the time was that life was cheap, safety cost money so it just wasn't done, and there were tons of accidents leaving people crippled, maimed or otherwise marked for life in ways that were not different from how wars leave people crippled, maimed etc. The kind of dangers that volunteers in a war took upon them were not as different from those that working class people faced in their peace time life, as they would become later in history.

And the people who volunteered for a war during far time were actually often regarded as dregs of society, disposable human material ("cannon fodder" as Napoleon called it), people who would be unemployed anyways and therefore (under classic protestant / calvinist world views) human beings of the lowest value. Check how the British regarded soldiers in their military before WW1, they regarded them scum and good-for-nothings, especially if they were soldiers in the land army.

Volunteer armies generally have this problem that society at large does not identify that much with the plight of soldiers. Conscription based armies are a lot different, the public takes great interest in the well being of the soldiers because it affects almost every family. You can see this is the transition that the American and British armies made from professional to conscription based during WW2 and WW1 respectively, the army became much better regarded socially.

And then again in the switch from conscription back to professional service in many western European armies, in the 1970s and the 1990s respectively. The military became less highly regarded, to the point where (e.g. in Germany) the army is regarded with apathy or actually deep suspicion for (unfairly) being perceived as a breeding ground of armed extremism.

 

[Jopa79]

When your job is to feed human material into the meat grinder of war, then disregards for the individual comes with the job. The Prussians higher officers largely had the same view of common soldiers.

I sure hope, you don’t think the same or share the view. But if that is also your opinion, I have to say, you and I, we respect completely different values of life.

Even if being a superior, it doesn’t mean you may treat others like garbage. That’s called arrogance and irreverent behavior, further it’s very selfish and egocentric thinking.

Are you really suggesting, it’s okay and acceptable, the leading officers and field commanders, feeding the meat grinder and surviving at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives so that they can just to do it again and once in a while, punch the common people onto face?

That's just how it is in many wars. For nothing, in vain, better to never have been part of it. The US role in WW1 was like that too, mostly futile as the peace that was won fell so far short of any of the ideals proclamed by President Wilson upon entry of the USA into that war.

Depending on the calculation and interpretation methods, during its independence, my country has fought in 2-4 wars. It’s quite a lot, especially while these wars happened in the first 27 years after gaining the independence. The first war, the Finnish Civil War of 1918 was the kind of war, better to never have been part of it. However, it’s unsure was the war avoidable then, even if the burghers and working class didn’t arm themselves. There still were the Russian and German desire to intervene to our own matters. The second war, the Winter War of 1939-1940, we were pretty much enforced into it if we would like to survive among the nations. The third war, the Continuation War of 1941-1944 - it was a revanchism war, to reclaim the lost territory and again, there were also the Soviet and German interests in this war also, but end phase was pretty much living again the experiences of the last war. According and obeying the Soviet-set peace terms, we were again enforced into a war - the Lapland War of 1944-1945. Your compatriots didn’t want to leave peacefully from here and the Soviets urged a conflict between Germany and Finland, so, we really didn’t have any other options.

Taking into account the above, absolutely, yes, better to never be in any war, but nobody just bothered to ask that from us, would we like it, or not, to be a part of a war.

I disagree the opinion, the US effort being only futile in the WWI. Because of America entering the war, Russia could declare null and void the peace treaty which it had already signed with Germany. Further, the US entering the Allies side in the war was a major step regarding the relations between America and the Western European countries. This trend lasted at least until the post-war years of the WWII.

There was a huge homelessness crisis in the US at the time, which affected millions. The veterans were just one of many, many groups. At the time it was not felt that the state owed these veterans anything in particular beyond that to which they had written entitlement. There was not yet the sense of widely felt patriotic obligation of the nation to its veterans.

Keep in mind this was the heyday of industrialization, and the way industry (and falling!) operated at the time was that life was cheap, safety cost money so it just wasn't done, and there were tons of accidents leaving people crippled, maimed or otherwise marked for life in ways that were not different from how wars leave people crippled, maimed etc. The kind of dangers that volunteers in a war took upon them were not as different from those that working class people faced in their peace time life, as they would become later in history.

And the people who volunteered for a war during far time were actually often regarded as dregs of society, disposable human material ("cannon fodder" as Napoleon called it), people who would be unemployed anyways and therefore (under classic protestant / calvinist world views) human beings of the lowest value. Check how the British regarded soldiers in their military before WW1, they regarded them scum and good-for-nothings, especially if they were soldiers in the land army.

Volunteer armies generally have this problem that society at large does not identify that much with the plight of soldiers. Conscription based armies are a lot different, the public takes great interest in the well being of the soldiers because it affects almost every family. You can see this is the transition that the American and British armies made from professional to conscription based during WW2 and WW1 respectively, the army became much better regarded socially.

And then again in the switch from conscription back to professional service in many western European armies, in the 1970s and the 1990s respectively. The military became less highly regarded, to the point where (e.g. in Germany) the army is regarded with apathy or actually deep suspicion for (unfairly) being perceived as a breeding ground of armed extremism.

In my opinion, you dodge my question here and you’re not answering, have you experienced the situation which I described? How could you survive in such a miserable conditions if no-one helps you, or if you don’t look for help?

 

[Frank_Costello]

I sure hope, you don’t think the same or share the view. But if that is also your opinion, I have to say, you and I, we respect completely different values of life.

Even if being a superior, it doesn’t mean you may treat others like garbage. That’s called arrogance and irreverent behavior, further it’s very selfish and egocentric thinking.

Are you really suggesting, it’s okay and acceptable, the leading officers and field commanders, feeding the meat grinder and surviving at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives so that they can just to do it again and once in a while, punch the common people onto face?




Depending on the calculation and interpretation methods, during its independence, my country has fought in 2-4 wars. It’s quite a lot, especially while these wars happened in the first 27 years after gaining the independence. The first war, the Finnish Civil War of 1918 was the kind of war, better to never have been part of it. However, it’s unsure was the war avoidable then, even if the burghers and working class didn’t arm themselves. There still were the Russian and German desire to intervene to our own matters. The second war, the Winter War of 1939-1940, we were pretty much enforced into it if we would like to survive among the nations. The third war, the Continuation War of 1941-1944 - it was a revanchism war, to reclaim the lost territory and again, there were also the Soviet and German interests in this war also, but end phase was pretty much living again the experiences of the last war. According and obeying the Soviet-set peace terms, we were again enforced into a war - the Lapland War of 1944-1945. Your compatriots didn’t want to leave peacefully from here and the Soviets urged a conflict between Germany and Finland, so, we really didn’t have any other options.

Taking into account the above, absolutely, yes, better to never be in any war, but nobody just bothered to ask that from us, would we like it, or not, to be a part of a war.

I disagree the opinion, the US effort being only futile in the WWI. Because of America entering the war, Russia could declare null and void the peace treaty which it had already signed with Germany. Further, the US entering the Allies side in the war was a major step regarding the relations between America and the Western European countries. This trend lasted at least until the post-war years of the WWII.




In my opinion, you dodge my question here and you’re not answering, have you experienced the situation which I described? How could you survive in such a miserable conditions if no-one helps you, or if you don’t look for help?

With all due respect Jodel isn’t saying military indifference to pain is his choice of action - it is the reality of the situation.

 

[Jopa79]

With all due respect Jodel isn’t saying military indifference to pain is his choice of action - it is the reality of the situation.

Yes, but my original statement and opinion is that Patton could have done better with Angelo in 1932. The situation would have allowed it. It’s a cowardly move by Patton, to say he doesn’t know Angelo, neither telling that Angelo saved his life.

I wasn’t talking about the meat grinder-thing at the first place, it was Jodel’s response and view about the Patton-Angelo meeting.

 

[Yakman]

Before WW2, didn't the US have an enlistment bounty system and a resulting bounty-jumper problem? As I understand it, you got a cash bonus for joining up during the War of 1812 and Civil War, which led to people joining one regiment, collecting their bonus, deserting and then joining another regiment under a different name to get paid again.

This is (rather cleverly I thought) represented in the mechanics of the classic wargame ACW: From Sumter to Appomatox (1996), where you decide each turn what percentage of your resources to devote to recruitment bonuses and your allocation increases or decreases the recruits you get some turns later, meaning you had to plan ahead or find yourself with no replacements available when you needed them.

before WW2 the USA didn't really have a standing army.

but yes, in the civil war, there was a draft, but rich people could pay money to evade it. "rich man's war, but a poor man's fight"

 

[Frank_Costello]

Yes, but my original statement and opinion is that Patton could have done better with Angelo in 1932. The situation would have allowed it. It’s a cowardly move by Patton, to say he doesn’t know Angelo, neither telling that Angelo saved his life.

I wasn’t talking about the meat grinder-thing at the first place, it was Jodel’s response and view about the Patton-Angelo meeting.

He did what he had to do, I'm not sure there is more to make of it than that.

 

[Jopa79]

He did what he had to do, I'm not sure there is more to make of it than that.

I’m sorry, but I think he could have done also differently if he just would like to do so. But Patton clearly isn’t giving his best effort here. I hope he was not like that all the time.

Edit: I sense some nice ingredients for a good movie here

 

[Jopa79]

but yes, in the civil war, there was a draft, but rich people could pay money to evade it. "rich man's war, but a poor man's fight"

Yea, the wars are fought to make money in a way or other.