
I mean the choices are: A. Get drafted randomly to fight and potentially die thousands of miles from home in a war you may or may not even agree with, and if you make it back home, life goes on as usual B. Refuse, get a felony conviction on your record, permanently impact your employment opportunities, you + your family get steep fines, etc. I already know what choice you’d supposedly take, but I’d ask if you even think this is a fair question to judge what was often poor young men or boys for
their answer on? It also gets more complicated when you consider wealthier families were often able to enroll their kids in college/grad school or get a doctor to give them a medical exemption to defer the draft. It’s easy to say what the right thing to do was in retrospect, but I can’t say I don’t understand why people put in a terribly shitty situation would choose what they think is the less shitty option for them and their family
I personally just find that a bit privileged to say. You can’t understand at all why an 18-year old, poorly educated boy from some desperate family would not choose the option that involves a federal felony conviction that will make it impossible for him to work, 5 years of prison, social ostracization of his family, fine of like $100k in today’s money, etc.? At all? I’m not saying you have to agree with it but I have empathy for the fact that they got screwed by the warhawks in charge
We also have the benefit of hindsight and detailed reporting to look back on these conflicts with; at the time these people were drafted imagine about what they actually knew about the conflict, it probably wasn’t much at all. I think they get some grace for making a bad decision in a shitty situation
You are not being forced to choose between your entire life being ruined and joining the military so the comparison is kinda pointless. And I think describing what the average American drafted to the military in Korea or Vietnam did as on par with the Nazis is something of an exaggeration