Talk:Mobilization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Needs to have more than just how mobilization contributed to the outbreak of World War I.
-
- Go for it, dude! Ellsworth 23:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Collaboration of the Fortnight
Unfortunately, I am abroad for some months, and can contribute only with the help of online contents (and maybe my memory). In particular: please note that the full version of the (reliable) book The army and economic mobilization by R. Elberton Smith is available online here. Anyway, this book mainly deals with american army in WW2. gala.martin (what?) 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vietnam
Is it just me, or is this article wrong in stating that the majority of American troops in Vietnam were volunteers? I know the draft was active during the war, but I thought that most troops were draftees, not volunteers. I think that the article should cover the draft process during Vietnam, since it was a form of Cold War Mobilization. I just don't have very much information to expand that. Laserbeamcrossfire
- Check the VFW page - the majority of US soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers. I'll try and find a source for that when I get a minute. It's a surprising statistic, but true. Bear in mind the draft was not specific to Vietnam, though, so is not a traditional "mobilization" - the fact the National Guard (IIRC) didn't participate in Vietnam should tell you something also.Michael Dorosh 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Shows you my true arragonce about Vietnam. :D If the National Guard were avaliable, why was the draft necessary at all? If the draft was not specific to Vietnam, would it still not be a form of mobilization, albiet archiac (since we are deploying the NG instead of drafting in Iraq). --Laserbeamcrossfire 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's an excellent question - Germany had the draft - most European nations did - in 1910, but weren't considered to have mobilized until 1914, after the declaration of war. So I would guess that if we are defining mobilization as preparation for war (meaning, war has been declared), I would say no. Will be interesting to see what others think on this.Michael Dorosh 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly (and it's been a while since I've looked at this) Germany in 1914 had (a) an active-duty army, primarily composed of draftees; (b) a reserve force of recently discharged draftees; and (c) a National Guard-type force (Landswehr?) that was separate from the first two, and was not initially meant to be used in combat. The 1914 mobilization consisted primarily of the men in group (b) being called to active duty. Did the Vietnam-era US Army have reserve formations aside from the National Guard that were called up? Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is fundamentally correct, although there may have been more than one class of recent dischargees in b). Andreas 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- If I recall correctly (and it's been a while since I've looked at this) Germany in 1914 had (a) an active-duty army, primarily composed of draftees; (b) a reserve force of recently discharged draftees; and (c) a National Guard-type force (Landswehr?) that was separate from the first two, and was not initially meant to be used in combat. The 1914 mobilization consisted primarily of the men in group (b) being called to active duty. Did the Vietnam-era US Army have reserve formations aside from the National Guard that were called up? Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's an excellent question - Germany had the draft - most European nations did - in 1910, but weren't considered to have mobilized until 1914, after the declaration of war. So I would guess that if we are defining mobilization as preparation for war (meaning, war has been declared), I would say no. Will be interesting to see what others think on this.Michael Dorosh 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Shows you my true arragonce about Vietnam. :D If the National Guard were avaliable, why was the draft necessary at all? If the draft was not specific to Vietnam, would it still not be a form of mobilization, albiet archiac (since we are deploying the NG instead of drafting in Iraq). --Laserbeamcrossfire 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cold War
I think that in the cold war section, we should write about the mobilization plans of the superpowers. Moreover, we say that there are more info available on the cold war article. Well, there there is almost nothing there about mobilization. Does anybody have any suggestion about references concerning mobilization during the cold war? I think it is an interesting issue. gala.martin (what?) 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
