For reference: http://www.fourthturning.com/my_html/body_generations_in_history.html

Originally Posted by AnneZob

It's like the GIs. Whether they wanted to or not they were going to have to fight and be killed. The reason why they became "heroes" is because instead of fighting against their destiny they embraced it and made it their personal sacrifice rather than something they were dragged kicking and screaming into...

-You could argue that the GIs were "dragged kicking & screaming"; it was called The Draft; Eddie Slovik got shot. But most GIs served with more dignity than that...

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

...Prove to all of us how much you have suffered and bled with hard statistics ...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...So this is the standard the Xers want to hold out for themselves or want others to believe -what the Lost did... Like maybe Granada to Belleau Wood?...

...first, I wasn't aware that US troops of the X'er generation fought in Andalusia. That mission must have been really classified...

So far, the X'ers are the first Nomad generation on S&H's list (at the top) to NOT have been eligible for some sort of mandatory military service AT ALL. If we take the last X'er as DOB 1982, then that makes the youngest ones 26 years old, so even if we began a draft tomorrow, very few would ever be drafted.

Because of this, X'er service is relatively low compared to most generations; the record on S&H's list would have been the Missionaries at less than 5% of males, with some cohort years at less than 2% (the Spanish-American War & Phillipene Insurrection brought the average up a bit).

Of those who did serve, casualties (including fatalities) have been low, because they're possibly the best military America has ever had, man for man; when skills are high, casualties go down. (I'd put the guys who fought the Phillipene Insurrection at a tie, or a close #2).

As far as I know, the only other Nomad generation which didn't have some sort of mandatory miliatry service would have been the Brit's of the Victorian era, for which a poster made this offering:

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

English Puritan (Prophet) - 1588-1617
English Cavaliers (Nomad) - 1618-1650
English Glorious (Hero) - 1651-1676
Hanoverians (Artist) - 1677-1701
Evangelicals (Prophet) - 1702-1727
Radicals (Nomad) - 1728-1754
Britons (Hero) - 1755-1780
Romantics (Artist) - 1781-1800
Victorians (Prophet) - 1801-1824
Imperials (Nomad/Hero) - 1825-1852
Edwardians (Artist) - 1853-1869
Ecumenicals (Prophet) - 1870-1886
Contemptibles (Nomad) - 1887-1905
Fews (Hero) - 1906-1926
Blitzs (Artist) - 1927-1943
Mods (Prophet) - 1944-1962
Hooligans (Nomad) - 1963-1981
Millenials (Hero) - 1982-????
New Artists (Artists) - ????-????

...which was the time of Britannia Pax; perhaps we find ourselves in an analogous time.

(Note that those Nomads become Pseudo-Heroes, like the American Gilded, and the follow-on generation, the Edwardians, become Artists, not Heroes, just like the Progressives. I've often pointed out, that folowing this analogy, that the Millenials could easily end up as Artists).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...No one is 'sent out to fight' anymore. Our generation was. Yours has gotten a pass on that...

-I'll take that as a "Job Well Done."

Originally Posted by AnneZob

...Most of the Boomers spent the time avoiding it and taking drugs and then haranguing the people who did actually go and fight. Not that Vietnam wasn't a crap war and there wasn't good reason to protest against it, but still, you weren't the GIs...

-I don't have statistics, but I suspect that far more Boomers of the 1943-1952 cohorts served in the military between 1964-1975 (8.7M total, a majority of them Boomer) than spent their time "haranguing" those who did (numbers?); I'd even bet that more Boomers actually served in SE asia (2.7M total, a majority of them Boomer) than spent their time haranguing those who did.

Originally Posted by independent

...(OK, Vietnam was completely retarded and required the ultimate sacrifice for way too many, I'll give ya'll that one)...

-See "Will Millenial Generals Suck?" (post #6): http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?p=251768#post251768

I completely agree that Boomers were actually a very obedient and disciplined generation. I also think that they did make very good soldiers in Veitnam War, as good of soldiers as Silents in Korean War, GI Generation in WWII, and Lost Generation in WWI, may be even better. I think a very, very small percentage of Boomers were hippies that burned the flag and took drugs. Most Boomers obeyed the draft and went to meet their death in a long, a cruel, and an unnecessary war. From all people I know that were born between 1943 and 1953, they seem to be most dedicated, disciplined, and hardest workers. Some fought in Vietnam and that was where they learned strict discipline.

S&H end the GI Generation in 1924, but WWII ended in 1945. Were there people born in 1925, 26, and 27 who fought in WWII? Were there 25, 26, and 27 cohort who saw fighting at the front? Does anyone of you personally know any veterans of WWII from these years?

In Russia, virtually all men (and even some women) born in 1925, 26, and 27 fought in WWII and most of them were killed. In Soviet Army, the draft age was 18, but many 15, 16, and 17 year olds were encouraged to join the army during WWII. So, there are many Russians born in 1928, 29 and 30 who fought in the war as well. There are even a some people born in early 1930s in USSR who fought in WWII.

Another question: are most soldeirs fighting in Iraq and Afganistan members of Generation X, or are there a few early Millennials as well?

I completely agree that Boomers were actually a very obedient and disciplined generation. I also think that they did make very good soldiers in Vietnam War, as good of soldiers as Silents in Korean War, GI Generation in WWII, and Lost Generation in WWI, may be even better. I think a very, very small percentage of Boomers were hippies that burned the flag and took drugs. Most Boomers obeyed the draft and went to meet their death in a long, a cruel, and an unnecessary war. From all people I know that were born between 1943 and 1953, they seem to be most dedicated, disciplined, and hardest workers. Some fought in Vietnam and that was where they learned strict discipline.

S&H end the GI Generation in 1924, but WWII ended in 1945. Were there people born in 1925, 26, and 27 who fought in WWII? Were there 25, 26, and 27 cohort who saw fighting at the front? Does anyone of you personally know any veterans of WWII from these years?

In Russia, virtually all men (and even some women) born in 1925, 26, and 27 fought in WWII and most of them were killed. In Soviet Army, the draft age was 18, but many 15, 16, and 17 year olds were encouraged to join the army during WWII. So, there are many Russians born in 1928, 29 and 30 who fought in the war as well. There are even a some people born in early 1930s in USSR who fought in WWII.

Another question: are most soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan members of Generation X, or are there a few early Millennials as well?

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

I completely agree that Boomers were actually a very obedient and disciplined generation. I also think that they did make very good soldiers in Vietnam War, as good of soldiers as Silents in Korean War, GI Generation in WWII, and Lost Generation in WWI, may be even better. I think a very, very small percentage of Boomers were hippies that burned the flag and took drugs. Most Boomers obeyed the draft and went to meet their death in a long, a cruel, and an unnecessary war. From all people I know that were born between 1943 and 1953, they seem to be most dedicated, disciplined, and hardest workers. Some fought in Vietnam and that was where they learned strict discipline.

S&H end the GI Generation in 1924, but WWII ended in 1945. Were there people born in 1925, 26, and 27 who fought in WWII? Were there 25, 26, and 27 cohort who saw fighting at the front? Does anyone of you personally know any veterans of WWII from these years?

In Russia, virtually all men (and even some women) born in 1925, 26, and 27 fought in WWII and most of them were killed. In Soviet Army, the draft age was 18, but many 15, 16, and 17 year olds were encouraged to join the army during WWII. So, there are many Russians born in 1928, 29 and 30 who fought in the war as well. There are even a some people born in early 1930s in USSR who fought in WWII.

Another question: are most soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan members of Generation X, or are there a few early Millennials as well?

2001 (action in Afghanistan begins): Boomers 41-58, 13th 20-40. Millennials under 21.

Initially there would be few Millennials in the war. Boomers would be approaching military retirement age, with Boom NCOs and non-senior officers largely fading from the military scene over the last eight years.

2009 (current): Boomers 49-66. 13th 28-48, Millennials under 28.

It would look as if Millennials were becoming the bulk of the soldiers and junior officers. Some of Generation X may be becoming senior officers while many are approaching retirement age.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Sorry for picking on the Boomer professors, but most of the Boomers I've been talking about were Aquarian wave, not Gen Jones wave. There doesn't seem to be many Gen Jonesers as professors at my college (at least from my observations). Luckily though I've been noticing the newer Gen X professors they've been hiring don't put up with crap like what I've been discussing, and if you and Gen Jones are amongst their ranks of not putting up with all the above crap, then all the power to ya!

During the period that most 'Jonesers' were in college, they were being actively steered away from anything resembling teaching by the Powers That Be, on the theory, long since disproven, that there was a massive glut of teachers already, and thus we wouldn't need any more for the foreseeable future. (Less than a decade later those same Powers That Be were begging students to go into teaching, due to the equally massive shortage which had developed in the meantime.) I should know. I was one of those 'Jonesers' thus steered away from teaching. (As a frosh, in 1977.) By the time I learned of the shortage having developed (almost exactly ten years later), it was too late for me to jump back in and correct that error.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

During the period that most 'Jonesers' were in college, they were being actively steered away from anything resembling teaching by the Powers That Be, on the theory, long since disproven, that there was a massive glut of teachers already, and thus we wouldn't need any more for the foreseeable future. (Less than a decade later those same Powers That Be were begging students to go into teaching, due to the equally massive shortage which had developed in the meantime.) I should know. I was one of those 'Jonesers' thus steered away from teaching. (As a frosh, in 1977.) By the time I learned of the shortage having developed (almost exactly ten years later), it was too late for me to jump back in and correct that error.(

Yes.
I tried to take an Introduction to Education class in the spring of 1980, near the end of my freshman year. That class did not have the minimum of 12 students my college required and so I ended up replacing it with a Russian history elective class. In the fall of 1980, we finally had 12 students interested in the course and the message that we all basically got was that if we were serious about becoming teachers, then we would doom ourselves to a hostile job market where if we were lucky enough to find a position, we would be underpaid relative to our peers in private industry. By the end of that class, all 12 of us had decided on a non teaching career.
In my case, being underpaid and unemployed happened anyway later and for a while in the early 90's I did some substitute teaching in North Carolina. I discovered that I did relate well to high school aged persons, who were late wave X'ers about then. I thought about going to grad school for an education degree when "lightening" struck and a friend's reference helped land me the job which indirectly led to the position I hold now. I guess in my case you can say that it all worked out despite the so called expert advice that led me away from teaching as a career.

BTW, what I learned in that Russian history class mentioned above combined with my later understanding of saeculium theory is what first convinced me that Russia is currently 1T and has been on a cycle with well defined turnings going back to at least the time that Ivan the first consolidated Muscovite dominance in the northern forests in the late 15th century. Thus, Justin's first hand reports on the mood and feel around St. Petersburg comport well with what I would expect. Now if young Russians start questioning authority in large numbers about ten years from now... :: :

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

I completely agree that Boomers were actually a very obedient and disciplined generation. I also think that they did make very good soldiers in Veitnam War, as good of soldiers as Silents in Korean War, GI Generation in WWII, and Lost Generation in WWI, may be even better.

-I'm not sure I'd go with "very obedient and disciplined generation" as a whole... but, any people of any generation can become good soldiers, the trick is figuring out who & how.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

...Were there people born in 1925, 26, and 27 who fought in WWII? Were there 25, 26, and 27 cohort who saw fighting at the front?

-In NOV 1942, the draft age (in the USA) dropped from 20 years down to 18 years of age (incidentally, the recruiting stations were closed at the same time; technically, everyone after then was a Draftee). Some of 1925 & 1926 cohorts ended up in the new units still being created, but most ended up "at the front" to replace increasingly mounting casualties. Most of the 1927 cohorts were drafted, but missed the combat phase in europe or asia-pacific.

In the Third Reich, the age of conscription went from 20 years of age in the late 1930's, down to 18 in AUG 1939 (in prep' for Poland), then down to 17 in DEC 1944 (IIRC) , then down to 16 in MAR 1945 (IIRC) . Of course, they took 17 and 16 year old volunteers before that, and if you were in an area being attacked, they'd draft you if you were 13.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

Another question: are most soldeirs fighting in Iraq and Afganistan members of Generation X, or are there a few early Millennials as well?

-I'll largely go with PBR:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

2001 (action in Afghanistan begins): Boomers 41-58, 13th 20-40. Millennials under 21.

Initially there would be few Millennials in the war. Boomers would be approaching military retirement age, with Boom NCOs and non-senior officers largely fading from the military scene over the last eight years.

2009 (current): Boomers 49-66. 13th 28-48, Millennials under 28.

It would look as if Millennials were becoming the bulk of the soldiers and junior officers. Some of Generation X may be becoming senior officers while many are approaching retirement age.

For the younger set, Soldiers usually spend at least a year in the Army before being considered for overseas deployment (it depends).

For the older set, Mandatory Retirement Ages:
Active Duty Enlisted: 50 yrs;
Active Duty Officer: 55 yrs;
Reservists: 60 yrs.

Back in 2001, a typical enlisted retiree was a Sergeant First Class with 22 years of active duty service, a typical commisioned retiree was a Lieutenant Colonel (O5) with 22 years of service.

There are waivers allowable, but rarely given (e.g. most active-duty 4-star Generals are 55 or older). And then, they occasionally get called back:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26783

You can deduce the ages for commissioned officers here:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33518.pdf

...It was done in JUL 2006, and projects which "commissioning years" would be at which ranks as the end of FY 2007 (i.e. 30 SEP 2007)...

Note: The following is only for the very patient.

Typical Times In Service for the commisioned ranks in the US Army, based on the usual minimum active duty commisioned TIS for promotion, to the theoretical Retention Control Point (not including waivers):

2nd Lieutenant (O1, typically a Platoon Leader): 0 mo. - 18 mo.;
1st Lieutenant (O2, typically a Platoon Leader): 18 mo. - 38 mo.;
Captain (O3, typically a Company Commander): 38 mo. - 10 years (IIRC);
Major (O4, typically a Battalion S3 i.e. assistant Battalion Commander): 9 yrs. -20 yrs;
Lieutenant Colonel (O5, typically a Battalion Commander): 16 yrs -30 yrs;
Colonel (O6, typically a Brigade Commander): 20 yrs -30 yrs.

You can also try to deduce the ages for enlisted ranks in Iraq or Af/Pak thru' the following facts:

89% of Non-Prior Service Enlistees are 18-24 years old (I read it recently, but I don't remember where. I'd guesstimate 5-10% are 17 yeras old);

Soldiers usually spend over a year in the Army before being considered for overseas deployment (it depends);

Extremes in Time In Service for the enlisted ranks in the US Army, based on the theoretical minimum active duty TIS for promotion, to the theoretical Retention Control Point (not including waivers):

Private (E1): 0 mo. - 8 yrs ( 0-6 months is typical, over 3 years is very rare);
Private (E2): 0 mo. - 8 yrs (6-12 months is typical; over 3 years is very rare);
Private First Class (E3): 0 mo. - 8 yrs (12-26 months is typical; over 3 years is very rare. anyone who enlists with 60 College Credits joins as a PFC);
Specialist (E4, the most common rank): 0 mo. - 8 yrs (anyone with a Bachelors Degree joins as a SPC);
Corporal (E4, typically a Team Leader): 4 mo. - 8 yrs (I've never heard of anyone in "Today's Army" making Corporal with less than 2 years TIS);
Sergeant (E5, typically a Team or Squad Leader): 18 mo. -15 yrs;
Staff Sergeant (E6, typically a Squad Leader, sometimes a Platoon Sergeant): 4 yrs - 23 yrs;
Sergeant First Class (E7, usually a Platoon Sergeant): 6 yrs - 26 yrs;
Master Sergeant (E8, usually a First Sergeant i.e. the senior NCO in a Company): 7 yrs - 29 yrs;
Sergeant Major (E9, usually the senior NCO for a Battalion or higher): 12 yrs - 32 yrs.

Thank you very much for reply jamesdglick.

So, from what I understood, there were quite a few people born in US in 1925 and 1926 who fought at the front during WWII. I myself have actually met several men from those years who were drafted and saw fighting in WWII. If there were 25 and 26 cohort who fought, then why did Strauss and Howe included 1925 and 1926 in the Silent Generation and not GI Generation?

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

Thank you very much for reply jamesdglick.

So, from what I understood, there were quite a few people born in US in 1925 and 1926 who fought at the front during WWII. I myself have actually met several men from those years who were drafted and saw fighting in WWII. If there were 25 and 26 cohort who fought, then why did Strauss and Howe included 1925 and 1926 in the Silent Generation and not GI Generation?

Soldiers born in 1924 could make rank quickly due to combat; those born afterward rarely did so during the war. Soldiers born in 1925 to 1927 could make rank if they stuck around until the Korean War.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

Another question: are most soldeirs fighting in Iraq and Afganistan members of Generation X, or are there a few early Millennials as well?

-Divisional or Brigade "Command Groups" are not your typicaly-aged Soldiers, but the following gives you a representative sample of what the Army's mid-to-high-level leadership looks like, cohort wise:

http://www.1id.army.mil/bigredone/default.aspx

http://www.1id.army.mil/units/default.aspx

http://www.campbell.army.mil/newinternet2/division.html

http://www.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/about/leadership/LeadershipPage.htm

http://www.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/units/org/orgchart.htm

http://www.stewart.army.mil/3didweb/Command%20Group/CommandGroupHome.asp

http://www.hood.army.mil/4ID/leadership/leadershipindex.html

http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/tenants/

...the bios usually don't give DOB, but if you assume that average age of commissioning is 22, and that the average age of enlistment is 19 (at least for guys who want to make the military a career, you can get the gist... The upshot is:

Division Commanding Generals (Major Generals, O8):
Probable DOBs '55, '55, '57, '57;
Deputy Division Commanders (Brigadier Generals, O7):
Probable DOBs '57, '58, '58, '58, '59, '59, '60, '60, '60, '61;
Division Chiefs of Staff (Colonels, O6):
Probable DOBs '60, '60, '63, '65;
Division Command Sergeants Major (Command Sergeants Major, E9):
Probable DOBs '58, '62, '63, '63, '66.

Brigade Commanders (Colonels, O6):
Probable DOBs '62, '62, '62, '62, '62, '62, '63, '63, '63, '64, '64, '64, '64, '64, '65, '66, '67 ;
Brigade Command Sergeants Major (Command Sergeants Major, E9): Probable DOBs '54, '60, '60, '61, '62, '63, '63, '63, '63, '64, '64, '64, '64, '65, '66, '66, '66, '67, '71.

Some of the above links also have bios for Division staffs, Brigade staffs, Battalion COs & CSMs; I'm not going there today (), but remember that generals, COLs & CSMs are a pretty old bunch.

Something intersting concerning the 1924 cohort:

Rod Serling (December 1924), who I always associate as being a "Silent" with the Twilight Zone expressing that, is technically a GI/Silent cusper. He fought in WWII and survived the Bathtaan (sp?) death march. Judging from the Twilight Zone, I'd say he identified more with the Silents than the GIs, although he does seem to have certain GI qualities that spark through every now and then--like is optimistic belief in Kennedy. So would one say that this is a case of a Civic generation archetype going to war and coming home an Artist? If so, would this mean, that not even going to war makes a Civic a "hero" but something else perhaps? Or did S&H just get fuzzy on the birth years?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

...Rod Serling (December 1924), who I always associate as being a "Silent" with the Twilight Zone expressing that, is technically a GI/Silent cusper. He fought in WWII and survived the Bathtaan (sp?) death march...

-Oops, I thought so. I think you're confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Serling

...I knew that RS had served in the the 11th Airborne Division (see below); perhaps he liberated POWs who survived Bataan?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

...Judging from the Twilight Zone, I'd say he identified more with the Silents than the GIs, although he does seem to have certain GI qualities that spark through every now and then--like is optimistic belief in Kennedy. So would one say that this is a case of a Civic generation archetype going to war and coming home an Artist? If so, would this mean, that not even going to war makes a Civic a "hero" but something else perhaps? Or did S&H just get fuzzy on the birth years?

1) There are individual varitaions;

2) 25 DEC 1924 definitely makes him a Cusper (like Presidents Carter & GHW Bush).

The reason I know about his service in the 11th Airborne is that one episode of the Twilight Zone involves a US Lieutenant who orders his men to keep fighting Japs until the last minute that a cease fire takes effect, and then discovers that he's now a Jap himself... The inspiration for the episode was his own end-of-war experience.

Ne nee nee na, Ne nee nee na, Ne nee nee na, Ne nee nee na...

I think there's little difference between a Hero & and Artist before the end of a 4T (they're both Nascent Heroes); the difference during WWII was that one cohort (1924) was actualized by their supposedly effective leadership in "Time of Peril", and become "hubristic" Heroes, while another (1925) was generally just a little too young for that.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

...your generation [Boomers], at least not the individuals who people normally think of as representing the "Boomers" did not fight. Most of the Boomers spent the time avoiding it and taking drugs and then haranguing the people who did actually go and fight... [Boomers] weren't the GIs...

From Figure 1, p. 5, "Chance & Cirumstance", Baskir & Strauss (1978):

Of 26.8M draft-age men (DOB 1 JUL 1939 - 30 JUN 1954*):

15.98M Never Served;

-0.115M "Error";

10.935M Total Served (40.8% of draft-age men served in the military at some time, in some fashion).

Of 10.935M Total Who Served:

8.72M Enlisted;

2.215M were Drafted.

Of 10.935M Total Who Served:

2.32M Served before VN Era (8.7% of draft-age men);

8.615M Served during VN Era ( 32.1% of draft-age men served between 1 JUL 1964 - 1 JUL 1973).

Of 8.615M Total Who Served during the VN Era:

7.612M Active Duty Forces (28.4% of draft-age men, inc. 37K mobilized National Guard & Reserve);

1.003M National Guard & Reserve never Mobilized (3.7% of draft-age men never mobilized).

Of 8.615M Total Who Served during the VN Era in the Active Duty Forces:

2.15M Served in VN (8.0% of draft-age men);

6.465M Served on Active Duty**, but not in VN (24.1% of draft-age men).

We often forget that Howe's original inspiration for generational & turning theory was the SS Ponzi Scheme, while Strauss' was Mandatory Military Fun.

*Obviously, this was pre-"Generations", but corresponds to Late Silent and Early Boomer.

** I don't have exact figures for the shooting wars in the Dominican Republic 1965-1966 (45K?, or 0.2% of draft-age men?), or the Republic of Korea 1966-1974 (366K during VN Era?, or 1.4% of draft-age men?), and others. There would be some overlap with VietNam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Power_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Korean_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Expeditionary_Medal

Another work is "The Draft, 1940-1973", Flynn (1993), which both critiques & references "Chance & Circumstances". "The Draft" gives specific figures for some cohorts:

1931: 66% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves);
1932: 70% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves);
1936: 58% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves);
1940: 46% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves);
1942: 46% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves).

...if the late Silent, who usually served before the VN build-up, & the need for replacements, had a MPR of around 46%, then you'd think that the 1946-1950 Boomers would have had even higher MPR rate; maybe their larger numbers per cohort (thus, "Baby Boom") compensated for the increased intake. Or maybe Strauss & Baskir's figures under-estimate the MPR? (Flynn often takes issue with their analysis, but never their figures).

As a comparison (for which I only have a guesstimate), the 1922-1925 cohorts would have had to have been over 70%. If anyone has solid stat's, I'd love to see them.

Which war was more significant for the United States: World War II or Vietnam War? Which of these two wars affected the US more? In which of these two wars was US more involved in? Which of these wars took more lives?

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

Which war was more significant for the United States: World War II or Vietnam War?...Which of these two wars affected the US more?

-I'd say probably WWII; WWII was the key factor in the transformation of the GI generation from a Nascent-Hero generation into an Actualized-Hero generation. The Viet Nam War (which actually covered most of SE Asia), and related issues (like the draft) became part of the collection of things which Americans argued about during the late-60's & early 70's, but even then, it was just a part of the package.

Of course, Viet Nam has a dis-proportionate impact for now, because it was more recent. I suspect that will fade as the decades go by, particularly if/when the USA has a 4T Crisis War.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

...In which of these two wars was US more involved in?

-By Military Participation ratio, WWII, by a long shot:

Conflict Population(M) Enrolled(K) Ratio
Revolutionary War 3.5 200.0 5.7%
War of 1812 7.6 286.0 3.8%
Mexican War 21.1 78.7 0.4%
Civil War:
Union 26.2 2,803.3 10.7%
Confederate 8.1 1,064.2 13.1%
Combined 34.3 3,867.5 11.1%
Spanish-American War 74.6 306.8 0.4%
World War I 102.8 4,743.8 4.6%
World War II 133.5 16,353.7 12.2%
Korean War 151.7 5,764.1 3.8%
Vietnam War 204.9 8,744.0 4.3%
Gulf War 260.0 2,750.0 1.1%

IIRC, about 2/3rds of US troops served "overseas" in WWII, although not necessarily in full-fledged Hostile Fire Zones (in those days, Alaska & Hawaii were considered "overseas"; strangely, the last time I checked, they still are).

Of the 8.7M number for US troops who served on active durty during the VietNam War, either:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

From Figure 1, p. 5, "Chance & Cirumstance", Baskir & Strauss (1978):

Of 8.615M Total Who Served during the VN Era in the Active Duty Forces:

2.15M Served in the RVN (8.0% of draft-age men);

6.465M Served on Active Duty**, but not in VN (24.1% of draft-age men)...

...while this article:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051111/news_lz1n11vets.html

Gives 2.6M serving in the RVN, and an additional 800K serving in other parts of SE Asia. Either way, a lot fewer than WWII, even before taking "population inflation" into account.

Finacially, WWII was heavier as well:


WWII
GDP 1940: $100.0B
Cost: $269.6B/$288.0B/$293.491B (269.6%/288.0%/293.5%), i.e. between 269-294% of GDP.

I think the Viet Nam War cost $141B from a yearly GDP of about $1,000B.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

...Which of these wars took more lives?

...or as Haymarket Draft-Dodger might call them "The Despicable Suckers and Objects of My Pity who Died for Nothing":

Conflict Enrolled(K) Combat Other Wounded
Deaths Deaths
Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 UNK 6,188
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 UNK 4,505
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152
Civil War:
Union 2,803.3 112,330 252,408 275,175
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846
Korean War 5,764.1 33,739 2,835 103,284
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467

WWII: 423,246 Total Deaths;
VietNam: 58,168 Total Deaths.

The charts don't come out too well. Oh well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...With the possible exception of WW2 and the Southern side of the Civil war, a majority of cohorts in uniform doesn't happen...

-Actually...

A majority of white "northerner" males from the 1841-1843 cohorts probably served in uniform (at a minimum):

A minimum of 1,752,517 "Yankees"* enlisted (or were drafted) into the US armed forces during the war;

If you assume that as many as 20% of the "Yankees" who served were from cohorts 1830 and before (an almost certain over-estimate), and that 20% were from cohorts 1846 and later (still probably an over-estimate), then that still leaves at least 1,051,510 "Yankees" from cohorts 1831-1845;

According to the 1860 US Census**, there were 960,691 "Yankee" males of cohorts 1841-1845 (average 192,138/cohort year), and 1,728,744 "Yankees" of the 1831-1840 cohorts (172,874/cohort year), for a total of 2,689,435;

Then, that would leave (at a minimum), a higher than 50% military participation ratio for the 1841-1845 cohorts, while still allowing for an average of 30% MPR for the 1831-1840 cohorts.

As for the 20th century, these 1931 & 1932 figures are due to the Korean War:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

..."The Draft, 1940-1973", Flynn (1993), which both critiques & references "Chance & Circumstances". "The Draft" gives specific figures for some cohorts:

1931: 66% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves);
1932: 70% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves);
1936: 58% male Military Participation Ratio (including National Guard & Reserves)...

---
*Yankee= White males from the free northern & western states, plus NJ & DE.

Does not include:

DC (a maximum of 11,912 joined);
The Territories (max. of 16,871);
Border states (MD, KY, MO; max. 186,354);
Southern states (the 11 CS states; max. 86,009);
Blacks ("Coloreds"; max. of 178,975);
Indians (max. 3,530);
Those who were already serving in the pre-war Regular US Army (about 16K), Navy (about 10K), or Marine Corps (about 1K), some of whom were "Yankees";
...finally, it doesn't include a small number of "Yankees" who served the Confederacy (although it must have been in the 1000s)...

The reason for the "Minimum" and "Maximum" figures is that during ACW, the US Government counted "enlistments", not "enlistees"; there were plenty of guys who enlisted two or three different times during the war; an estimated 542,136 enlistements were re-enlistments enlistments. This is because the average length of enlistement was about 2 years & 5 months, ranging anytime between 90 days to 4 years. For purposes of conservatively calculating the number of "Yankees" served, I assumed that EVERY single re-enlistement was by a "Yankee" (which was clearly not the case)

**The Census was done by age "as of November 1860", not by birth year, but Good Enough For Government Work.

From Mr. Howe's blog:

The Wall Street Journal recently posted a great piece on the Class of 1976. This is the first class to miss service as young officers in Vietnam...

1) I read it in the WSJ;

2) Unless they were part of a very tiny team of advisors/observers, the classes of 1973-75 missed it as well, and not very many from the classes of 1970-72 went, either. The current Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, was a 1970 ROTC graduate, but didn't do a tour in the RVN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Casey,_Jr.

Question: What happened to the classes graduating in the 60s? Most of them I presume served young in Vietnam, but they haven’t really showed up in later wars. The architects of Desert Storm ( Powell, Franks, Schwartzkopf) graduated in the ‘50s. All the guys now in charge graduated in the 70s.

Here are a few of the famous ones:

Shelton (probably 1964 ROTC): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Shelton

Shinseki (1965 USMA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

Clark (1966 USMA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Franks (1967 OCS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Franks

Most of the guys who were commisioned 1961-1970 never because famous because they would have strarted retiring between 1993-2004; only the later ones (like Franks) would have been in the public eye. Out of sight, out of mind.

All the guys now in charge graduated in the 70s.

-That's because mandatory retirement age for active duty officers is normally 55; anyone older than that needs a special waiver (from the POTUS, IIRC). Generals & Admirals usually get the waiver, but only up to point. Anyway, a guy who was commisioned in 1969 was probably born in 1948 or earlier, so anyone who was commissioned in the 1960s is getting a little long in the tooth.

My impression is the these early-wave Boomers were the most traumatized by Vietnam and later on kept their heads down and avoided risks. They were the ones who initially triggered the ideologically polarized collective self-image of military officers (which still prevails, but may be easing).

-Depends on what you mean by "kept their heads down"; it generally didn't include "avoiding risks". The officers who were commissioned in the 60s (and NCOs who enlisted in the 60s) were the guys who reformed and crafted the military after VietNam. This is a decent book on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_the_Way:How_Vietnam_Veterans_Rebuilt_the_U .S._Military

...the guys who "kept their heads down" and "avoided risks" usually did so by getting out.

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

As much as I like the idea of using S&H's theory to analyze (and perhaps one day, predict) military matters, and as much as I love the simple pleasures of Boomer bashing, I thought this from Mr. Howe was a bit off:

http://blog.lifecourse.com/2010/07/gen-x-officers-whatever-it-takes/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss


The conflict between this Boomer (flag officer) versus Gen Xer (field-grade officer) is something I have seen before...


...since it's obvious that LTG Oates (who muxt be a Boomer) is in favor of more deception op's, not fewer.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

...So cry many Boomers like Haymarket whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows!

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

As much as I like the idea of using S&H's theory to analyze (and perhaps one day, predict) military matters, and as much as I love the simple pleasures of Boomer bashing, I thought this from Mr. Howe was a bit off:

http://blog.lifecourse.com/2010/07/gen-x-officers-whatever-it-takes/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss


The conflict between this Boomer (flag officer) versus Gen Xer (field-grade officer) is something I have seen before...


...since it's obvious that LTG Oates (who muxt be a Boomer) is in favor of more deception op's, not fewer.

Yeah, when I read that I was confused. I was thinking "What conflict?"

Nothing specific on generation or turning issues that I can think of, but FWIW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_S...titude_Battery

AFQT Scores are divided into the following categories:

• Category I - 93-99
• Category II - 65-92
• Category III A - 50-64
• Category III B - 31-49
• Category IV A - 21-30
• Category IV B - 16-20
• Category IV C - 10-15
• Category V - 0-9

http://nationalpriorities.org/public...ruitment-2010/

Military Recruitment - Proportion of Test Score Categories I-IIIA and IV by State [accepted in FY10]

All Recruits: 63.9% I, II, IIIA; [35.7% IIIB]; 0.4% IV.

US Recruits only: 64.5% I, II, IIIA; [35.3%]; 0.2% IV.


Previous Years:

#s FY 2009:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2009r...ics/a/year.htm

#s FY 2008:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2008r.../september.htm

#s FY 2007:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...recruiting.htm

#s FY 2006:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...recruiting.htm

#s FY 2005:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...goals.-ujL.htm

I was pretty on board with the Avery is Phyllis daughter theory. However, given the posts regarding the blue eyed blonde Avery, maybe Phyllis was born as a result of her mother being raped or something and her parents took it out on her that she was not her fathers biological child -- its far fetched and pretty sick but Y&R these days takes a great deal of "inspiration" from made for tv movies so this is the kind of garbage that they would go for and they love sick s/l and sick people like TEVN so theres that . . . . JMO

From Neil Howe's Blog:

http://blog.lifecourse.com/2012/03/m...m_campaign=rss

“Moving Toward the Sound of Chaos”Posted: 20 Mar 2012 09:25 PM PDT



I ended the last posting with a portentious remark about how a 4T is defined by a growing desire for order—and how Millennials will play a key role in securing that order.
With that in mind, take a look at the new recruiting campaign now being launched by the US Marine Corps. The tag line: “Toward the Sound of Chaos.” The new campaign is explicitly designed to be Millennial friendly. Listen to these lines from their press release:
“Our survival, status and reputation as an elite force are dependent on our connection with the American people, and specifically with today’s youth–the millennial generation.”
“This campaign represents an opportunity to share who the Marines truly are–tough warriors, but also leaders in service and altruism–two of the core values of the millennial generation.”
Based on extensive recent research, the USMC “found that today’s millennial generation is more politically, culturally and socially diverse than previous generations. Historically, youth have viewed military service as a way to improve personally while serving the country. However, today’s youth want to be ‘part of something bigger,’ to help others in need.”
OK, enough preamble. Now take a look at the top of their ad reel:

Go to this site to view the USMC’s whole new line of “episode” spots. There’s definitely a new vibe here. Millennial themes? These soldiers don’t merely fight and win battles, they champion Good against Evil, wrest order out of chaos, and solve giant global problems. These videos don’t show one-on-one gladiatorial combat (so popular in the famous Marine ads run for Gen-Xers in the 1990s). Rather, they show vast teams working in unison. Ties to past traditions (again, hidden in the ‘90s ads) are now celebrated. Needless personal risks, once bragged about, are now shunned. The warrior ethos is under a short leash; the democratic ethos–safeguarding the ordinary civilian–is now paramount.
I could go on and on here. As some of you know, LifeCourse has consulted for just about every branch of the military since the late 1990s. We were the ones who first advised the Marines to start co-marketing to parents… and developing a strong relationship with the recruits’ families. We wrote a “Recruiting Millennials” handbook for the US Army in 2001, which was distributed to 6,000 recruiting officers. Our doctrines have percolated through USAREC and TRADOC. By now, I think that just about every recruiting, training, and retention specialist in any of the armed services is pretty much saturated in Millennial doctrine.
One nice result, dreamed up by McCann several years ago, was the wonderful parent-friendly Army slogan: “You made them strong, we’ll make them Army strong.” More recently, the US Navy came up with a Millennial-friendly Bigger Cause slogan, which the Marines are in some way echoing: “America’s Navy. A Global Force for Good.”
For decades, going back as far as the 1950s (with the Silent) and certainly since the birth of the all-volunteer armed forces in the early 1970s (the early attempts to connect with Boomers were disastrous!), the successes and failures of recruiting campaigns have revealed, year by year, something about the psychographic of whichever birth cohort is hitting their late teens/early 20s.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

The war continued into the 1590s, tho'.

My database has the War of the Armada as running from 1585 through 1604.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My database has the War of the Armada as running from 1585 through 1604.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My database has the War of the Armada as running from 1585 through 1604.

-Yeah, the Dutch got their independence, and enjoyed a truce of sorts.

But I'm working on the idea that English participation tapered off before that; certainly nothing like the 1589 raid (as far as I know).

The US Army's senior enlisted man is now an X'er:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_F._Chandler

The SMA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Major_of_the_Army