• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many Americans become suitable for military service from EACH STATE in the U.S per year?

BahamaBob said:
Only someone devoid of knowledge thinks the German people were supportive.
Click to expand...

lol

"Thus, after the Normandy invasion in June 1944, there were widespread signs of a positively exuberant optimism and some people yearned to get their hands on Allied troops. An even greater show of support for Hitler, virulent hatred of the conspirators, and expressed willingness to shoulder more burdens followed the attempt on his life on 20 July 1944. His explanation of the attempted coup, along with the use of the V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets—retaliatory ‘miracle weapons’—served only to renew the public’s faith in his ability to see them through. Opinion reports stated that ‘almost everywhere the bonding to the Führer is deepened and the trust in the leadership strengthened’.Historian Marlis Steinert, who notes these trends, adds that there was nothing less than ‘an astonishingly positive reception’ to Hitler’s New Year’s proclamation for 1945 and his confidence in victory.

She and several others who have studied public opinion closely, have tended to magnify the ‘negatives’, like signs of dissolution, loss of faith, and the collapse of morale. However, while the mood and attitude of the people certainly shifted with the military or political situation, many people, and not just the died-in-the-wool Nazis, showed themselves anxious to interpret events in the most optimistic way possible. The last Nazi opinion reports from Berlin in March 1945 contain evidence that many citizens finally began to question propaganda stories and the more outlandish claims, but that many still showed ‘a good and confident attitude’. If the pessimists and defeatists were in the majority, the Nazi reporters were of the view that the balance would shift back if only the Wehrmacht could show an important victory. Certainly these last glimpses of popular opinion showed signs that people were losing faith, like three women who scoffed at a sign with the words of inspiration that Berlin ‘works, fights, and stands’, placed in the windows of Berlin’s famous department store, the Kaufhaus des Westens."

Gellately, Robert. Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany . OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
 
Dayton3 said:
I've been unable to find this doing a google search I'm interested in the number of Americans in each of the 50 states that become physically eligible for military service in each year on average.

Don't know why it is hard to find.
Click to expand...

For that basic calculation, it seems that using the number of 18 year olds (as a base) would suffice. You could then divide that by half to exclude females and by half again for those likely able to receive (draft) deferments.

BTW, why do you need the number of 18 year olds by state rather than nationwide?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
lol

"Thus, after the Normandy invasion in June 1944, there were widespread signs of a positively exuberant optimism and some people yearned to get their hands on Allied troops. An even greater show of support for Hitler, virulent hatred of the conspirators, and expressed willingness to shoulder more burdens followed the attempt on his life on 20 July 1944. His explanation of the attempted coup, along with the use of the V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets—retaliatory ‘miracle weapons’—served only to renew the public’s faith in his ability to see them through. Opinion reports stated that ‘almost everywhere the bonding to the Führer is deepened and the trust in the leadership strengthened’.Historian Marlis Steinert, who notes these trends, adds that there was nothing less than ‘an astonishingly positive reception’ to Hitler’s New Year’s proclamation for 1945 and his confidence in victory.

She and several others who have studied public opinion closely, have tended to magnify the ‘negatives’, like signs of dissolution, loss of faith, and the collapse of morale. However, while the mood and attitude of the people certainly shifted with the military or political situation, many people, and not just the died-in-the-wool Nazis, showed themselves anxious to interpret events in the most optimistic way possible. The last Nazi opinion reports from Berlin in March 1945 contain evidence that many citizens finally began to question propaganda stories and the more outlandish claims, but that many still showed ‘a good and confident attitude’. If the pessimists and defeatists were in the majority, the Nazi reporters were of the view that the balance would shift back if only the Wehrmacht could show an important victory. Certainly these last glimpses of popular opinion showed signs that people were losing faith, like three women who scoffed at a sign with the words of inspiration that Berlin ‘works, fights, and stands’, placed in the windows of Berlin’s famous department store, the Kaufhaus des Westens."

Gellately, Robert. Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany . OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...
While it is nearly impossible to know if Hitler was supported or not supported during his reign because anyone who openly opposed him ended up dead. We do know that post WW2, most Germans saw him as a criminal who greatly damaged Germany. We saw the same thing now with Kim Jong-un in North Korea. Funny how when people are told to support or die most chose to support.
 
BahamaBob said:
While it is nearly impossible to know if Hitler was supported or not supported during his reign because anyone who openly opposed him ended up dead.
Click to expand...

Not really. The Nazis collected their own internal reports, and we have access to tons of journals and diaries from wartime Germany. They all say that Hitler enjoyed broad popular support from the German populace, and it didn't wane until the final days of the war.
 
BahamaBob said:
This is true. However, who would be more familiar with a firearm? A peasant who spent his life working in a rice paddy, was constricted into the military, handled a firearm for the first time, received a few weeks of training then went to war or a kid who started using a firearm before he was 10, went hunting often, operated multiple and different types of firearms, and spent years honing his firearm skills at rifle ranges or shooting targets. As someone who was in the military, I can tell you that the amount of time you spent firing a weapon was a very small part of you training program.

I ask this because this is the you would see between a Chinese Army and most firearm enthusiast in America. The fact is being in the military does not make you a firearms expert or proficient in using one. One of those guys who goes to the rifle range once a month and owns a half dozen guns is far more knowledgeable about the capabilities of his weapon and able to effectively use it than some novice who has been through a few weeks of military training.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking - it depends on the numbers. Russia ended up stomping Nazi Germany even though it had less equipment and ammunition, what it did have was vastly inferior, and it’s army of conscripts wasn’t at all qualified to use them to boot. It just kept throwing bodies at the enemy until Germany could take no more.

But before anyone starts snatching people from rice paddies the United States would have to contend with the regular and reserve Chinese forces which are several times larger than our own.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Historically speaking - it depends on the numbers. Russia ended up stomping Nazi Germany even though it had less equipment and ammunition, what it did have was vastly inferior, and it’s army of conscripts wasn’t at all qualified to use them to boot. It just kept throwing bodies at the enemy until Germany could take no more.
Click to expand...

I've read that is largely a myth. The Russians were pretty comparably equipped to the Germans. The Russian T-34 tank was arguably the best overall tank in World War Two.
 
TypicalRussian said:
any potential invading force, which is already an impossible task due to geography
Click to expand...


Please, 2/3 of the "2nd amendment" types wouldn't last a day in a rough neighborhood in any major city in the US under current conditions and we are supposed to believe they would repel a foreign army? What will they do when the twinkies and slurpees dry up?
 
BlueTex said:
Please, 2/3 of the "2nd amendment" types wouldn't last a day in a rough neighborhood in any major city in the US under current conditions and we are supposed to believe they would repel a foreign army? What will they do when the twinkies and slurpees dry up?
Click to expand...
this is just stereotypical argument, an armed population is the natural defense
 
I've heard that the military is having a harder time finding recruits because of obesity and sedentary lifestyles.
 
TypicalRussian said:
this is just stereotypical argument, an armed population is the natural defense
Click to expand...

Only to idiots who haven’t spent more than day in any serious military education.
 
Dayton3 said:
I've read that is largely a myth. The Russians were pretty comparably equipped to the Germans. The Russian T-34 tank was arguably the best overall tank in World War Two.
Click to expand...

The T-34 wasn’t so much a great tank as it was easily spammed by the Russians. They were very poorly constructed and their accuracy and firepower were terrible, but the armor concept was good, there were a lot of them, and Germany didn’t know they existed when they invaded. That’s about the best anyone can truthfully say. But, like many things about the conflict, any technological superiority Germany had was rendered moot by sheer numbers and unreliable supply.
 
Last edited:
Jredbaron96 said:
Not really. The Nazis collected their own internal reports, and we have access to tons of journals and diaries from wartime Germany. They all say that Hitler enjoyed broad popular support from the German populace, and it didn't wane until the final days of the war.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's like support for Trump. A certain percentage supports him but the rest of us are just praying for it to be over.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not really. The Nazis collected their own internal reports, and we have access to tons of journals and diaries from wartime Germany. They all say that Hitler enjoyed broad popular support from the German populace, and it didn't wane until the final days of the war.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Kim has 100% support in NK as well.
 
BlueTex said:
Please, 2/3 of the "2nd amendment" types wouldn't last a day in a rough neighborhood in any major city in the US under current conditions and we are supposed to believe they would repel a foreign army? What will they do when the twinkies and slurpees dry up?
Click to expand...
Gee, what do all those thugs in the hood use to protect their turf?
 
Napoleon said:
The T-34 wasn’t so much a great tank as it was easily spammed by the Russians. They were very poorly constructed and their accuracy and firepower were terrible, but the armor concept was good, there were a lot of them, and Germany didn’t know they existed when they invaded. That’s about the best anyone can truthfully say. But, like many things about the conflict, any technological superiority Germany had was rendered moot by sheer numbers and unreliable supply.
Click to expand...

The T-34 was a fine tank, ingenious in many ways and a sound design. It was crude, but a big part of that was the deliberate Soviet effort to cut all necessary costs.

German technological superiority is also vastly overrated. Very little of what they had was in any way superior to what the Allies fielded, and what they did have wasn't feasible to field in large numbers.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The T-34 was a fine tank, ingenious in many ways and a sound design. It was crude, but a big part of that was the deliberate Soviet effort to cut all necessary costs.

German technological superiority is also vastly overrated. Very little of what they had was in any way superior to what the Allies fielded, and what they did have wasn't feasible to field in large numbers.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say German technological superiority was vastly overrated. Even when the T-34 was an element of surprise in the first year of invasion the Germans were destroying the things at a ratio of something like 7:1. Any advantages it did have were moot because the usage was nothing short of incompetent.

For example, at the tank battle of Prokhorovka, the Russians accidentally drove their T-34s into their own anti-tank trenches and the Germans ended up destroying 200 Russian tanks while losing only 5 Panzers. I would say German technological and general military superiority was very important, but it was outmatched by mass production of an inferior product.
 
Napoleon said:
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say German technological superiority was vastly overrated. Even when the T-34 was an element of surprise in the first year of invasion the Germans were destroying the things at a ratio of something like 7:1. Any advantages it did have were moot because the usage was nothing short of incompetent.

For example, at the tank battle of Prokhorovka, the Russians accidentally drove their T-34s into their own anti-tank trenches and the Germans ended up destroying 200 Russian tanks while losing only 5 Panzers. I would say German technological and general military superiority was very important, but it was outmatched by mass production of an inferior product.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of crew quality, not technology. Before Barabarossa some Soviet T-34 crews had less than five hours of experience operating their machine; barely enough to get acclimated to its handling, much less to learn how to operate it as part of an armored force. Throughout the war the Soviets frequently pressed into service troops who had significantly less training time than their German counterparts. It had very little to do with technology.

It's worth noting that after Kursk, the quality of German troops dropped significantly, and as a result their casualties skyrocketed.
 
Dayton3 said:
I've been unable to find this doing a google search I'm interested in the number of Americans in each of the 50 states that become physically eligible for military service in each year on average.

Don't know why it is hard to find.
Click to expand...

Probably a very low percentage, depending on the current requirements. The kids and teenagers I see in today's world are a bunch of mewling titty babies. My next-door neighbors have two young boys that cry and scream constantly when they don't get what they want. Discipline and correction are almost non-existent.
 
swing_voter said:
It says we could raise an army of 120,000,000. That's how many men are fit for service. That's a 1/3rd of the country. Maybe they are counting women too?
Click to expand...

If age were the only qualifying factor. But I’d bet anything that if the United States attempted it we’d find what the British found during WW1 - that most age eligible men are unfit for purpose.
 
BahamaBob said:
You need to examine Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, Mao and other dictators. The first thing they do is disarm the populace. Without arms resistance is futile.
Click to expand...


Have you seen the weapons the modern military has these days? What possible chance would a bunch of older, overweight guys, with AR15s have against a modern military?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom