DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Timebinder, v. 2, issue 2, whole no. 6, Spring 1946

Transcribe
Translate

Timebinder, v. 2, issue 2, whole no. 6, Spring 1946

of their intellectual opponents, as Evans is doing in THE TIME-BINDER.

"Psychological Dangers of Conscription" furnishes me with something to write on. I note that churches and women's organIzations are sponsoring and supporting the no-military-conscription-in-peacetime trend. I have picked up assorted pamphlets from the nearby Wesley Foundation, a chapel and recreation hall near the University, that urge pictorially and otherwise the dangers of this un-American and unconstitutional procedure.

Usually, when I read one of them, my reaction is mild. For they deal heavily in euphemistic emotional appeals and nearly all of them look at the question only one way, or present only one side of it. To be specific: they may come up with a generality in answering the question "Does miltary conscription insure peace?" by replying, "No, it creates international distrust and will bring about a Prussion military caste system bent upon war." One might reply in equally general terms, that a weak nation is a temptation to a strong nation. 

As one of the sociology professors here pointed out while talking to a group of veterans, putting men in the army for two years' training won't tend to build up a caste of professional soldiers; on the contrary, there's nothing like a compulsory bit of service to make men hate any form of militarism! There is an article in Life (February 28?) that proposes a lessening of the social chasm between officers and men as the most important of needed clean-ups.

I will go along with Russ Whitman only one of his proposals, and not all the way on that one: namely, that the Army and Navy should be made into such "fine" organizations, that service in them would be a "privilege". There would have to be a great deal of inertia to overcome, inertia in the form of the West Point and Annapolis tradition that is reminiscent of the old-school tie, but the pay could be increased, and more educational and vocational training given. In regard to further improvements, I would like to see specific ones suggested, preferably by veterans who know what irks them most. 

((Two long paragraphs about "glittering generalities," were deleted here because of lack of space. -- EEE)).
We must, of course, admit the standard Women's Garden Club claim that the life of the barracks corrupts American boys into evil sex practices. I don't think that can be denied. I really can't quarrel with the spirit that impels Whitman to strike out for moral uplift and spiritual welfare, but it is my opinion that many would be corrupted anyway, and that many possess a

-24-

Saving...

of their intellectual opponents, as Evans is doing in THE TIME-BINDER. "Psychological Dangers of Conscription" furnishes me with something to write on. I note that churches and women's organIzations are sponsoring and supporting the no-military-conscription-in-peacetime trend. I have picked up assorted pamphlets from the nearby Wesley Foundation, a chapel and recreation hall near the University, that urge pictorially and otherwise the dangers of this un-American and unconstitutional procedure. Usually, when I read one of them, my reaction is mild. For they deal heavily in euphemistic emotional appeals and nearly all of them look at the question only one way, or present only one side of it. To be specific: they may come up with a generality in answering the question "Does miltary conscription insure peace?" by replying, "No, it creates international distrust and will bring about a Prussion military caste system bent upon war." One might reply in equally general terms, that a weak nation is a temptation to a strong nation. As one of the sociology professors here pointed out while talking to a group of veterans, putting men in the army for two years' training won't tend to build up a caste of professional soldiers; on the contrary, there's nothing like a compulsory bit of service to make men hate any form of militarism! There is an article in Life (February 28?) that proposes a lessening of the social chasm between officers and men as the most important of needed clean-ups. I will go along with Russ Whitman only one of his proposals, and not all the way on that one: namely, that the Army and Navy should be made into such "fine" organizations, that service in them would be a "privilege". There would have to be a great deal of inertia to overcome, inertia in the form of the West Point and Annapolis tradition that is reminiscent of the old-school tie, but the pay could be increased, and more educational and vocational training given. In regard to further improvements, I would like to see specific ones suggested, preferably by veterans who know what irks them most. ((Two long paragraphs about "glittering generalities," were deleted here because of lack of space. -- EEE)). We must, of course, admit the standard Women's Garden Club claim that the life of the barracks corrupts American boys into evil sex practices. I don't think that can be denied. I really can't quarrel with the spirit that impels Whitman to strike out for moral uplift and spiritual welfare, but it is my opinion that many would be corrupted anyway, and that many possess a -24-