The Bonus Army

In this period where the government is curtailing the benefits they promised their military members it is good to remember how the heroes of the WWII handled complaints from veterans:

Quote:

---

Few images from the Great Depression are more indelible than the rout of the Bonus Marchers. At the time, the sight of the federal government turning on its own citizens -- veterans, no less -- raised doubts about the fate of the republic. It still has the power to shock decades later.

From the start, 1932 promised to be a difficult year for the country, as the Depression deepened and frustrations mounted. In December of 1931, there was a small, communist-led hunger march on Washington; a few weeks later, a Pittsburgh priest led an army of 12,000 jobless men there to agitate for unemployment legislation. In March, a riot at Ford's River Rouge plant in Michigan left four dead and over fifty wounded. Thus, when a band of jobless veterans, led by a former cannery worker named Walter W. Walters, began arriving in the capital in May, tensions were high. Calling themselves the "Bonus Expeditionary Forces," they demanded early payment of a bonus Congress had promised them for their service in World War I.

...


Conspicuously led by [then Army Chief of Staff] MacArthur, Army troops (including Major George S. Patton, Jr.) formed infantry cordons and began pushing the veterans out, destroying their makeshift camps as they went. Although no weapons were fired, cavalry advanced with swords drawn, and some blood was shed. By nightfall, hundreds had been injured by gas (including a baby who died), bricks, clubs, bayonets, and sabers."

---

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarth...ndeAMEX89.html

Perhaps the lesson to be drawn is that those still in the military have different priorities than those who have already left active duty. Food for thought.


As an aside, perhaps McAuthur's knack for insubordination towards his civilian masters could be seen decades before he was relieved in Korea:

Quote:

---

Next came the most controversial moment in the whole affair -- a moment that directly involved General MacArthur. Secretary of War Hurley twice sent orders to MacArthur indicating that the President, worried that the government reaction might look overly harsh, did not wish the Army to pursue the Bonus Marchers across the bridge into their main encampment on the other side of the Anacostia River. But MacArthur, according to his aide Dwight Eisenhower, "said he was too busy," did not want to be "bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders," and sent his men across the bridge anyway ...

---

It's also important to remember the differences between many of the Bonus Marchers and the Regulars led by MacArthur. If memory serves, most of the Bonus Marchers were United States troops...short-term volunteers who had been promised bonus money (not unlike the mechanism used to enlist Volunteers at the state level during the Civil War). The Regulars, especially the officers, were longer service types who viewed themselves as professionals. It would have been easy for MacArthur to view them as something less than veteran soldiers. There was also a longstanding fear within the Army proper (especially within the professional officer corps) of social anarchy (reading back through articles written for The Army and Navy Journal as well as the handful of professional journals in the 1880s through 1900 or so is an interesting experience...much concern about urban unrest and anarchists).

As for MacArthur...he took after his father when it came to disdain for civilian leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

It's also important to remember the differences between many of the Bonus Marchers and the Regulars led by MacArthur. If memory serves, most of the Bonus Marchers were United States troops...short-term volunteers who had been promised bonus money (not unlike the mechanism used to enlist Volunteers at the state level during the Civil War). The Regulars, especially the officers, were longer service types who viewed themselves as professionals. It would have been easy for MacArthur to view them as something less than veteran soldiers.

---

It is that "difference" that worries me. Listening to the Army arguing to congress that we have to maintain our modernization programs and troop strength of 490K somehow reminded me of this period. The current leadership has a different set of priorities from those that left active duty. They see the potential for large scale conventional warfare as being just around the corner. And they are willing to sacrifice pay and benefits if it means they get to keep their end strength.

Another “difference” that is closer to your “short-term volunteer” observation is the Army’s disdain for relying on Guard and Reserve forces. They insist that they must have 34 BCTs ready to go at a moment’s notice even though there is no conceivable way we could get them into theater with the appropriate logistical tail in less than, say, nine months (my own SWAG) - More than enough time to mobilize Reserve and Guard units.

I guess I am seeing a parallel that offers a cautionary conclusion: Those charged with the responsibility of the defense of our nation today will be willing to trample on those who have defended our nation in the past if they see it as necessary. I could very well be wrong – the comparison could be specious – but that rarely stops me from speaking my mind (and causing hate and discontent ;) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

There was also a longstanding fear within the Army proper (especially within the professional officer corps) of social anarchy (reading back through articles written for The Army and Navy Journal as well as the handful of professional journals in the 1880s through 1900 or so is an interesting experience...much concern about urban unrest and anarchists).

---

Much like the current discussion over "professional" versus draft and such of today. The military is starting to look like a giant self licking ice cream cone right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Much like the current discussion over "professional" versus draft and such of today. The military is starting to look like a giant self licking ice cream cone right now.

---

And has for some time, sadly.

And this sort of discussion/debate has gone on every time the Army's downsized after a major conflict. Some of the debate after the Civil War springs to mind, as does the acrimony that flew after Vietnam. Actually, I'd say that some of the current discussions come closer to the post-Vietnam period. The Regular Army has never been keen on relying on what it considers "non-Regular" elements (an unconscious legacy, perhaps, from the number of efforts in the 1800s to do away with or significantly shrink the Army and replace it with militia or state volunteer units), and don't forget that general officers tend to reach that rank by parroting the views of their mentors. Big Army has a way of looking after itself.