What would be the ramifications if women were drafted in the USA Army during WWII?

So, I've been reading lately the new book Front Lines by Michael Grant which is an alternate history where women were allowed to enlist or were drafted during WWII. The POD in the book is that, and I quote "In a surprise ruling with major ramifications, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Becker vs. Minneapolis Draft Board for Josiah Becker, who had sued claiming the recently passed Selective Training and Service Act unfairly singles out males. The decision extends the draft to all US citizens age eighteen or older regardless of gender."

The book is only the first book in a series, but it has many women not treated completely as equally with men, making them treated only slightly if marginally better than African American soldiers during the war, at least by their commanders, though in the scenario they still fight alongside male soldiers. This kind of makes me wonder, what would be the ramifications for women's rights and the like if this type of scenario occurred? Would this change some of society's perspectives on women during the 1950's for example? Could we see the women's liberation movement happen earlier?
 
Last edited:
Would a extending "the draft to all US citizens age eighteen or older regardless of gender" really get women in combat jobs in WWII ?

I would have through you could easily have conscription (like in a limited form GB did) but be much more likely to send them all to none combat positions in such a large army build-up ? You might have a few in UAAF, navy auxiliary ships or other specialities get into combat but not in large numbers and the result will not be that much different from OTL with the big roll back from working in defence industries ? (apart from maybe much more GI bill education funding for women post war ?)
 
MMMMMmmmm....

The Plans of Mice and Man......,

That could be the plan, but no plan survives contact with the Enemy.

Although intended as non-combat troops, women still could wind up in

combat situations and mayby earn high decorations (MoH). Making the point

that woman CAN fight.:cool:
 
Let me try an offshoot....what if in the early 1930s a Cadet Nursing Corps was established as sort of a female equivalent of ROTC? Now let's throw in an expansion of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service to include nurses. What would the difference be if several thousand more nurses were available for callup in 1940-41?

Remember OTL that conscription of nurses failed in Congress by 1 vote...
 
You can easily get conscription of women for non-combat roles. As for combat roles, short of a somewhat successful transatlantic Sea Lion I don't think so.

And even then they would be tossing in 12 year old boys to the front before women.
 
You can easily get conscription of women for non-combat roles. As for combat roles, short of a somewhat successful transatlantic Sea Lion I don't think so.

And even then they would be tossing in 12 year old boys to the front before women.

OTL, Congress didn't pass it in 1944, knowing the need for nurses in Europe...
 
Corregidor

excerpts from Volume 6, Chapter XXVII of Robert Reich's monumental History of the Second World War

"On Corregidor, the US troops did everything in their power to keep the nurses who stayed behind from having contact with the Japanese soldiers. This proved to be futile, as the American positions were overrun repeatedly. Of particular note were the actions of two nurses, Lt. Olivia D'Arcy, who carried a live grenade into a Jap machinegun nest, wiping out the entire crew (and receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor) and Lt. Janet 'Davy" Davidson, who defended her helpless charges with a machete before being repeatedly bayonetted by IJA troops when her makeshift hospital was assaulted. (Also a CMH.)"

"The cry to allow women to be armed was only accelerated by this incident. 'If we are going to die in combat, at least let us be able to shoot back,' said one who became a prominent Feminalist leader in the 1950's"

"President Roosevelt was reluctant to sign the legislation, but prodding from his wife finally persuaded him to sign the Selective Service Reform Act of 1943, which allowed for the induction of all persons, regardless of gender, subject to the review of local boards. It was thought Selective Service boards in the South would be very reluctant to draft women, but a series of attention-grabbing demonstrations by bellicose Southern belles quickly changed that idea."
 
Last edited:
Not strictly the same as the OP, but women combat troops is a thread in my long running TL.

There are a lot of practical problems that arise from an early inclusion of women into full combat rolls. In my timeline, they try to mitigate this initially with separate women's units in the Army, and restricting women to shore service in the Navy.

Still, you have women invading an old boy's club. In these conditions, even with women officers leading all women units, there's going to be problems of sexual harassment and discrimination. Sooner or later, there will be male superiors in the chain of command, men in rear echelon services, ordnance, supply, etc., that might make biased decisions.

In my timeline, women's units, regardless of readiness, were often low priority in modernization/refitting, treated more harshly in review, and in combat situations, often neglected or resented. The whole point of keeping units seperate often breaks down in real combat environments, and they eventually abandon women's units and allow integration (while continuing to push women into rear echelon roles rather than combat roles).

Women in combat units will of course win respect eventually. But they'll also suffer more heavily as prisoners of war by enemies who resent the idea that they're fighting women (espescially when those women prove to be tough adversaries), and they'll often lash out because of it.

These are trends that have been observed historically, and also take into account that such changes being accepted will be more likely to happen with earlier PODs that change the role of women in society, and will have enduring ramifications. The 1950s were not Leave it to Beaver; women often resented losing the feeling of importance and strength that their war work had given them, and to find that their increased access to college education wasn't changing the way men treated them. Add in a large number of women conscripts, including frontline combat veterans, and I expect that the 1950s won't be remembered as nostalgic domestic bliss. It will be PTSD suffering alcoholics marrying PTSD suffering alcoholics.
 

jahenders

Banned
Would a extending "the draft to all US citizens age eighteen or older regardless of gender" really get women in combat jobs in WWII ?

I would have through you could easily have conscription (like in a limited form GB did) but be much more likely to send them all to none combat positions in such a large army build-up ? You might have a few in UAAF, navy auxiliary ships or other specialities get into combat but not in large numbers and the result will not be that much different from OTL with the big roll back from working in defence industries ? (apart from maybe much more GI bill education funding for women post war ?)

As you note -- no. If somehow we came to use a draft for women, we'd probably draft them in lower numbers, and virtually all would be assigned to nursing, admin, or cooks. While some such could theoretically get caught in combat (such as nurse in PI, etc.), there usage and location would be very similar to IOTL so the number would be essentially the same.

The draft boards would quickly come up with female-specific exemption criteria. These might include: pregnant, mother with a child under 10, etc. It might also include women who were married.

Additionally, with women on active duty, the issues of marriage and pregnancy likely become bigger than IOTL. In the WACs and such, any pregnant women were immediately discharged. I assume that'd be the case for women on active duty in that era.

The numbers and roles wouldn't change much. What WOULD change is that they'd actually be considered active duty and they'd all be veterans, with veterans benefits. In general, that'd probably move the integration of women along a bit.
 
Top