WWII outstanding military leaders stay on

WI outstanding officers or NCOs of WWII, who then retired & moved on with their civilian lives afterwards, actually stayed on in the military ? I mean guys like Dick Winters of BAND OF BROTHERS fame, Pappy Boyington, Evans Carlson, Merritt Edson, Vernon baker (the only living black MOH winner of WWII), Edward Carter (another belated black MOH winner of WWII & also a veteran of the Abraham Lincoln Bde in the Spanish CW) Stan Hollis (the only VC winner on D-Day), or Charles Upham (NZ's double VC winner of WWII). What other powerful impact could these outstanding leaders in combat- esp the 1s plucked from civvy street- have had subsequently, esp in conflicts like Korea & Vietnam ?
 
What other powerful impact could these outstanding leaders in combat- esp the 1s plucked from civvy street- have had subsequently, esp in conflicts like Korea & Vietnam ?

What PoD would cause them to stay? Everybody just decides they want to stay in the army? They get hardselled into it?

The cold war going hot, then fizzling back out again might see a greater level of mobilization maintained, but that would seriously change the outlook of Korea and Vietnam in and of itself.
 
it is not possible because after 1945, the armies HAVE to demobilize. It was severely damaging to the economy to have so many men in uniform and none of even the victorious countries could maintain such large forces. the US alone had over 5 million people at arms. It would bankrupt the country to keep them still mobilized.

the only way those people can be involved in later conflicts would be a major escalation maybe korea spilling over onto the chinese mainland but i think thats more or less asb
 
it is not possible because after 1945, the armies HAVE to demobilize. It was severely damaging to the economy to have so many men in uniform and none of even the victorious countries could maintain such large forces. the US alone had over 5 million people at arms. It would bankrupt the country to keep them still mobilized.

the only way those people can be involved in later conflicts would be a major escalation maybe korea spilling over onto the chinese mainland but i think thats more or less asb

Military spending is on a continuum, not wartime vs peacetime. The increased military funding and manning levels of Korea didn't disappear the way they did after WW2. (ref1)

If a military budget were maintained at a level more akin to the mid-60's post-war, more experienced cadre could've been maintained after the war. Is 8% GDP vice 4% wholly ridiculous?
 
If a military budget were maintained at a level more akin to the mid-60's post-war, more experienced cadre could've been maintained after the war. Is 8% GDP vice 4% wholly ridiculous?

Every penny or cent spent on the military means it has to be taken from somewhere else, with more taxation, less other public spending, more public loaning etc. While nowadays military spending is very small amount in case of most countries spending during the Cold War the situation was very different. More military spending during Cold War probably means more success for Communists as they have more proof for their propaganda argument of Western war-mongering societies.

In truth, Britain, France and US all had more than enough military spending during Cold War years, much of it was just spent unwisely.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Spent unwisely is actually hard to defend since in the end the west won the Cold War without having to fight. So from the larger strategic point of view it could be argued we spent wisely.
 
Top