I don’t know how often discussions of the issues with child soldiers focus on discussions of historical instances, since caring at all is a relatively modern phenomenon, but I don’t think I’ve heard people speak positively of it.
I don’t think the US used child soldiers though, even in the home defense category the ones who did did.
To my knowledge neither axis nor allies engaged in the coercive type of child military service most condemned today.
I don’t think anyone is on the pro-child soldier side of things like you seem to be implying. Like all bad things there’s a gradient. Abducting children, giving them drugs and guns and using them as canon fodder is far worse than equipping them as part of a civil defense force, which is worse than allowing enlistment at 16 rather than 18.
So they condemn the Brits and Americans for using child soldiers to fight Germany?
I don’t know how often discussions of the issues with child soldiers focus on discussions of historical instances, since caring at all is a relatively modern phenomenon, but I don’t think I’ve heard people speak positively of it.
I don’t think the US used child soldiers though, even in the home defense category the ones who did did.
To my knowledge neither axis nor allies engaged in the coercive type of child military service most condemned today.
I don’t think anyone is on the pro-child soldier side of things like you seem to be implying. Like all bad things there’s a gradient. Abducting children, giving them drugs and guns and using them as canon fodder is far worse than equipping them as part of a civil defense force, which is worse than allowing enlistment at 16 rather than 18.
Nazi Germany was drafting kids in the early teens by the end of the war. Japan was planning on it.
Well gross. I had only known they got as far as the civil defense force, not that they were actually drafting for combat roles.