Williams was drafted in January 1942, but appealed to the draft board and got himself reclassified so he wouldn't have to go. It was a public scandal at the time and some sponsors dropped him. He joined the Navy Reserve in May 1942 after the team and Williams saw the writing on the wall. He trained as an aviator and got a commission as a second lieutenant but did not see a combat assignment or deployment. He was released from duty January 1946, but remained on the inactive reserve list. Williams apparently had a deal, or believed he did, where he would never have to actually serve again in exchange for the military being allowed to use his name for recruitment and public relations. He was surprised by his January 1952 call-up for Korea, which was apparently a mistake meant for a different Ted Williams on the list. In Korea he was actively deployed and flew 39 combat missions. No easy assignment.

https://www.historynet.com/ted-williams/

It doesn't seem Williams had any desire to serve, delayed his entry in WWII as long as practicable, and either arranged a deal or thought he had such a deal that he would not in future have to see any real duty either. Once he had to go, he served with courage. This is not a criticism, the entire reason that there was a draft is, of course, that not enough people were willing to sign up and go get shot at. I sure wouldn't. But what he did and what Feller did are very different, and I'm not sure there's any reason in the historical record to think Williams was happy to go and made the choice to do so. Feller was eligible for deferment as well, but instead of using that he enlisted within 48 hours of Pearl Harbor and before it was entirely clear a whole generation was going to be forced under duress to go.

If we assign moral points, Feller gets a lot of 'em.

In an admittedly critical biography, I read that DiMaggio's military service basically consisted of playing ball and entertaining generals.

Did he fly that many with John Glenn? That would be my answer.

Jerry Coleman?

Yep.

It seems to be a thing the last ~25 years where biographers are mostly interested in the downsides of their subjects rather than their virtues. I believe this was true for DiMaggio, and a number of the stars who got drafted (or enlisted shortly before they were due to be drafted). Williams 39 combat missions in Korea is nothing to be ashamed of. As I understand it he was a physical fitness instructor in the army, and bitter about having to play ball for them on base teams. Considering his father was treated as an enemy and had his rights removed as a former Italian, needing to get special permission to travel more than 5 miles from his residence, I can't really fault Joltin Joe here at all. I sure wouldn't want my family treated like an enemy by a government forcing me to throw the baseball around for the entertainment and egos of generals.

Well, you don't like the hagiographic ones either. :)

I feel like there's a middle ground, one that we used to call 'objectivity' and at least pretended to desire :)

IMO Robert Caro's series on Lyndon Johnson is both stunningly well done and fairly objective.

Uhhhhhh, Feller ENLISTED two days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, don't believe that was the case for Williams in WWII or the Korean War. Also, Feller could have qualified for deferment and not been subject to the draft and the war due to his father's health and eventual passing from brain cancer in January 1943. Also, Feller initially tried to become a fighter pilot, but failed required hearing tests. And after basic training and then being assigned as a physical education instructor at the Norfolk Naval Base, Feller requested transfer to serve in combat missions because as Feller put it he "wanted to do something besides standing around handing out balls and bats and making ball fields out of coral reefs."

Williams meanwhile was DRAFTED in January of 1942, and initially given a 1-A draft classification. But being his mother's sole means of support, he quickly filed for and received a change in his draft status to a 3-A classification and did not have to enter the service at that time. Williams received a lot of extremely negative public reaction because of this, and as a result Quaker Oats dropped Williams and no longer sponsored him. Eventually on May 22, 1942, Williams joined the Naval Reserve, but remained in the US and playing baseball for all of 1942 for what was to become his first Triple Crown season. He was then called up to active duty in 1943.

And because Williams had chosen the Naval Reserve instead of simply going into active service through the draft back in 1942, he was still technically in the reserves when the Korean War broke out. On January 9, 1952, his name was selected from the inactive reserve list to serve on active duty in the Korean War, for which Williams was livid at his having been recalled.

And as Paul Harvey would say, "Now you know the rest of the story."

My only real objection to Caro's work is the selfish one that he is 86 and we still need the final volume 5, 40 years after the first one came out.

I got my undergraduate and masters degrees in History (don't do that kids, pick STEM or business) in the early 2010's. Objectivity was treated with near-universal open contempt as an old-fashioned Germanic idea; the post-modern notion that objectivity is impossible to achieve (probably true in the literal sense) and thus is silly to aim for was taught to and preached by the students instead. The role of the Historian, as it was taught, was to shape moral opinion and to advance the correct interpretations of the past, that always coincidentally suit certain agendas and worldviews. Got myself into a fair bit of social trouble for declining to accept that the historian as propagandist is the proper way, and that one should withhold moral judgement and simply stick to the facts, the what, and the questions of the why things happened.

I will go flagellate myself now for again drifting with human conversation off the strict OP.

This was all or nearly all pointed out already in post 101.

Yes but even when you're sticking to facts, value judgments invariably come into play on which ones you deem important, how and in what sequence you portray them, and so forth. And once you hit they why questions, I don't see how one can do that fully objectively.

Not sure that really is so critical, and note in my last post what Feller was quoted as saying in regard to duties he was initially assigned to. It does seem to appear that many famous athletes, movie stars, politicians, and the like at the time WWII broke out, and that eventually entered the service, somehow more often than not always seemed to end up with commissions and non-combat duties behind the front lines. Possibly a calculated decision and move on the part of the military and US government for PR purposes and so as to minimize/eliminate negative publicity and reaction to the war should such well-known people have died on the front lines besides 18 to 20something year-olds no one knew outside their own families?

I ignore that person, so did not see it!

It may not be entirely achievable, one may not be fully able to remove themselves from what they see, but one should strive for objectivity, and take a step back. Otherwise, one is doing no more than preaching propaganda, and has strayed away from truth.

I see.

Another reason it's hard to write history is that the writer always knows how things turned out, and there's a huge hindsight bias. In other words a tendency to see events over time as some inevitable progression. I once had a brilliant teacher who asked, what if the 1933 German election wasn't some inevitable step in the rise of Nazism, but at the time was just the product of normal electoral forces?

Very much agreed. This frustrates me every so slightly in so many works. 'That which happened was that which was inevitable'.

I know better than to comment on your teachers query, around an outrage mob ;)

It sort of ties in since we're talking about WW II and FELLER.

Oh it does tie in, but I know where it goes when one tries to address that issue with reason ;)

He was pretty dominant. He led they league in strikeouts every year from the age of 19 to 29 except for the years he lost to the war. But he struggled with control, and he also benefited from being in a pitcher's park his entire career (both league park 2 and Cleveland stadium were pitchers parks). He's a legit first ballot HOFer, but he's not in my top 10. Probably not even in my top 20. Maybe 25th or so for me? He was like an earlier version of Nolan Ryan without the longevity.

Here's my 52. Probably my favorite card of his that I own.

1948 Thom McAn
 

Thom McAn

https://luckeycards.com/phunc1948thommcannfeller.jpg

1941 Premium
 

Photo by Van Oyen

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=33560