It's one of the concerns, not necessarily the primary. Somebody had to keep the household going, raise and feed the existing children, and so on (which, at the day, and even today in most parts, was the role of women).

>IF that were the case, governments would do something, anything, to encourage such behaviour (one man getting multiple women pregnant) after the war is over.

That doesn't follow. Governments would only need to "do something, anything" if the thing didn't just happen by itself - which generally, it did.

And of course the morals of the day wouldn't have them explicitly promote anything of the sort.

Sounds about right. Historically, the military culture is obviously deeply rooted in patriarchy. Men are to defend their countries, in the same way that 'women and children' have been supposed to go first into lifeboats.

There are some arguments to be found in the above mentioned Rostker v. Goldberg, and in the legal debate that followed:

Once the combat issue is put in proper perspective and the evidence of women's recognized ability to perform military functions is assessed, it becomes apparent that an exclusion of women from a draft registration requirement would be the product of the archaic notion that women must remain 'as the center of home and family.'

and

Congress followed the teachings of history that if a nation is to survive, men must provide the first line of defense while women keep the home fires burning.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150502095151/http://digitalcom...