- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
At the end of October, the Bundeswehr said it counted 181,383 soldiers in its ranks — that’s still some distance from the target of 203,000 that the German military hopes to reach by 2025. This has given rise to concern in times of Russia’s war against Ukraine, which has once again reminded Germans how quickly conflicts can erupt in Europe.
Since taking office at the beginning of 2023, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has been thinking about ways to make the Bundeswehr more attractive as a career. He said he has received 65 concrete proposals from his ministry on recruitment and reforming training methods.
You must log in or register to comment.
World War 3 is ramping up at a faster pace
Si vis pacem para bellum
it’s not that we want this but with dipshits like Russia at our borders there is no other way then ramping up those numbers and prepare for the worst.
Also it was very easy to opt out of it. I think I was one of the last who got drafted in 2007 and all of my friends avoided it by simply writing a letter and explaining that they have doubts using weapons.
can you also join the group which responds to flooding and storms, as an alternative?
I think you actually could do that, but I’m not 100% sure.
yes, THW and FF are both alternatives
From 1962, the GDR also introduced general compulsory military service for all men between the ages of 18 and 26 for a basic military service of 18 months. The only recognized reason for refusal was religious conviction.
So if you believed in a god who told you it was immoral to serve in the military you didn’t have to, but if you believed it was immoral because you came to that conclusion by thinking critically about the arguments for and against military service, you were just fucked?
It’s pretty much the same in the US. Religion is apparently more important than any other personal belief.
This is the most German logic I have seen
well no, anyone can be a Conscientious objector, you just had to do some social work instead
deleted by creator
Note: conscription is just one of the 65 proposals being thought over
I would think it’s “of the 65 proposals, at least one includes conscription as part of its plan”.
Meaning, two things:
-
I think the submitted proposals are likely multifaceted, and conscription is but one potential facet
-
I bet more than one proposal also employs conscription
I wonder if any reports will ever be publicly published about these proposals.
-
Fuck this, I can’t stand the idea that in the 21st century you can still have involuntary servitude.
My country recently reinstated mandatory military service. I mean obviously, how else can we get people to sign up. There is of course the idea of actually paying well and giving proper benefits to people who voluntarily sign up, but this is clearly lunacy.
And this is the single biggest reason I am emigrating from my country before my three male offspring are 18, unless this decision is repealed in the next 5 or so years.
What country is that?
Latvia
I thought Latvia reinstated military service to ensure enough trained people to resist a possible Russian invasion. Is that correct? And, if so, is this not a worthy cause?
Genuine question, since I live far away and don’t have to worry about being invaded by Russia.
That is the goal of reinstating the sevice, yes, and many of my countrymen would see it as a worthy cause. Idea is that mandatory drafting will only happen if not enough volunteers apply but I also read that they intend every (male) citizen to have some participation in this before 27.
I firmly reject this notion, however. There is no cause worthy enough to forego a persons individual freedoms.
There are no official exemptions for freedom of thought or religion (although our constitution should in theory allow this). Dodging is a felony, being a felon is an exemption however.
The whole ordeal is completely ludicrous too. The compensation is 300 euros (600 for volunteers(?!)) a month, the duration is 11 months. Obviously only men get drafted, women are for some reason exempt (MOD states this matter of factly that currently it is enough to draft only men).
And after finishing this military service you are forever in military reserves, which has its own obligations such as mandatory periodic training.
There is however some murky “alternative service”, which technically does not involve direct military service. There are no concrete details here but generally it is thought that this will entail working in some MOD office type deal.
The reasons for the uncertainty is that the first draft was filled with volunteers.
Thanks for replying. With Latvia being in NATO, why do you think the government is implementing the draft? To my mind, it seems extremely unlikely that Russia would attack a NATO member. And if Russia did attack NATO, it would be an absolute shitstorm involving every regular army in Europe, North America, and the UK. Implementing a draft in a NATO country seems like a great political risk to take for a very unlikely event.
It is hard to say, I do not follow politics closely enough to have real guesses as to the reasoning. The MOD official stance for this specific question is referencing NATO Northatlantic treaty Article 3 and also that “the situation in Ukraine has demonstrated the need for strong defensive military”.
Afaik the Baltics are seen as a strategic sore spot for NATO and in case of invasion it would be hard to defend, especially in a timely matter. Although that I think changes with our nordic friends joining NATO.
Lots of European countries have conscripts, e.g. Finland and Denmark. And for many, it’s a really great experience. It’s good to be ready for anything these days.
Germany and many other European countries which had abolished the compulsory military service years ago, are considering reintroducing it.
We had some decades of peace, but those times appear to be ending: EU should prepare for war by end of the decade
Add fyi: Is compulsory military service coming back in Europe
I’m not entirely opposed to compulsory service, but it shouldn’t be just military. Civil service should be included as well, anything from internship at a town planning and engineering service, to litter pickup, to the military. I could already guess that socioeconomic factors would favor the well-connected and wealthy the soft jobs of working in the governor’s office vs being sent out to pick up trash along the highways, but maybe a lottery system would help prevent that. There’s always ways to game a system, though. Unfortunately.
Mandatory service isn’t the best answer, it’s just one answer.
All the alternatives you suggest don’t accomplish what the military does - transforming a person into a non-thinking unconditional follower of orders.
I’ve seen time and time again when veterans come into the civilian working world. The boss tells them to impale their hand to the desk, and they’ll ask which hand, what gauge nail, and what type of hammer. On the other hand, you put them in a situation that requires individual decision making, no matter how small, and they’ll be entirely lost.
These are solely my experiences and probably don’t apply to every man, woman, and child who has ever worn the uniform.
but it shouldn’t be just military.
Already the case. Quoth Article 12a GG:
-
Men who have attained the age of eighteen may be required to serve in the Armed Forces, in the Federal Border Police, or in a civil defence organisation.
-
Any person who, on grounds of conscience, refuses to render military service involving the use of arms may be required to perform alternative service. The duration of alternative service shall not exceed that of military service. Details shall be regulated by a law, which shall not interfere with the freedom to make a decision in accordance with the dictates of conscience and which shall also provide for the possibility of alternative service not connected with units of the Armed Forces or of the Federal Border Police.
-
Persons liable to compulsory military service who are not called upon to render service pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this Article may, when a state of defence is in effect, be assigned by or pursuant to a law to employment involving civilian services for defence purposes, including the protection of the civilian population; they may be assigned to public employment only for the purpose of discharging police functions or such other sovereign functions of public administration as can be discharged only by persons employed in the public service. The employment contemplated by the first sentence of this paragraph may include services within the Armed Forces, in the provision of military supplies or with public administrative authorities; assignments to employment connected with supplying and servicing the civilian population shall be permissible only to meet their basic requirements or to guarantee their safety.
-
If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms.
-
Prior to the existence of a state of defence, assignments under paragraph (3) of this Article may be made only if the requirements of paragraph (1) of Article 80a are met. In preparation for the provision of services under paragraph (3) of this Article that demand special knowledge or skills, participation in training courses may be required by or pursuant to a law. In this case the first sentence of this paragraph shall not apply.
-
If, during a state of defence, the need for workers in the areas specified in the second sentence of paragraph (3) of this Article cannot be met on a voluntary basis, the right of German citizens to abandon their occupation or place of employment may be restricted by or pursuant to a law in order to meet this need. Prior to the existence of a state of defence, the first sentence of paragraph (5) of this Article shall apply, mutatis mutandis.
The short of the story is that the draft was never abolished, instead they suspended its application. Constitutionality-wise what became an issue is that the army would only call up a fraction of eligible people, if we re-do all this they probably have to make sure to call up everyone and then funnel lots into other areas as the military doesn’t even want that many people. Civil defence certainly won’t mind.
internship at a town planning and engineering service, to litter pickup, to the military.
It’s generally either medical services (EMT, distributing food for the elderly, various other stuff) or civil defence. If you’re picky and engaged you could even get a gig counting birds as certain nature preservation efforts and data collection count as civil defence (to do catastrophe relief it helps to have an eye on nature), don’t think they’ll take a random slob over someone who actually wants to be an ornithologist, though.
What we really shouldn’t be re-introducing is that “distribute food for the elderly” stuff. Zivis were always a way for the system to depress wages in the sector and now noone wants to be a nurse for the elderly. I mean if people really want to sure go ahead but we shouldn’t be funnelling people there on a default path, that should probably some big-picture civil defence stuff, definitely including evacuations if only because it’s way easier to evacuate a city when a lot of people there already know how to do it.
-
I’m in favor of mandatory civil service before college, most kids could use a few more years of development before picking a career
Another term for “mandatory service” is slavery.
Absolutely not. Being required to perform service instead of living in your mom’s basement, unemployed, getting stoned and drunk for a few years while you concoct hyperbolic statements about mandatory service is not slavery. You are not forced into service based on sex, color, religion, economic status (sort of, as explained), or used to raise someone else’s profits while you get nothing.
Service should be paid. You should be able to fill out a wish list for the jobs you want or might qualify for. You get to leave, uncontested, when you’ve completed service. That is not slavery.
by your logic the North Korean people aren’t slaves, so North Korean labor is fine, got it.
Slavery isn’t always life-long, and it isn’t always done to just one group. Indentured servitude and serfdom are forms of slavery. It’s forced labor against your will and with no way to avoid it if you’re subjected.
Mandatory service means forcing you to work at the point of a gun.
This sounds hyperbolic, but what happens when you refuse and simply want to keep living your life freely instead?
You are given a prison sentence, and if you refuse that, in the last consequence, the state reserves the right to use deadly force to make you comply.You can ad-hominem every young person as useless basement-dweller, assign beautiful words to your forced labor, use bad comparisons, and pay people to do it.
It doesn’t change the fact that you want to force people to work, and their only other option is prison (where they will also be forced to work) or death.Mandatory service means forcing you to work at the point of a gun.
What?
Slavery isn’t always life-long
Oh. so that’s ok then? lookit you simultaneously saying slavery isn’t THAT bad, but OMG mandatory service is SLAVERY.
You’re full of shit, that whole reply is. Maybe some countries are extreme, but it doesn’t have to be like that, and it’s stupid to paint with such a broad brush about mandatory service. If someone’s country is pointing guns at citizens to pave a road, that’s a problem with the country, not the service.
What?
I explain my reasoning in the following paragraph.
you simultaneously saying slavery isn’t THAT bad
I’m not saying slavery isn’t bad, I’m saying the term slavery applies even to forced work that is temporary.
And please explain what you think will happen if someone refuses to do this mandatory service OR go to jail for their refusal?
they can eat my shit I’m not going to a war just because some dipshits told me to do so
and I’m also not going to join this “don’t ask why just do it” hierachy
btw our former head of state advocated for the Iraq war so yeah fuck no
I don’t think you have much to fear lol
btw our former head of state advocated for the Iraq war so yeah fuck no
Then don’t. Also, this is not about Iraq.
Isn’t it rich that all the fat boomers with their broken knees get to force young people to go fight their wars and protect their fortunes when in reality it is young people that are actually working and providing for their country and the over 25 million German pensioners and the rich living off of our taxes, subventions, and much more?
When I’ll be able to afford a home at a fair price and not worry about basic necessities even though I’ve been breaking my back studying for five years and actually working, then I’ll maybe think about fighting their wars and protecting their fortunes. Because as it stands now, I can’t afford shit, and I surely can’t afford to waste one year learning how to protect old fucks that have destroyed our economy. I don’t have anything to fight for. Maybe if I owned shit I would actually be interested in joining the military. As it stands now, they can go enlist themselves.
I’ve read Machiavelli’s The Discourses on Livy and he makes a potent point about republics: because people feel they have some investment in the government - and something to lose - they fight harder.
A key difference versus fighting members of a monarchy.
You make a fair point that the government and its economy aren’t serving you well. The more people feel that way, the less effective a military may be.
People fight to keep things they care about. If the government isn’t one, that’s important.
Edits: spelling only
Yes! And in ancient Athens, citizens had to provide their own arms and armor. So, to fight as a hoplite in the phalanx, you had to be wealthy enough to afford the gear, which pretty much meant that you had to be a landowner. Poorer men would fight as skirmishers. So, the burden of defending the state was put directly on those who had the most to lose.
Outside of war, wealthy citizens were also expected to contribute the most towards public infrastructure projects. There was a strong link between wealth and privilege, but also between wealth and responsibility. It is exactly the opposite today, where the most wealthy pay almost zero income tax and would never fight in battle. And that is why people are losing faith in our system.
Isn’t it rich that all the fat boomers with their broken knees get to force young people to go fight their wars and protect their fortunes
Welcome to most every modern war ever.
How about we try making it less shitty first?
It’s been only 13 years since the last conscripts were called up. Crazy. I really thought it was over. It’s probably not going to be brought back immediately, but the way things are heading…
La puta mili, as young men called it in Spain. Lots of hurry up and wait. Very little fun time driving tanks around. My father got drafted. I got lucky and didn’t.
Can’t conscription help build a more anti war sentiment? It’s easy to send young people to war when it’s the poor and the elites and middle class call the shots. But if the military has more equal class representation, maybe leaders in a democratic society would behave differently.
Except when you’re privileged its easy to find some doctors to get you exempted. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. None of the boys with rich parents had to serve.
Just pay the dr to say you have bone spurs lol.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Since taking office at the beginning of 2023, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has been thinking about ways to make the Bundeswehr more attractive as a career.
As journalist and defense and security policy expert Thomas Wiegold told DW: "A major frustration in the Bundeswehr is the bureaucracy.
When Pistorius floated his ideas about conscription in December, he faced a barrage of criticism, including from within his own center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD).
Party co-chair Saskia Esken said it would be impossible to implement mandatory recruitment on an ad hoc basis “because the training units required for this are no longer available.”
“The reintroduction of compulsory service would be a serious encroachment on the freedom of young people who want to orient themselves professionally,” FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr warned in an interview with the Funke Mediengruppe.
“Who would have thought around two years ago that the Bundestag would decide on setting up a special fund of €100 billion for the Bundeswehr against the backdrop of a Russian war of aggression?”
The original article contains 900 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Die Trommeln des Krieges beginnen erneut zu schlagen
Sechs Uhr früh, die Erde bebt… warte, nee
ist ja nicht so dass wir eine andere Wahl haben bei Arschlochstaaten wie Russland…
Und mal ehrlich den Wehrdienst verweigern war sehr einfach, zumindest hat im Gegensatz zu mir keiner meiner Freunde an der Waffe Dienst getan.
Wenn die Wehrpflicht zurückkommt dann aber bitte Geschlechterübergreifend. Wir haben damals 9-12 Monate verbraten während die Mädels schonmal im ersten Semester saßen.
Jupp!
Wie alt bist du?
Ich kann mich nicht erinnern, seit wann es nicht mehr obligatorisch ist
35 (88er Baujahr), glaube ich war mitunter einer der letzen Jahrgänge
Won’t happen. We don’t have the infrastructure. Or weapons. Or trainers.
Infrastructure can be developed, weapons can be built, trainers can be taught (or borrowed, probably). It’s a speed bump, not a roadblock.
Germany has currently a 80 billion euro hole in its budget. It does not even has the money to pay for the existing situation.
Even the extra budget (Sondervermögen) of 100 million € is not nearly enough to do this. Suren technically it is possible, but it would require so much money, that it is highly unlikely, that we would see the parliament in unison here. Currently the Bundeswehr cannot handle millions of conscriptions.
I don’t think infrastructure would be the limiting factor. Looks like Germany is 20k short of their target.
Denmark, for instance, still has compulsory service. However, it is only enacted if they have fewer volunteers than their target, and will only compel participation up to the limit. Denmark has not needed to compel anyone to join in quite a long time, fortunately.
That said, under a similar model, Germany would only need to add 20,000. Likely less per year depending on the commitment term. Eg 10k/year if they are conscripted for 2 years. Also assuming that volunteer attrition and signups offset each other.
the bigger issue is about the moral justification of forcing someone into military service in the 21st century.
That’s not how it works in Germany. You can’t just pull in the small number of men you need to fill up your quota. That violates the Wehrgerechtigkeit and is the biggest reason conscription was frozen in the first place.
