Germany mulls reintroduction of compulsory military service
dw.com
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.
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
World War 3 is ramping up at a faster pace
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
In a dire situation, I have serious doubts common would not volunteer or simply take up arms to defend those dear to them.
But we are not speaking about defending family, friends and home here: this is war preparation. And the overall general feeling is that war is undesirable.
All the smart people will avoid conflict whenever possible.
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.
Already the case. Quoth Article 12a GG:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Welcome to most every modern war ever.
While I agree with you, a military force used exclusively for territorial defence is kind of a different animal to militaries used to project force in another country.
I think the reason Finland exists as an independent country today is a result of the theoretical ability to field 250-900k strong decently equipped military force. It is a comparatively expensive solution as we have implemented it, and there is an equality issue in an all male conscription, but as a former conscript and current reservist I don't feel that the elder generations are taking advantage of me in this way. My father and grandfather served in post war FDF and great grandfathers fought in the war.
Even though I'm fine with the system, I do have a few caveats: the FDF currently employs professional military and volunteers in peacekeeping and other international force projection operations. I personally would have a moral objection in operating outside of Finnish borders in all but few situations.
I am happy to expand on the subject if someone has questions.
Look, again, I have nothing to protect. What should I protect? The homes I will never able to afford? The lifestyles of the rich that I will never have?
If this society was actually fair then maybe I would indeed have something to protect. As it stands now, I literally do not care one inch. I own nothing and probably never will. If I had a home, then I'd be willing to pick up arms. But half the homes in Germany are straight up owned by corporations. They can go hire their own mercenaries.
That is a fair point.
I have at least some confidence that the system I would protect is better than the one any realistic invader would offer.
The behavior of attackers toward civilian population is another aspect: I want to ensure my family and friends don't get subjected to the same kind of treatment as we have seen from various armies.
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
That will be a severe shot in the foot.
Professional, volunteer, military forces are a better solution. This only implies governments need to create conditions for people to want to join and the possibility to handle guns and use them against other human beings should be the bottom of an 100 items list, along patriotism and duty fulfilling towards national interest.
The last two plus an intriguing "character development" statement figured in a report for the reintroduction of mandatory military service in my country (Portugal), written by a civilian comitee, headed and divulged by a woman in her very early 30's. Severe public backlash followed, which was met by very thinly veiled proto fascist rethoric from the same spokesperson.
Mandatory military service is a de facto control and pressure tool over the population. Never again. Anywhere. Governments exist to serve the country and the people, not to make use of it.
I'm unsure about the practices in Portugal. In Northern Europe we use the so called Scandinavian model..
This entails :1) gender-neutral and 2) selective and competitive, and therefore in principle still voluntary. Also there's an opt-out option, and or a civilian service option. According to some comments, it appears to work that way as well.
Current voluntary system, to the extent of my knowledge, is open for all portuguese citizens, of legal age, regardless of gender. Level of education can be a factor taken into consideration for career and entry rank.
The system is voluntary only, as in those interested have to actively request entry and go through the selection process.
Civilian service, like firefighter duty, was an option for conscience objectors, that refused service, either by religious, philosophical or moral reasons, but no longer exists as the state ceased drafting/mandatory military service.
When a portuguese enters the military is solely by their own willing choice and that makes sure we fight for a cause.
Sounds pretty much like how it is in the North (Scandinavian model ) afaik.
added: example Dutch army chief article
"Some 600 youngsters took part in a voluntary year of service with the armed forces introduced this year along similar lines to Sweden. Wijnen said he hopes that in the future 2,000 to 3,000 youngsters will take part, around one third of whom will probably sign up for an army career. "
No.
Here, volunteering for military service already implies becoming part of whatever branch the candidate applies to. It isn't a trial experience. Some will be integrated into the permanent ranks, others will serve a few years under contract and then relieved of duty.
How about we try making it less shitty first?
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.
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...
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!
Fuck them. They can go fight themselves their own shitty wars. I do not stand with the German government supporting and fueling all conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. If it ever comes to that, I'd rather break my own legs than take part in their neonazi filled summer camp.
You seem disoriented.
THEY are not the "neonazis", in case you haven't been paying attention.
In case you are disoriented, because you definitely seem so, the German army has been having a huge neonazi problem for years now. You’re welcome.
ya, but EVERYTHING has a neo-Nazi problem, they are at least addressing the worst of it, and yes they have disbanded and kicked out half the special forces a few years ago due to this
Look, a friend of mine has been in the Bundeswehr as a proper full on soldier and he quit after four years of constant bullying because his parents are turkish. I used to want to join as a reservist until he told me to stay away from that place.
Maybe should've started with that instead of:
These are not the same.
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.
Conscription is the greatest scam there is
the return of slave armies is a sign that capitalism is healthy and working as expected
Mmm, slavery. Tasty.
I don't know if Germany already does this, but if not expect to see some weird insertions of patriotism and military recruiters in schools lying to kids
Nah, Germany has had compulsory military service before and this was never a thing here.
Conscription is even worse imo.
Compulsory military service and conscription are the same thing in this context.
I know, and I'm calling it worse than the way the US drives their military numbers.
you know that those people will not get send to the frontlines outside of germany, right? If drafted, conscripts only would be deployed on national territory and only if germany would be under attack.
how is forced conscription better when the conscriptee isn't deployed?
you get basic training for a lot of people in case germany gets attacked and also a lot of them get a deeper insight into the Bundeswehr in that way, maybe find it attractive and decide to stay and become regular soldiers.
You also earn quiet good money for easy work, only the first months in basic training are mentally and physically challenging, the rest is pretty chilled.
I did this in 2007, enjoyed the physical challenge and my job after basic training and extended my time in the Bundeswehr to bridge the gap to University, because they only started in winter there and I would have been without a job for 7 months. So I stayed longer, earned good money, exercised a lot and went pretty wealthy into university. We also did finish all Halo campaigns on legendary...
Why is this a good thing?
Seen a documentation about poland recently. A new development there is that the state is conducting military training for every citizen interested. They showed a young women, a hairdresser in her dayjob, taking part in shooting practice. The acceptance of the program within the society was generally good. I would also take part if we had those here, considering what happened in Ukraine, although I'm a pacifist.
https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/poland-announces-new-military-training-programme-for-civilians-37820
because germany gets basic training to a lot of people that could be helpful if the worst case happens and germany gets attacked on their national territory and also they maybe get people attracted to be a regular soldier, ramping those numbers up, by providing them a deeper insight.
I just wrote this in the comment above, are you deliberately being so slow on the uptake or just trolling?
No. I refuse to accept anything as absolute truth. Sorry if that makes your position difficult to argue, but every aspect requires a legitimate explanation for me to accept it. Who's likely to invade Germany?
fair enough. I just explained the benefits and that it was not as bad as it sounds back in my days. I'm not saying that I personally think we need this again or that it is a particular great idea.
right now? My bet would be on the fucking russians, even if they would have to fight a few other countries and NATO before but at this point something stupid like this wouldn't even surprise me.
Also keep in mind that drafted people could also used to help and support in catastrophic events like flooding.
When rich kids fight next to poor kids you will have politicians think twice before they start a war.
What nonsense justification is this? You think rich kids aren't going to find a way around conscription? Because history shows that they always do.
Conscripted armies have proven time and again that they have terrible morale, even in good times. They're a shit idea that should only be used when the country has no other choice.
"On September 16, 1940, the United States instituted the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which required all men between the ages of 21 and 45 to register for the draft."
https://www.thoughtco.com/famous-americans-killed-world-war-ii-105521
compulsory military service isn't a good thing though. That's like saying the romans went to war less because the Praetors were cavalry.
cautionary edit: I'm not going to get into historical debates about Romans. The Praetors were primarily from the Equestrian class, and in the early republic were cavalry because they had the money to maintain war horses.
It's a pretty cost effective alternative to maintaining an excessively large standing force.
If everyone gets 12-18 months of training, it allows the nation the capacity to mobilize quickly "on-demand", instead of that capacity being "always on".
I imagine there are other periphery societal benefits. Having a shared experience, even if it is military service, can be good for cultural unity.
Not saying they should or shouldn't, btw. Just saying it might be more pragmatic than the alternatives.
I have a strong family history of military service, with a verifiable family history going back to the US revolution. I get where the idea comes from. There was a point where I supported compulsory military service too. However, it ultimately serves the capitalist class, who are perfectly content to throw their own children to the war machine to ensure that the next quarter is profitable. Conscription certainly serves the purpose of filling out the ranks, but ultimately it's a reason to kill people for the imperialist purposes of ensuring an unequal standard of living between the imperial core (in this case the EU) and the imperial periphery.
I'd challenge you to consider that your perception may be biased, coming from the context of a country that has been at war for 93% of its existence.
My frame of reference on the subject of compulsory service is Finnish, which I imagine is a better analogue to a potential German experience.
I know that I have a bias tinted by the US war machine. However I'd like you to consider that neo-imperialism is something practiced by most of the imperial core.
Neo-Imerialistic Finland?
I think you really need to step outside of your US-based worldview.
Yes, absolutely, the USA has a massive war machine that has been mainly used as leverage to maintain an imperialistic status quo. You have the luxury of a US citizen of not living under the knife of an existential threat.
That luxury, your privilege, is not shared by counties in eastern Europe. Neo-Imerialistic, what, Lithuania? Estonia? They DO live under a real existential threat.
Your US experience is ENTIRELY valid.
Thinking you can apply that experience broadly is not.
The US experience is exceptional. That, plainly, is the reality of life on Earth.
Every country should do it.
why?
It builds character, strengthens the mind and body, while also strengthening the entire nation against the possibility of future invasion.
I like what I see out of countries like Finland and South Korea and I think this is a big part of what makes that so.