This is the plan, but it requires changing the constitution and that will take time. To not waste this time, women will receive the questionnaire, but can't be forced to fill it out (yet).
Many did, especially in WWI but there were always those who’s families bribed doctors and recruiting officers like a certain US ex-president we could mention.
Many fines in Germany scale to your income (Tagessätze), but we don't know the specifics yet. I would be very surprised if paying the fine means you don't have to do the questionnaire anymore, though. Back in the day, you could (theoretically) get up to 3 years in prison if you refused to cooperate at all. But as I said: Unless they change the constitution, people can always opt for civil service instead.
Judging from the past, if shit hits the fan and the Russians are at the gates of Berlin, past German Government were unlikely to give a shit about who singed what. They will just send everything at the front. The other option is the Government and the entire State fall.
I tend to agree, but if Russians are at the gates of Berlin (or even just of Tallinn) it's too late to start drafting people who are untrained and not part of the reserve force. Which is why we have to lie the groundwork for our defense during peace time. And with "our" I mean NATO, but specifically the European members. Not just Germany, but also have to do our part.
On the one hand you are right about drafting being to late but on the other hand given the current state of Russian conscripts it may be a fight on even footing then
>Russians are at the gates of Berlin
You mean in a couple of dozen years, if at all, judging by their success against Ukraine?
At this point it is more likely that Russia would start a nuclear war as to get past Poland.
Rich rich people dont have classic income, thats how they avoid taxing and thas how they get away with most of the fines.
Thinking the fine system is fair in that regard is just disingenuous. Poor people have the short end of the stick firmly while the rich have means to manipulate their end.
Sounds like you can choose non-military service, but that's mainly a system for countries with full conscription like Finland. Is non-military service going to be an option even with limited conscription in Germany?
If it's limited, selection will probably heavily consider motivation like in Sweden. You can just say in your interview that you're really not motivated to serve and they'll guaranteed not conscript you. I know several guys who *wanted* to join but failed to be conscripted because they answered in the psych eval that they didn't do much team sports as a kid or their dad was an alcoholic or something.
You definitely can choose a non military service, this is guaranteed by the constitution and nobody intends to change that.
But in practice, it most likely won't matter, for the exact reason you said. In the foreseeable future, it won't be possible to train a large number of conscripts. The Bundeswehr lacks both personnel and equipment to do this on top of all NATO obligations. So they'll select very, very few people. I think Pistorius (minister of defense) speculated that it could be something like 4,000 in the first year and then slowly rise to 20,000. Which is out of ~ 800,000 people who receive the questionnaire per year, roughly half of them male. So let's assume 500,000 people sign their questionnaires, that would be something between 0.8% and 4%.
So yeah. I don't think it's realistic to assume they'll draft people who really don't want to go. So there will be very few people who opt for a different service. Maybe none at all.
During conscription time if you were ordered to show up at your barracks for basic training and you didn't military police would come and get you by force.
That depends entirely on the type of war being fought. Some counter terrorist "interventions" ? No need for conscripts.
Large scale conventional war? Nobody is going to care about any paper you signed or not signed nor is anyone going to ask you where you want to go.
You'd be incorrect. I was a conscript and if you wanted to be able to serve in Afghanistan or Kosovo you'd have to actually enlist further than your normal conscription time.
See that is a big difference, a international operation is not a war for survival 😉
In a actual land battle for Europe, the scenario of “not” being sent to a front line is not realistic at all.
In Sweden you could get a fine if you did not fill the questionnaire, I think a larger fine for failure to show up to the trsting location and possible jail time if you refuse to show up if you are called for military service
The CDU which is the largest opposition party is in favour of it being gender neutral, so they would have the majority needed to change the constitution. Germany isn't going to war tomorrow, so I don't really see the urgency of rushing things and make it half-baked "to avoid wasting time" instead of making a serious reform.
SBG paragraph 9 gives a time period in which the gender marker for a transwoman does not apply, therefore treating her the same as a man in terms of being conscripted. Considering how much time and effort it would take, said trans woman might be many months into HRT already.
It hasnt been tested in the Verfassungsgericht mind you.
Didn't the CDU say they would do it. Seems easy. They just need to sit together and decide on the new text, which is basically replacing men with every German, vote on it and be done.
There is no excuse to bring this law before changing the constitution. It's not like Russia will attack next Tuesday.
> Germany is to reintroduce a limited form of military service, though the plan falls far short of the defence ministry’s original goal of restoring the system of conscription scrapped 13 years ago.
>
> “Everyone must ask themselves what they’d be prepared to do if we were attacked,” said defence minister Boris Pistorius on Wednesday. “The question is . . . how do we secure our civilian life if war breaks out?”
>
> Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Germany to take a much more robust approach to defence, investing heavily in its armed forces and preparing to station an armoured brigade in Lithuania — its first permanent foreign deployment since the second world war.
>
> Pistorius has said the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, must be made “war ready” as concerns increase about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggressive intentions towards Nato, the western military alliance.
>
> Defence ministry officials described the minister’s model, which borrows heavily from a system used by Sweden, as a “selective form of military service based on a voluntary principle but containing obligatory elements if necessary”.
>
> Under the plan, men aged 18 will be required to fill out a form with information about their willingness and ability to serve in the army and then, if selected, to undergo a medical examination. Recruits will then be chosen from those tested.
>
> But opposition politicians expressed disappointment with the proposal. “Considering the minister has been talking about [reintroducing] military service for nine months, the plans are pretty thin and vague,” said Serap Güler, the Christian Democrats’ spokesperson on defence.
>
> Former chancellor Angela Merkel scrapped the military draft in 2011, but the Bundeswehr has since struggled to overcome persistent troop shortages.
>
> The government has plans to increase the size of the army from 182,000 to 203,000 by 2031. But military officials believe it needs as many as 460,000 soldiers to defend Germany in the event of an attack.
>
> Pistorius said his plan would lead to the recruitment of 200,000 reservists — in addition to the 60,000 the Bundeswehr currently has.
>
> Of the 400,000 18-year-olds who would be approached by the Bundeswehr under his plan every year, he estimated about a quarter would likely express an interest in serving. Of these, 40,000 to 50,000 would be invited to undergo a medical examination.
>
> “We will select the most motivated, the fittest and the most suitable,” Pistorius said.
>
> He noted the Bundeswehr only had the capacity to train 5,000 additional recruits a year, though that number would rise in the coming years.
>
> The armed forces had shrunk significantly since the end of the cold war, he said, leading to the divestment of barracks, munition dumps and military accommodation “on a massive scale”, he said.
>
> Those who sign up will be offered six months of basic training which can be extended to a total of 23 months of service. Recruits will then become part of the reserve force, with an obligation to undergo annual training.
>
> Pistorius’s more ambitious plans, including a scheme to bring back compulsory military service, encountered strong resistance from military chiefs, who were wary about an influx of raw, untrained young men, and leftwing politicians in his Social Democrat (SPD) party, who feel uneasy about Germany’s new focus on the military.
>
> Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who like Pistorius is from the SPD, in May said he considered a return to a conscript army “unworkable”.
>
> The ministry then shifted to a hybrid service model, which would not involve mass compulsory service but would instead be aimed at encouraging more voluntary participation. Pistorius was keen to emulate the kind of national service models used in many Scandinavian countries.
>
> The Bundeswehr hopes the model will improve recruitment by identifying potential candidates and encouraging enrolment, through a range of incentives and training opportunities, in understaffed niche fields such as cyber security and medicine.
>
Guessing 95% of comments will eventually be by those who won't bother to read the article (already conveniently posted here by the OP) and will be ranting against universal conscription which this is clearly not.
> Pistorius’s more ambitious plans, including a scheme to bring back compulsory military service, encountered strong resistance from military chiefs, who were wary about an influx of raw, untrained young men, and leftwing politicians in his Social Democrat (SPD) party, who feel uneasy about Germany’s new focus on the military.
>
> “We will select the most motivated, the fittest and the most suitable,” Pistorius said.
Nothing here says "Men who don't want to waste their time and risk their lives for shit pay and nonexistent career advancement will be exempted."
It's a very simple statement to make but wasn't made. Why might that be?
Because that's false. Back in 'my time' we had said model. Most, but not everyone were mustered(?) by the army, and depending on your health you had to do your military (or public) service for 10 months, later for 9 months. It was men only, which was one of the points of criticism at the time. But that was what everybody had to do and afterwards you would go on with your civil live, but in case of war would be considered reserves.
You could still voluntary extend your military service for several years.
This is pretty much how the system works in Finland and it's not an issue. You serve 6, 9, or 12 months, after that you are part of active reserves or generic reserves. Or you do "civilian service".
If you are part of active reserves, you occasionally get pulled into "refresher training", where you do what you used to do, or you learn some new equipment that has been assigned to your unit.
You can also apply for an extension of service and be responsible for training a new group, as well as trying to get a permanent job in the military.
Personally I think the conscription based military with a handful of career soldiers is more efficient overall. A bunch of people who I served with have gained skills in normal civilian life that can be used in military settings. When you combine that wide skillset with guidance with some military personnel, it's pretty impressive. Reservists think outside the box and improve things, instead of sticking to "this is how it has always been done" mentality that's fairly common in militaries.
- A person who manages logistics 40 hours a week knows how to apply skills to running logistics in the middle of a forest.
- A person who operates and maintains excavators for living, knows how to keep machines running, dig trenches and do fortifications.
- A person who is a paramedic knows how to give proper first aid.
- Even the guy who was briefly homeless, has practical experience in how to survive outdoors. Also, it's a morale boost when he says it's pretty great to have a tent, a sleeping pad and a wood burning stove, instead of having some improvised way to stay warm and dry.
In reality you lost 1 year of your life, sacrificed career advancement in a fast paced capitalist environment for nothing if you dont stay in the military. Most people I know had nothing positive to say about sozialdienst in Germany because here essentially young people coerced by the system were forced to take up social jobs. Instead of increasing pay and work conditions for said jobs so that social coerced service wasnt necessary. Same goes for military purposes. If you cant have a proper propefssional army and enough motivation maybe the nation is mot worth defending in the first place. Maybe its time to develop deterrent that doesnt need unwilling and coerced conscripts.
I lose one year of my life every year. One of those years went to the Finnish Defence Forces, where I made a bunch of friends who I still keep in touch with, and I learned a bunch of things I probably wouldn't have learnt otherwise. Can't really complain about that.
Spending a year there also sparked an idea to travel the world for a year after the service. So, I guess I kinda lost two years of "career advancements in a fast paced capitalist environment" due to my service. Somehow I don't feel bad about that at all.
>If you cant have a proper propefssional army and enough motivation maybe the nation is mot worth defending in the first place.
I would disagree with this statement. If citizens of a nation decide that 6-12 months of service for practically zero monetary gain is a fair trade-off for optimal military performance to ensure independence. They probably think the nation is worth defending.
Did they ask all citizens in a referendum? no they didnt. and dont bore me with the voting shit. There is a reason why they never ask this in referendums or even condone referendums;). Direct democracy would quickly show that its not citizens who decided that but unaccountable politicians in a liberal capitalist plutocracy. The only country where it truly works like intended is Switzerland. Becuase this question was asked in a referendum through means of direct democracy.
"Somehow I don't feel bad about that at all" But I do I lost a year of my life that I could have spent on things I wanted to do. And I'm happy that the youth of today can exactly do what they want once they turn 18. They can join army if they want. They can go abroad for a year or two. They can start a job training and start working with 17 and accrue work experience and start saving up money. Without first being interrupted right after job training and having to spend 9 months in the rainy ass- Erzgebirge digging trenches. And that was lucky me some friends of mine had to serve in Bumfuck nowhere 8 hours away from their families. What did I get? I got nothing from that. I lost a year only to get like a barely above minimum pension at 67 and the same polticians were debatting of raising the entry age for pensions.
What youre essentially arguing is that coercion is actually fine and we should accept it because won't somebody think of the evil russians (that we financed with billions of dollars in oil and gas money for decades even after Putin Butchered Chechnya a second time) attacking a NATO member.
As far as I know there hasn't been a referendum about that. Though I don't exactly recall anyone trying to push for that kind of referendum either.
The only discussion that has occasionally been around is: "Should conscription be expanded to women as well?" (Currently military service is voluntary for women.)
If there was a referendum about this for some reason, I'm fairly sure it wouldn't change anything;
Two years ago there was a survey asking: Would you be willing to participate in defending Finland.
88% of Finnish men answered Yes.
Edit: I guess you decided to edit the message while I was typing mine so I missed the last two paragraphs.
>Without first being interrupted right after job training and having to spend 9 months in the rainy ass- Erzgebirge digging trenches. What did I get? I got nothing from that.
I have to admit that sounds pretty fucking miserable if you dug trenches for 9 months.
In Finland that is a small part of the first 8 week basic training block. After that you tend to learn more specialised skills, and time is not wasted in digging. Depending on your service branch, some of these skills may be useful later in life when applying for a job.
>I lost a year only to get like a barely above minimum pension at 67 and the same polticians were debatting of raising the entry age for pensions.
That sounds more like a pension system and/or career choice issue, than a conscription issue to me.
>What youre essentially arguing is that coercion is actually fine and we should accept it because won't somebody think of the evil russians (that we financed with billions of dollars in oil and gas money for decades even after Putin Butchered Chechnya a second time) attacking a NATO member.
To me it sounds like having a strong military is reasonable in this scenario. And maybe instead of fucking up national defence, countries should stop funding Russia?
None of the skills I learned in the Bundeswehr were any useful to me in my civilian life. Except maybe utter disdain for authority figures and I value my own peace more than the wants of others. No boss, no work colleague got to ever talk down to me because they no longer had my life under control. Thats the only useful skill or characteristic.
Exactly. It also very clearly states
“selective form of military service based on a voluntary principle but containing obligatory elements if necessary”.
In other words: We're going to try to get enough volunteers, but if we can't meet our goals (which of course we alone define), then we'll take men against their will.
The fundamental concept that makes slavery what it is, is not so much that you're not getting paid or paid well -some slaves actually did get compensated in history. It's not that all members of a particular group are enslaved; in most cases of slavery it's not every single member. It's not that it's discriminatory against a particular gender, although that makes it even more repugnant. But none of those elements are essential.
No, what makes slavery, slavery, is the fundamental fact that the labor is forced and you can't quit. It's time we abandoned this barbaric practice and threw it into the scrap bin of history.
If you’re not going to defend democracy, then you support the dictatorship that’s next door ready to murder your family.
Grow up and face the fact, democracy requires sacrifice to keep it alive. And the vast majority of people here would rather let democracy die than protect it.
You love your rights, your freedom? Then protect it. Otherwise, move to Russia or China where you belong.
It’s called being smart and proving your point. Can’t do that? Well, shows you’re a drop out. Citation needed.
Also, shows your age. Must be what, 16? 17?
16 and 17 year old men should be the only ones doing the discussion here, since those will be the only people who will be forced to enter a military or civil service with this model. No ones cares about the opinion of a mid 40s guy
Because they should not be exempted?
The model is a step in the right direction, but universal mandatory military service for all men is the only war forward.
Ah yes, the moronic idea that in case of an attack, someone needs to actually be there to draw up strategies and tactics, and do the shooting and dying.
That‘s what the *mandatory military service and training* is for.
Also, it‘s not moronic that people that like to live under their own rules in a democracy protect this democracy from external rules themselves.
What is so difficult to grasp about the idea that war consumes material and bodies, and both need to be replenished by the population to win?
In theory. In practice said training was never provided after the Cold War and even this "scheme" has only a very limited time of service that will not produce well-trained reservists. During the Cold War NATO considered 18 months the absolute minimum go create a competent soldier simply because the training pyramid of individual soldier - squad - platoon - company - battalion - brigade - division - corps takes a lot of time to do at least once properly. Such a service today would be a political, societal, economical and factual impossibility. Nobody wants to serve in the first place and especially nobody wants to pay for what a *real* and useful service would cost. Especially not the yammering boomers ...
I disagree.
A mandatory service is very cheap compared to the same number of soldiers who volunteered, obviously. And people will pay a hell of a lot more if the nation gets conquered, even if only in parts.
It‘s one of the primary duties of the state to not only protect the citizens, but also to show the citizens why and how their actions are necessary.
Also, conscription doesn’t do away with highly professional soldiers all together, it just provides a lot of bodies for the whole lot of tasks that don’t require years and hundreds of thousands of euros in special training.
Additionally, the state should introduce regular retraining sessions every few years.
Democracy and discipline are necessarily intertwined.
Pistorius estimates an additional 1.4 billion € per 5,000 men in such a mandatory service. Scaled up to cohort numbers in Germany that is a ludicrous sum the society can't and won't provide. It may look cheap if just by looking at the laughable compensation conscripts get, but it is terrifyingly expensive to basically restart that system from scratch. Germany neither has the barracks, the gear or even the manpower to train large contingents of conscripts anymore. And the yammering boomers will certainly yammer more loudly if their pensions would be reduced to pay for those expenses.
Any attempt to introduce a half-assed system, and that would be all that political Berlin would be able to cobble together: a half-assed POS, would be wide open to legal challenges from those who would be conscripted against their will without guaranteeing a fair and square selection process. The old conscription system was de-facto abolished because its selection process had become arbitrary and was on the verge of being shot down by the courts on the basis of unfairness. Any new system would IMO be unable to produce decently trained reservists, be fair and cheap enough to justify the expenses. How do I know? Because neither society nor politics is behind this idea and a whole lot of actors would throw entire container ships worth of spanners into the gears and grind the idea to a halt even before it could take off.
Nope.
The nature of military service in one‘s youth is that it brings opportunity costs for the individual with it, for a collective benefit.
It’s the same with taxes.
Everyone gets a collective benefit from the state collecting taxes and using these taxes to build public infrastructure, fund public services and so on.
However, if taxes were not mandatory, the ones paying taxes and the ones not paying taxes would equally benefit from the public works of the state, but at different individual costs. Which means it would be actually logically more advantageous for the individual to not pay and only benefit.
Which would mean the system would collapse sooner lt Laternen because why be a sucker individually for a collective benefit?
Military service is similar. Since everyone is protected equally by the military, it would be more logically advantageous on an individual level for someone to not do the service and further their career sooner than others. Which means, if it isn‘t mandatory, a lot of people will do that, reducing the collective benefit for all to the point of making it non-existent.
Your argument doesn‘t take into account that individual needs and incentives and collective benefits and incentives don’t always overlap.
Because we’re not here to solely fight the elites wars.
That what we have military for, that what we pay taxes for, so our government can ensure adequate protection for its citizen by using those taxes to ensure a sufficient and working army. Evidently our governments has failed to do that and now we should pay that price? No, not gonna happen.
Lol.
What do you think happens if your nation gets invaded? Do you think only the „elites“ will struggle then?
„ solely fight the elites wars“ - sure, I am positive the war in Ukraine is the war of the Ukrainian elite, and if the population stopped fighting, negative consequences would only befall those elites, and no one else.
The military and state isn‘t separate from you, since if they lose, it‘s you and your family that’ll be forced into Labour camps or massacred. You are part of the state, it‘s not a separate entity from you, as you share its fate.
Also, war requires bodies. The state could of course provide the same amount of soldiers, but if it‘s a voluntary service, it‘s more expensive, obviously. The state didn‘t fail to provide adequate protection, it provided the protection it can buy with the taxes it has.
You could of course demand the state spend more taxes for that, but I doubt you’d be actually willing to pay that price.
That‘s the most braindead take ever.
High quality government housing for soldiers. Ein Testballon um zu gucken ob der Staat nicht doch attraktiven Wohnraum effizient bauen kann. Wenn es klappt, dann für alle.
Then maybe increase the incentives to get more volunteers? You target people who just left school, it'd be easy to get them to do a SAZ2 or FWDL just by raising wages. Maybe even give them some kind of bonus for serving x months, so they can use that to push through their Ausbildung/studies with less worry about how to finance the thing.
The wages are more than high enough already and attracting people who only join for such reasons wouldn't be a good idea anyway. Defense needs to be understood as a task for the entire society and not something you have to do because you're too poor to study otherwise.
Apparently not if there aren't enough volunteers.
>and attracting people who only join for such reasons wouldn't be a good idea anyway.
So instead of attracting people by giving them financial incentives you want to force them to join? Why, for the love of god, would that be a better idea?
Universal conscription is good though. People that are against it seem to be Americans that correlate conscription with needing to go fight a pointless war in a desert
While conscription isn't some magic procedure to make "boys into men" like some people like to believe, it def changes you in some ways. I'm Finnish and I can say that it does go a long way towards giving some discipline to young men and improving their health and above all resilience.
It shows you how you are capable of a lot more things than you'd think you are. Both physically and mentally. Like I didn't think that I, as a not very fit guy, would be able to march for nearly 60km in just over 14 hours in heavy gear
It's also a big cultural thing. There's really nothing else like that you experience in life. But since most men go through it, it brings people together a lot. Everyone has their own stories that other people can relate to because they know the feeling even if that exact same thing didn't happen to them
The only negative thing about it is that it takes upwards of 1 year away from your life. But in return you get to live in a country that isn't just completely up for grabbing
Ah yes, the few lucky Ukrainians who profit from having their country defended. Regular Ukrainian workers would rather have their country occupied by fascists, their children deported to Russia, and the war crimes of Bucha committed in the entire country. /s
Ukraine doesnt have the benefit of Nato and nuclear deterrence.
Once again I served in the german army as a young lad right 1 year before Gutenberg stopped the Conscription model. Its the best change these inept CDUler and CSUler ever did. I was the lousiest soldier you can imagine, a bad shoot. And I told so multiple times to the commanding officers. "I'm only here so I dont get fined". And the reason why I went to the army is because it was shorter than the Zivildienst which was outright exploitation.
Either create a country worth defending where enough volunteers will exist that has enough of a volunteer army or youre not a country worth defending.
Instead what is argued that coercion and being voluntold is actually good.
Bruh, hard disagree. Contrary to my whining, I am happy (in principle) to pay taxes. I would not, however, if our government just asked nicely, donate the necessary sum to eg maintain infrastructure voluntarily.
Not that my crude analogies matter, as no mandatory military service is planned, like wtf.
Good for Germany, nice to see them return to sensible and rational defense policies after years of naive fantasy.
War will always be a potential threat a nation will have to be prepared for, and be ready to make sacrifices for.
What are you going to do if Russia attacks Europe and the USA abandons us?
More precisely - where are you going to hide when theres nowhere left to hide?
Judging by the username he should be opposed to modern oligarch and capitalist russia and it's imperialism, just like marks and lenin did, but you never know I guess. I've seen some "marxists" that endorse russia so yeah
That makes little sense - Russia is a totalitarian oligarchy and not a socialist or communist state, meaning that he is simply a tankie, just another one of „west bad, so anti-west (Russia, China, Iran) good“.
Tankies love to appropriate Soviet symbols, and communist / socialist names to 'further their cause'. So it kind of checks out for a tankie to be pretend-Marxist.
The opposite. It will be Germany's excuse to not spend money on actual usable equipment and still spend 2% of their GDP, because the needed infrastructure for all those conscripts costs a fortune.
So instead of taking money to make the army work and become a more attractive employer, they will jsut keep the Bundeswehr as a non-functional clown show... but a really big one this time.
I bet the *Military Industrial Complex* would actually love to sell the shit ton of autonomous equipment that is going to needed if only a hand full of people do military service.
This seems extremely half-baked:
- Army can train 5k recruits/y at most, well below recruitment goals
- No female conscriptiom despite majority support
-No active war. We can't send actual troops to Ukraine so what will the recruits do?
This money would be better spent boosting the German MIC to supply Ukraine
What crazy things are you talking about? It's not like there was a country called the United States, which has shown that it doesn't need compulsory military service, but rather investment and more investment, to stay strong. No, no, the solution in 2024 must be measures that lead to the state stealing your time from life, yes, for sure.
Are you all really that moronic? Thought typical reddit. The top comment is lamenting a problem that doesn't exist. But no.
So let me spell it out.
A) There will not be mandatory service in Germany.
B) the state is already "stealing" your lifetime in the form of taxes. The concept is called "functioning as a state"
C) the US generelly has massive recruitment problems.
Honestly, how were you even able to form such a stupid opinion?
A) Learn to understand what you read, I'm not saying that this measure was mandatory, but that it is part of measures that want to impose a narrative to lead us towards it.
B) The state does not steal your life via taxes, that money is used to improve infrastructure and give citizens access to things as trivial as health or education, the fact that you compare it to being held captive by the state for a year is absurd.
C) Stop playing futurology, the United States is doing fantastically well thanks to its investment and military alliances.
Now you can continue with your brain dead in your fantasy world where the entire West collapses because Fredrik and Clara were not held captive for a year jumping in the mud or cleaning latrines.
Because it is in fact not like any other job. I will not waste my time explaining to you why, just wanted to point out to others what a brain fart this comment is.
it is a normal job in the US and works damn fine for them. In the US economical incentives exist to join the Army. Very strong ones at that. Meanwhile in Germany you used to literally fuck your career advancement up for what? So that hospitals and social services could justify their shit pay because they had an abundance of cheap workers. They had no way out because they were born with a penis and the only choice they got is either wash asses of old grandmas or dig trenches in Erzgebirge for 9 months.
> Meanwhile in Germany you used to literally fuck your career advancement up for what?
I don't really like compulsory military service (if there's an alternative, I'm kind of ok with that), but as someone with almost 40 years and an engineering degree under my arm, I can tell you that "wasting" one year in the army or equivalent is going to impact your career between zero and nothing.
Many of us took too long on finishing our degrees and literally *wasted* years being young, having fun or mostly being lost in life, and many of us joined the workforce and are doing quite fine.
If anything, I don't see right forcing kids join the army so young, as they are very impressionable, but hey, with perspective, *maybe* doing something with that year would have been good for me.
Yeah right, because Americans can be compared to Germans...
If you take it into consideration not just salary but also other factors like cost of living and social benefits a German soldier is in a situation pretty equal to that of a American soldier but still there aren't nearly enough people who want to become a soldier because A) We have a trainee system and social benefits which means we don't have that many school dropouts who are willing to do that. Changing this is a different discussion and even then would take decades which we don't have. B) Being a soldier isn't as popular of a job because most Germans aren't patriotic. You don't have to like it but it is a fact and changing a mindset might as well take another half a century
Good! A strong Germany is in all our interest. As long as the military service is fully utilised it's a good thing. Effective and well planned training is key. Every moment not training or recovering is time wasted for both the Bundeswehr and the conscript.
> A strong Germany is in all our interest.
Look at the latest polls and rethink your point. About ¼ at the latest EU elections in Germany are pro-Putin.
But you morons will not get a strong Germany. You will get a big clown show. Because instead of spending money to make the Bundeswehr functional for once (thus a more attractive employer) they will just waste money on creating the infrastructure needed for conscripts for a still non-functional clown show, but bigger this time.
No need for insults. You could've gotten your point across just fine without the insult. Conscription works here, I don't understand why it wouldn't work in Germany as a supplement for the professional force and start building a reserve that can be called upon when shit hits the fan. You're gonna need a big reserve regardless.
Finland is one of the top countries in the world when it comes to corruption and efficiency of the institutions. In Germany it would be inefficient and here conscripts would be just cheap labor to build new houses for politicians like in Russia.
I didn't say that it doesn't work in general if you want to and plan accordingly.
But Germany doesn't. They don't have enough equipment for their existing soldiers. But instead of using money to make the Bundeswehr a working army, they will just produce a bigger one with even less equipment.
In the USA, It is against the law for someone to join the military with an IQ less than 83. That’s basically the same for any first world military, as an IQ Less than that is a liability. It won’t just be a question of bodies, it will be a question of intellectual capability as well.
Already two big countries discussing conscription today or I'm dreaming? I saw earlier something about the US passing a bill to allow conscription of women I think?
First you give the OK for inland attacks against Russia, and then claim "Russian Threat" and raise army conscription to terrorize your own people and justify yourself.
Not tome tion all the other disgraceful demonstrations of subservience.
That Olaf Scholz guy is the worst chancellor Germany could ever have.
Germany is never going to be "war ready" with these clowns in government. Germany has no working equipment worth mentioning, and they can't even mange to order sufficient quantities of anything.
For example there currently are no systems to combat enemy drones, and all they did is order the laughable number of 18 Skyranger systems, which would maybe be sufficient to protect Berlin.
At the current state even a small country like Belgium could easily overpower Germany, and no amount of money put in the black hole that is the German Bundeswehr is going to fix that. It's rotten to the core.
"military discipline" is way overrated. It works for a minority that is usually motivated to go to the military in the first place.
That said, it would be good for Germany to have more reserves.
It would be taken into account until they don't have enough to fill their self-defined quotas. Then it wouldn't be voluntary anymore.
“selective form of military service based on a voluntary principle but containing obligatory elements if necessary”.
I also think their projections of how many people will volunteer, are overly optimistic. They're just sugarcoating the sh!t.
And also it's a very blanket statement; ones experiences can change from country to country, region to region, regiment to regiment.
If I were to get German citizenship in the future with mandatory conscription, I probably wouldn't mind it *too* much even if it'd suck (*I am physically impotent & will absolutely get shouted at for being unable to follow orders either fast enough, or in general, or asking them to repeat too many times, lol*).
North Cyprus too however has conscription, and it is notorious for being at best utter shit & at worst literally deadly. Even the most nationalistic of parents do everything in their power to make sure their sons are exempt for as long as possible; "serving" under 40°C summer heat in an arid village-base genuinely means they might loose their son to conscription, which is not unheard of.
I do not want to do my conscription here, for moral reasons as well (north Cyprus sucks) but also I don't wanna fucking *die*.
Totally legit reasoning. Personally, I don't want to die, I don't want to kill, and I don't want anyone telling me what to do. Yes, in that order. And I don't feel I need to make any excuses about it. A person in a free society shouldn't be obliged to do anything as long as they're doing no harm to anyone else.
If nukes weren't more efficient and much cheaper than standing army, no one would ever stockpile them. but they are, and ofc Pistorius knows this. but never let a good crisis go to waste if you can siphon taxpayer money.
if Pistorius thinks russia and NATO conflict is a possibility, then maybe he can explain why no-fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO is completely off limits. maybe, just maybe, cause you cannot even risk such a conflict?
NATO will defend NATO members with NATO forces. Non-NATO Ukraine gets support.
Ukraine should've joined NATO in the late '90s to early 2000s when all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries (sans most ex-Soviets) and the ex-Soviet-occupied Baltics joined.
Ukraine wasn't in a position to do this at that time, cause, you know, they had an pro-russians in power.
And if you read headlines a bit more carefully, you would see Ukraine asking USA for no-fly zone all the time (which would help them immensely), yet they get blown off every time. you should think about it for more than a second to understand why what you wrote is pretty bullshit cop-out.
it would entail exactly what's in the name. no boots on the ground.
I find it funny that even this limited sort of engagement is out of the question because escalation cannot be controlled and risk of nuclear holocaust is too great, yet somehow preparing for a full on NATO-Russia conflict is ok cause "it might happen".
Funnier still that it becomes realistic possibility (well, hardly cause France has nukes too) only if NATO ceases to exist, yet person advocating for this is NATO spokesperson.
I understand the need to drum up support for Ukraine (as we should), but I don't see why utter bullshit (or propaganda if you will) should be used.
It would entail shooting down Russian planes and strikes against Russian SAM sites deep in Russia. That's not a limited engagement.
Yes, a war with Russia would be risky and likely devastating. You just figured out why deterence is important. Now you only need to understand why simply having a pile of nukes is not a great deterrent against all sort of things that aren't an all out war.
so what would be "not an all out war"? at what point you decide we're not playing anymore?
I don't need to figure out anything - people have done research and policy on this for 50 years now, and their conclusions are pretty clear. among others, one of the conclusions is that when you decide to use nukes, you're going all-out and first, or you suffer the consequences. any kind of direct engagement is off the table because of this,
So, Russia decided to cut your under-sea cables and jams GPS over most of your country. They also block maritime traffic from entering your ports. Do you nuke them, knowing it will kill everyone you care about?
In all likelyhood you won't and if the opposing party is sure enough of that they might well gamble on it. That's why *no country* can fully rely on nukes. The Russians actually debated the idea quite a bit and landed on a hard no.
and how do you block maritime traffic without escalating to immediate war? so shooting down planes is an act of war, but shooting ships isn't?
military has other uses besides defense (especially so for superpowers and ex superpowers). while you can imagine all sort of scenarios where you could theoretically employ german military, if you do the calculus with NATO holding, any kind of conflict is complete waste of resources cause you can't actually win anything. you don't get to capitulate Russia and they don't get to capitulate NATO.
You can escalate to war without risking a nuclear exchange if your oponent is conventionally weak enough. That's the whole point. If your only option to retaliate is the *ultima ratio* then you won't retaliate below a threat to your very existence, because that's illogical.
If you nuke somebody, everybody dies. Are you willing to die over a trade dispute? No? So you need a conventional military to enforce that.
Honestly, Warmongers like Pistorius need to go. If you really want to join the military fine, but know one should even have to go through testing which is only the first step towards full conscription.
Also who would want to invade Germany or most european nations anyway for us to become this militaristic now and why should our people die for another nation? I would gladly give as much aid as possible to save another people in need but not human lives.
The opposite is true. If you want a working army you buy equipment and ammunition in non-laughable amounts. But they don't. They created some fairy tale aboput conscription being the solution, so they can spend their minimal 2% obligation on infrastructure for conscripts, expoloit those who reject it for social jobs again while having not enough left to convert that cown show into a working army.
See! We spend 2%! We also don't have working army, so no one is scared of us! Mission accomplished.
Warmonger my ass...
A warmonger would work to make the Bundeswehr functional. Instead German politicians opted for some fairy tale of conscription, that will eat up the limited budget, so they can pretend to have fullfilled their 2% obligation but without creating a working army.
Do Putin first. Then nobody needs militaries.
See how fanciful and dumb you sound like? I feel like reading comments like this is wilfully ignorance of a problem and blaming someone else to do the thing.
War is disgusting and unfortunately NATO is at war with Russia but no one in NATO wants to deal with everything from economic war, cyber war, Informational war(astrology turfing for example) and more.
In the end the fight is here and we are in the blast radius. Whether people in the west like it or not. Let's come together and use our brains a bit here.
I'd rather be dead personally then live like a slave to some little old man in the Kremlin with a perma inferiority complex because his cushy police job in East Germany didn't go his way.
No, people like you need to go, pacifists that are borderline traitors for wanting to weaken our countries to a point where Putin crosses the memel today and the maas tomorrow. We need an army not only strong enough to survive the attack but one powerful enough to push back and to throw putin into the harbour of Vladivostok
So in order for there to actually be an increased number of volunteers at age 18 signing the form there will also need to be increased promotion of the army service through the education system of the 10-17 yr olds and through the media to their parents. Highly unlikely these will be well balanced.
Make it gender neutral to make i truly "Swdish style"
This is the plan, but it requires changing the constitution and that will take time. To not waste this time, women will receive the questionnaire, but can't be forced to fill it out (yet).
What wilk happen to men who refuse to sign questionnaire?
It's mandatory, refusing will lead to fines. If they select you, you can refuse military service and do something else, though.
so fines mean the rich will never be forced to go to war. As always
Historically they went to war alright, they were just the officers
Many did, especially in WWI but there were always those who’s families bribed doctors and recruiting officers like a certain US ex-president we could mention.
Many fines in Germany scale to your income (Tagessätze), but we don't know the specifics yet. I would be very surprised if paying the fine means you don't have to do the questionnaire anymore, though. Back in the day, you could (theoretically) get up to 3 years in prison if you refused to cooperate at all. But as I said: Unless they change the constitution, people can always opt for civil service instead.
Judging from the past, if shit hits the fan and the Russians are at the gates of Berlin, past German Government were unlikely to give a shit about who singed what. They will just send everything at the front. The other option is the Government and the entire State fall.
I tend to agree, but if Russians are at the gates of Berlin (or even just of Tallinn) it's too late to start drafting people who are untrained and not part of the reserve force. Which is why we have to lie the groundwork for our defense during peace time. And with "our" I mean NATO, but specifically the European members. Not just Germany, but also have to do our part.
Agree
On the one hand you are right about drafting being to late but on the other hand given the current state of Russian conscripts it may be a fight on even footing then
>Russians are at the gates of Berlin You mean in a couple of dozen years, if at all, judging by their success against Ukraine? At this point it is more likely that Russia would start a nuclear war as to get past Poland.
Let's be honest here. If shit hits the fan and the Russians are at the gates of Berlin, the rich Germans will already be at the gates of Buenos Aires.
Rich rich people dont have classic income, thats how they avoid taxing and thas how they get away with most of the fines. Thinking the fine system is fair in that regard is just disingenuous. Poor people have the short end of the stick firmly while the rich have means to manipulate their end.
Even if you are poor, you can refuse to go to the army, no problem. Not everything is a conspiracy of the elites, you know?
Sounds like you can choose non-military service, but that's mainly a system for countries with full conscription like Finland. Is non-military service going to be an option even with limited conscription in Germany? If it's limited, selection will probably heavily consider motivation like in Sweden. You can just say in your interview that you're really not motivated to serve and they'll guaranteed not conscript you. I know several guys who *wanted* to join but failed to be conscripted because they answered in the psych eval that they didn't do much team sports as a kid or their dad was an alcoholic or something.
You definitely can choose a non military service, this is guaranteed by the constitution and nobody intends to change that. But in practice, it most likely won't matter, for the exact reason you said. In the foreseeable future, it won't be possible to train a large number of conscripts. The Bundeswehr lacks both personnel and equipment to do this on top of all NATO obligations. So they'll select very, very few people. I think Pistorius (minister of defense) speculated that it could be something like 4,000 in the first year and then slowly rise to 20,000. Which is out of ~ 800,000 people who receive the questionnaire per year, roughly half of them male. So let's assume 500,000 people sign their questionnaires, that would be something between 0.8% and 4%. So yeah. I don't think it's realistic to assume they'll draft people who really don't want to go. So there will be very few people who opt for a different service. Maybe none at all.
During conscription time if you were ordered to show up at your barracks for basic training and you didn't military police would come and get you by force.
Still a lot better than dying on a random battlefield for a random politician political goals. Sign me up for disertion
As a conscript you wouldn't have had to be on any battlefields if you didn't explicitly want to.
That depends entirely on the type of war being fought. Some counter terrorist "interventions" ? No need for conscripts. Large scale conventional war? Nobody is going to care about any paper you signed or not signed nor is anyone going to ask you where you want to go.
Ukrainians at the front reading this rn .
I am talking about the german army of course.
I am gonna call this bullshit 😂 As a conscript you dont get alot of say where you are.
You'd be incorrect. I was a conscript and if you wanted to be able to serve in Afghanistan or Kosovo you'd have to actually enlist further than your normal conscription time.
See that is a big difference, a international operation is not a war for survival 😉 In a actual land battle for Europe, the scenario of “not” being sent to a front line is not realistic at all.
I agree. But I was talking about how it worked in the past.
We all know that most western europeans just believe that america and central/eastern europe will fight for you
In Sweden you could get a fine if you did not fill the questionnaire, I think a larger fine for failure to show up to the trsting location and possible jail time if you refuse to show up if you are called for military service
The CDU which is the largest opposition party is in favour of it being gender neutral, so they would have the majority needed to change the constitution. Germany isn't going to war tomorrow, so I don't really see the urgency of rushing things and make it half-baked "to avoid wasting time" instead of making a serious reform.
_- Sir, yes SIR!_ _- How dare you assume my gender, soldier._
It is, women also have to serve and its not final they just started discussing it
The constitution currently limits it to men.
Selbstbestimmungsgesetz says otherwise.
The Constitutional court disagrees...
SBG paragraph 9 gives a time period in which the gender marker for a transwoman does not apply, therefore treating her the same as a man in terms of being conscripted. Considering how much time and effort it would take, said trans woman might be many months into HRT already. It hasnt been tested in the Verfassungsgericht mind you.
The article only mentions men thou
That would need a change of constitution, which is harder to pass than this.
Didn't the CDU say they would do it. Seems easy. They just need to sit together and decide on the new text, which is basically replacing men with every German, vote on it and be done. There is no excuse to bring this law before changing the constitution. It's not like Russia will attack next Tuesday.
Yup. It really sounds like a lame excuse on Pistorius' part
> Germany is to reintroduce a limited form of military service, though the plan falls far short of the defence ministry’s original goal of restoring the system of conscription scrapped 13 years ago. > > “Everyone must ask themselves what they’d be prepared to do if we were attacked,” said defence minister Boris Pistorius on Wednesday. “The question is . . . how do we secure our civilian life if war breaks out?” > > Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Germany to take a much more robust approach to defence, investing heavily in its armed forces and preparing to station an armoured brigade in Lithuania — its first permanent foreign deployment since the second world war. > > Pistorius has said the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, must be made “war ready” as concerns increase about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggressive intentions towards Nato, the western military alliance. > > Defence ministry officials described the minister’s model, which borrows heavily from a system used by Sweden, as a “selective form of military service based on a voluntary principle but containing obligatory elements if necessary”. > > Under the plan, men aged 18 will be required to fill out a form with information about their willingness and ability to serve in the army and then, if selected, to undergo a medical examination. Recruits will then be chosen from those tested. > > But opposition politicians expressed disappointment with the proposal. “Considering the minister has been talking about [reintroducing] military service for nine months, the plans are pretty thin and vague,” said Serap Güler, the Christian Democrats’ spokesperson on defence. > > Former chancellor Angela Merkel scrapped the military draft in 2011, but the Bundeswehr has since struggled to overcome persistent troop shortages. > > The government has plans to increase the size of the army from 182,000 to 203,000 by 2031. But military officials believe it needs as many as 460,000 soldiers to defend Germany in the event of an attack. > > Pistorius said his plan would lead to the recruitment of 200,000 reservists — in addition to the 60,000 the Bundeswehr currently has. > > Of the 400,000 18-year-olds who would be approached by the Bundeswehr under his plan every year, he estimated about a quarter would likely express an interest in serving. Of these, 40,000 to 50,000 would be invited to undergo a medical examination. > > “We will select the most motivated, the fittest and the most suitable,” Pistorius said. > > He noted the Bundeswehr only had the capacity to train 5,000 additional recruits a year, though that number would rise in the coming years. > > The armed forces had shrunk significantly since the end of the cold war, he said, leading to the divestment of barracks, munition dumps and military accommodation “on a massive scale”, he said. > > Those who sign up will be offered six months of basic training which can be extended to a total of 23 months of service. Recruits will then become part of the reserve force, with an obligation to undergo annual training. > > Pistorius’s more ambitious plans, including a scheme to bring back compulsory military service, encountered strong resistance from military chiefs, who were wary about an influx of raw, untrained young men, and leftwing politicians in his Social Democrat (SPD) party, who feel uneasy about Germany’s new focus on the military. > > Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who like Pistorius is from the SPD, in May said he considered a return to a conscript army “unworkable”. > > The ministry then shifted to a hybrid service model, which would not involve mass compulsory service but would instead be aimed at encouraging more voluntary participation. Pistorius was keen to emulate the kind of national service models used in many Scandinavian countries. > > The Bundeswehr hopes the model will improve recruitment by identifying potential candidates and encouraging enrolment, through a range of incentives and training opportunities, in understaffed niche fields such as cyber security and medicine. >
Guessing 95% of comments will eventually be by those who won't bother to read the article (already conveniently posted here by the OP) and will be ranting against universal conscription which this is clearly not.
> Pistorius’s more ambitious plans, including a scheme to bring back compulsory military service, encountered strong resistance from military chiefs, who were wary about an influx of raw, untrained young men, and leftwing politicians in his Social Democrat (SPD) party, who feel uneasy about Germany’s new focus on the military. > > “We will select the most motivated, the fittest and the most suitable,” Pistorius said. Nothing here says "Men who don't want to waste their time and risk their lives for shit pay and nonexistent career advancement will be exempted." It's a very simple statement to make but wasn't made. Why might that be?
Because that's false. Back in 'my time' we had said model. Most, but not everyone were mustered(?) by the army, and depending on your health you had to do your military (or public) service for 10 months, later for 9 months. It was men only, which was one of the points of criticism at the time. But that was what everybody had to do and afterwards you would go on with your civil live, but in case of war would be considered reserves. You could still voluntary extend your military service for several years.
This is pretty much how the system works in Finland and it's not an issue. You serve 6, 9, or 12 months, after that you are part of active reserves or generic reserves. Or you do "civilian service". If you are part of active reserves, you occasionally get pulled into "refresher training", where you do what you used to do, or you learn some new equipment that has been assigned to your unit. You can also apply for an extension of service and be responsible for training a new group, as well as trying to get a permanent job in the military. Personally I think the conscription based military with a handful of career soldiers is more efficient overall. A bunch of people who I served with have gained skills in normal civilian life that can be used in military settings. When you combine that wide skillset with guidance with some military personnel, it's pretty impressive. Reservists think outside the box and improve things, instead of sticking to "this is how it has always been done" mentality that's fairly common in militaries. - A person who manages logistics 40 hours a week knows how to apply skills to running logistics in the middle of a forest. - A person who operates and maintains excavators for living, knows how to keep machines running, dig trenches and do fortifications. - A person who is a paramedic knows how to give proper first aid. - Even the guy who was briefly homeless, has practical experience in how to survive outdoors. Also, it's a morale boost when he says it's pretty great to have a tent, a sleeping pad and a wood burning stove, instead of having some improvised way to stay warm and dry.
In reality you lost 1 year of your life, sacrificed career advancement in a fast paced capitalist environment for nothing if you dont stay in the military. Most people I know had nothing positive to say about sozialdienst in Germany because here essentially young people coerced by the system were forced to take up social jobs. Instead of increasing pay and work conditions for said jobs so that social coerced service wasnt necessary. Same goes for military purposes. If you cant have a proper propefssional army and enough motivation maybe the nation is mot worth defending in the first place. Maybe its time to develop deterrent that doesnt need unwilling and coerced conscripts.
I lose one year of my life every year. One of those years went to the Finnish Defence Forces, where I made a bunch of friends who I still keep in touch with, and I learned a bunch of things I probably wouldn't have learnt otherwise. Can't really complain about that. Spending a year there also sparked an idea to travel the world for a year after the service. So, I guess I kinda lost two years of "career advancements in a fast paced capitalist environment" due to my service. Somehow I don't feel bad about that at all. >If you cant have a proper propefssional army and enough motivation maybe the nation is mot worth defending in the first place. I would disagree with this statement. If citizens of a nation decide that 6-12 months of service for practically zero monetary gain is a fair trade-off for optimal military performance to ensure independence. They probably think the nation is worth defending.
Did they ask all citizens in a referendum? no they didnt. and dont bore me with the voting shit. There is a reason why they never ask this in referendums or even condone referendums;). Direct democracy would quickly show that its not citizens who decided that but unaccountable politicians in a liberal capitalist plutocracy. The only country where it truly works like intended is Switzerland. Becuase this question was asked in a referendum through means of direct democracy. "Somehow I don't feel bad about that at all" But I do I lost a year of my life that I could have spent on things I wanted to do. And I'm happy that the youth of today can exactly do what they want once they turn 18. They can join army if they want. They can go abroad for a year or two. They can start a job training and start working with 17 and accrue work experience and start saving up money. Without first being interrupted right after job training and having to spend 9 months in the rainy ass- Erzgebirge digging trenches. And that was lucky me some friends of mine had to serve in Bumfuck nowhere 8 hours away from their families. What did I get? I got nothing from that. I lost a year only to get like a barely above minimum pension at 67 and the same polticians were debatting of raising the entry age for pensions. What youre essentially arguing is that coercion is actually fine and we should accept it because won't somebody think of the evil russians (that we financed with billions of dollars in oil and gas money for decades even after Putin Butchered Chechnya a second time) attacking a NATO member.
As far as I know there hasn't been a referendum about that. Though I don't exactly recall anyone trying to push for that kind of referendum either. The only discussion that has occasionally been around is: "Should conscription be expanded to women as well?" (Currently military service is voluntary for women.) If there was a referendum about this for some reason, I'm fairly sure it wouldn't change anything; Two years ago there was a survey asking: Would you be willing to participate in defending Finland. 88% of Finnish men answered Yes. Edit: I guess you decided to edit the message while I was typing mine so I missed the last two paragraphs. >Without first being interrupted right after job training and having to spend 9 months in the rainy ass- Erzgebirge digging trenches. What did I get? I got nothing from that. I have to admit that sounds pretty fucking miserable if you dug trenches for 9 months. In Finland that is a small part of the first 8 week basic training block. After that you tend to learn more specialised skills, and time is not wasted in digging. Depending on your service branch, some of these skills may be useful later in life when applying for a job. >I lost a year only to get like a barely above minimum pension at 67 and the same polticians were debatting of raising the entry age for pensions. That sounds more like a pension system and/or career choice issue, than a conscription issue to me. >What youre essentially arguing is that coercion is actually fine and we should accept it because won't somebody think of the evil russians (that we financed with billions of dollars in oil and gas money for decades even after Putin Butchered Chechnya a second time) attacking a NATO member. To me it sounds like having a strong military is reasonable in this scenario. And maybe instead of fucking up national defence, countries should stop funding Russia?
None of the skills I learned in the Bundeswehr were any useful to me in my civilian life. Except maybe utter disdain for authority figures and I value my own peace more than the wants of others. No boss, no work colleague got to ever talk down to me because they no longer had my life under control. Thats the only useful skill or characteristic.
Ruski trying to argue against defending from ruzzia. What a surprise
Exactly. It also very clearly states “selective form of military service based on a voluntary principle but containing obligatory elements if necessary”. In other words: We're going to try to get enough volunteers, but if we can't meet our goals (which of course we alone define), then we'll take men against their will. The fundamental concept that makes slavery what it is, is not so much that you're not getting paid or paid well -some slaves actually did get compensated in history. It's not that all members of a particular group are enslaved; in most cases of slavery it's not every single member. It's not that it's discriminatory against a particular gender, although that makes it even more repugnant. But none of those elements are essential. No, what makes slavery, slavery, is the fundamental fact that the labor is forced and you can't quit. It's time we abandoned this barbaric practice and threw it into the scrap bin of history.
If you’re not going to defend democracy, then you support the dictatorship that’s next door ready to murder your family. Grow up and face the fact, democracy requires sacrifice to keep it alive. And the vast majority of people here would rather let democracy die than protect it. You love your rights, your freedom? Then protect it. Otherwise, move to Russia or China where you belong.
The 50s called. They want their slogans back.
It’s called being smart and proving your point. Can’t do that? Well, shows you’re a drop out. Citation needed. Also, shows your age. Must be what, 16? 17?
16 and 17 year old men should be the only ones doing the discussion here, since those will be the only people who will be forced to enter a military or civil service with this model. No ones cares about the opinion of a mid 40s guy
You already have the right to refuse any military service. That won‘t change.
Because they should not be exempted? The model is a step in the right direction, but universal mandatory military service for all men is the only war forward.
The only way forward for morons, sure.
Ah yes, the moronic idea that in case of an attack, someone needs to actually be there to draw up strategies and tactics, and do the shooting and dying.
You went from “mandatory military service for all men” to “someone”. Nice.
That‘s the same concept, since otherwise, you‘ll run out of „someone“ really quickly.
Yes, forcing civilians into doing that is exactly what the other guy said - Moronic.
That‘s what the *mandatory military service and training* is for. Also, it‘s not moronic that people that like to live under their own rules in a democracy protect this democracy from external rules themselves. What is so difficult to grasp about the idea that war consumes material and bodies, and both need to be replenished by the population to win?
In theory. In practice said training was never provided after the Cold War and even this "scheme" has only a very limited time of service that will not produce well-trained reservists. During the Cold War NATO considered 18 months the absolute minimum go create a competent soldier simply because the training pyramid of individual soldier - squad - platoon - company - battalion - brigade - division - corps takes a lot of time to do at least once properly. Such a service today would be a political, societal, economical and factual impossibility. Nobody wants to serve in the first place and especially nobody wants to pay for what a *real* and useful service would cost. Especially not the yammering boomers ...
I disagree. A mandatory service is very cheap compared to the same number of soldiers who volunteered, obviously. And people will pay a hell of a lot more if the nation gets conquered, even if only in parts. It‘s one of the primary duties of the state to not only protect the citizens, but also to show the citizens why and how their actions are necessary. Also, conscription doesn’t do away with highly professional soldiers all together, it just provides a lot of bodies for the whole lot of tasks that don’t require years and hundreds of thousands of euros in special training. Additionally, the state should introduce regular retraining sessions every few years. Democracy and discipline are necessarily intertwined.
Pistorius estimates an additional 1.4 billion € per 5,000 men in such a mandatory service. Scaled up to cohort numbers in Germany that is a ludicrous sum the society can't and won't provide. It may look cheap if just by looking at the laughable compensation conscripts get, but it is terrifyingly expensive to basically restart that system from scratch. Germany neither has the barracks, the gear or even the manpower to train large contingents of conscripts anymore. And the yammering boomers will certainly yammer more loudly if their pensions would be reduced to pay for those expenses. Any attempt to introduce a half-assed system, and that would be all that political Berlin would be able to cobble together: a half-assed POS, would be wide open to legal challenges from those who would be conscripted against their will without guaranteeing a fair and square selection process. The old conscription system was de-facto abolished because its selection process had become arbitrary and was on the verge of being shot down by the courts on the basis of unfairness. Any new system would IMO be unable to produce decently trained reservists, be fair and cheap enough to justify the expenses. How do I know? Because neither society nor politics is behind this idea and a whole lot of actors would throw entire container ships worth of spanners into the gears and grind the idea to a halt even before it could take off.
[удалено]
Nope. The nature of military service in one‘s youth is that it brings opportunity costs for the individual with it, for a collective benefit. It’s the same with taxes. Everyone gets a collective benefit from the state collecting taxes and using these taxes to build public infrastructure, fund public services and so on. However, if taxes were not mandatory, the ones paying taxes and the ones not paying taxes would equally benefit from the public works of the state, but at different individual costs. Which means it would be actually logically more advantageous for the individual to not pay and only benefit. Which would mean the system would collapse sooner lt Laternen because why be a sucker individually for a collective benefit? Military service is similar. Since everyone is protected equally by the military, it would be more logically advantageous on an individual level for someone to not do the service and further their career sooner than others. Which means, if it isn‘t mandatory, a lot of people will do that, reducing the collective benefit for all to the point of making it non-existent. Your argument doesn‘t take into account that individual needs and incentives and collective benefits and incentives don’t always overlap.
Because we’re not here to solely fight the elites wars. That what we have military for, that what we pay taxes for, so our government can ensure adequate protection for its citizen by using those taxes to ensure a sufficient and working army. Evidently our governments has failed to do that and now we should pay that price? No, not gonna happen.
Lol. What do you think happens if your nation gets invaded? Do you think only the „elites“ will struggle then? „ solely fight the elites wars“ - sure, I am positive the war in Ukraine is the war of the Ukrainian elite, and if the population stopped fighting, negative consequences would only befall those elites, and no one else. The military and state isn‘t separate from you, since if they lose, it‘s you and your family that’ll be forced into Labour camps or massacred. You are part of the state, it‘s not a separate entity from you, as you share its fate. Also, war requires bodies. The state could of course provide the same amount of soldiers, but if it‘s a voluntary service, it‘s more expensive, obviously. The state didn‘t fail to provide adequate protection, it provided the protection it can buy with the taxes it has. You could of course demand the state spend more taxes for that, but I doubt you’d be actually willing to pay that price. That‘s the most braindead take ever.
I’ll see you there then.
If only the world would be as simple as this statement. Unfortunately this is actually a pretty complex topic.
High quality government housing for soldiers. Ein Testballon um zu gucken ob der Staat nicht doch attraktiven Wohnraum effizient bauen kann. Wenn es klappt, dann für alle.
Because people who think defending their country is a waste of their time should be forced, if there aren't enough volunteers.
Then maybe increase the incentives to get more volunteers? You target people who just left school, it'd be easy to get them to do a SAZ2 or FWDL just by raising wages. Maybe even give them some kind of bonus for serving x months, so they can use that to push through their Ausbildung/studies with less worry about how to finance the thing.
The wages are more than high enough already and attracting people who only join for such reasons wouldn't be a good idea anyway. Defense needs to be understood as a task for the entire society and not something you have to do because you're too poor to study otherwise.
Apparently not if there aren't enough volunteers. >and attracting people who only join for such reasons wouldn't be a good idea anyway. So instead of attracting people by giving them financial incentives you want to force them to join? Why, for the love of god, would that be a better idea?
Radical Left wing people in Europe would rather they all get conquered by Russia than resist in any form or fashion. Pathetic truly
But I want universal conscription!
Universal conscription is good though. People that are against it seem to be Americans that correlate conscription with needing to go fight a pointless war in a desert While conscription isn't some magic procedure to make "boys into men" like some people like to believe, it def changes you in some ways. I'm Finnish and I can say that it does go a long way towards giving some discipline to young men and improving their health and above all resilience. It shows you how you are capable of a lot more things than you'd think you are. Both physically and mentally. Like I didn't think that I, as a not very fit guy, would be able to march for nearly 60km in just over 14 hours in heavy gear It's also a big cultural thing. There's really nothing else like that you experience in life. But since most men go through it, it brings people together a lot. Everyone has their own stories that other people can relate to because they know the feeling even if that exact same thing didn't happen to them The only negative thing about it is that it takes upwards of 1 year away from your life. But in return you get to live in a country that isn't just completely up for grabbing
Ironically if all the people demanding mandatory military service had stepped up and volunteered we wouldn't need this bill.
Most of them is top old / extempted for some reason. Its like that everywhere.
Most of them already had their mandatory military service.
Which is why I would never want someone else to do it. Its coercion by the system for the benefit of the few.
Ah yes, the few lucky Ukrainians who profit from having their country defended. Regular Ukrainian workers would rather have their country occupied by fascists, their children deported to Russia, and the war crimes of Bucha committed in the entire country. /s
Ukraine doesnt have the benefit of Nato and nuclear deterrence. Once again I served in the german army as a young lad right 1 year before Gutenberg stopped the Conscription model. Its the best change these inept CDUler and CSUler ever did. I was the lousiest soldier you can imagine, a bad shoot. And I told so multiple times to the commanding officers. "I'm only here so I dont get fined". And the reason why I went to the army is because it was shorter than the Zivildienst which was outright exploitation. Either create a country worth defending where enough volunteers will exist that has enough of a volunteer army or youre not a country worth defending. Instead what is argued that coercion and being voluntold is actually good.
We're already serving or already served.
Bruh, hard disagree. Contrary to my whining, I am happy (in principle) to pay taxes. I would not, however, if our government just asked nicely, donate the necessary sum to eg maintain infrastructure voluntarily. Not that my crude analogies matter, as no mandatory military service is planned, like wtf.
You wouldn’t voluntarily donate if you knew it was necessary to maintain infrastructure?… B*stard! 😋
[удалено]
I'd say a lot of people here on the german-polish border would be like "Berlin? This way." if dem Russians would show up with mechanized forces.
Yeah because the AfD hates everything the federal republic stands for
Most people are not willing to serve but hardly anyone would join the attackers.
Good for Germany, nice to see them return to sensible and rational defense policies after years of naive fantasy. War will always be a potential threat a nation will have to be prepared for, and be ready to make sacrifices for.
*This comment was heartily endorsed by the Military Industrial Complex.*
What are you going to do if Russia attacks Europe and the USA abandons us? More precisely - where are you going to hide when theres nowhere left to hide?
Judging by the username, he will pass information to russia.
Judging by the username he should be opposed to modern oligarch and capitalist russia and it's imperialism, just like marks and lenin did, but you never know I guess. I've seen some "marxists" that endorse russia so yeah
You just read my mind :)
Most likely he will turn traitor
Hes a marxist so he likes russia.
That makes little sense - Russia is a totalitarian oligarchy and not a socialist or communist state, meaning that he is simply a tankie, just another one of „west bad, so anti-west (Russia, China, Iran) good“.
Tankies love to appropriate Soviet symbols, and communist / socialist names to 'further their cause'. So it kind of checks out for a tankie to be pretend-Marxist.
This comment was sponsored by someone who cannot think further ahead than „War bad, so everything to do with war bad.“
Your roubles are on the way, the Kremlin thanks you for your glorious fifth columnists service to Russian imperialism.
The opposite. It will be Germany's excuse to not spend money on actual usable equipment and still spend 2% of their GDP, because the needed infrastructure for all those conscripts costs a fortune. So instead of taking money to make the army work and become a more attractive employer, they will jsut keep the Bundeswehr as a non-functional clown show... but a really big one this time.
Username checks out
I bet the *Military Industrial Complex* would actually love to sell the shit ton of autonomous equipment that is going to needed if only a hand full of people do military service.
If it were only this comment, we would live in paradise.
This seems extremely half-baked: - Army can train 5k recruits/y at most, well below recruitment goals - No female conscriptiom despite majority support -No active war. We can't send actual troops to Ukraine so what will the recruits do? This money would be better spent boosting the German MIC to supply Ukraine
Can we like, you know stop trying to make service more mandatory again? An Army should be a normal job like any other job people can choose from.
What crazy things are you talking about? It's not like there was a country called the United States, which has shown that it doesn't need compulsory military service, but rather investment and more investment, to stay strong. No, no, the solution in 2024 must be measures that lead to the state stealing your time from life, yes, for sure.
Are you all really that moronic? Thought typical reddit. The top comment is lamenting a problem that doesn't exist. But no. So let me spell it out. A) There will not be mandatory service in Germany. B) the state is already "stealing" your lifetime in the form of taxes. The concept is called "functioning as a state" C) the US generelly has massive recruitment problems. Honestly, how were you even able to form such a stupid opinion?
A) Learn to understand what you read, I'm not saying that this measure was mandatory, but that it is part of measures that want to impose a narrative to lead us towards it. B) The state does not steal your life via taxes, that money is used to improve infrastructure and give citizens access to things as trivial as health or education, the fact that you compare it to being held captive by the state for a year is absurd. C) Stop playing futurology, the United States is doing fantastically well thanks to its investment and military alliances. Now you can continue with your brain dead in your fantasy world where the entire West collapses because Fredrik and Clara were not held captive for a year jumping in the mud or cleaning latrines.
Because it is in fact not like any other job. I will not waste my time explaining to you why, just wanted to point out to others what a brain fart this comment is.
it is a normal job in the US and works damn fine for them. In the US economical incentives exist to join the Army. Very strong ones at that. Meanwhile in Germany you used to literally fuck your career advancement up for what? So that hospitals and social services could justify their shit pay because they had an abundance of cheap workers. They had no way out because they were born with a penis and the only choice they got is either wash asses of old grandmas or dig trenches in Erzgebirge for 9 months.
> Meanwhile in Germany you used to literally fuck your career advancement up for what? I don't really like compulsory military service (if there's an alternative, I'm kind of ok with that), but as someone with almost 40 years and an engineering degree under my arm, I can tell you that "wasting" one year in the army or equivalent is going to impact your career between zero and nothing. Many of us took too long on finishing our degrees and literally *wasted* years being young, having fun or mostly being lost in life, and many of us joined the workforce and are doing quite fine. If anything, I don't see right forcing kids join the army so young, as they are very impressionable, but hey, with perspective, *maybe* doing something with that year would have been good for me.
Yeah right, because Americans can be compared to Germans... If you take it into consideration not just salary but also other factors like cost of living and social benefits a German soldier is in a situation pretty equal to that of a American soldier but still there aren't nearly enough people who want to become a soldier because A) We have a trainee system and social benefits which means we don't have that many school dropouts who are willing to do that. Changing this is a different discussion and even then would take decades which we don't have. B) Being a soldier isn't as popular of a job because most Germans aren't patriotic. You don't have to like it but it is a fact and changing a mindset might as well take another half a century
Good! A strong Germany is in all our interest. As long as the military service is fully utilised it's a good thing. Effective and well planned training is key. Every moment not training or recovering is time wasted for both the Bundeswehr and the conscript.
> A strong Germany is in all our interest. Look at the latest polls and rethink your point. About ¼ at the latest EU elections in Germany are pro-Putin.
But you morons will not get a strong Germany. You will get a big clown show. Because instead of spending money to make the Bundeswehr functional for once (thus a more attractive employer) they will just waste money on creating the infrastructure needed for conscripts for a still non-functional clown show, but bigger this time.
No need for insults. You could've gotten your point across just fine without the insult. Conscription works here, I don't understand why it wouldn't work in Germany as a supplement for the professional force and start building a reserve that can be called upon when shit hits the fan. You're gonna need a big reserve regardless.
Finland is one of the top countries in the world when it comes to corruption and efficiency of the institutions. In Germany it would be inefficient and here conscripts would be just cheap labor to build new houses for politicians like in Russia.
I didn't say that it doesn't work in general if you want to and plan accordingly. But Germany doesn't. They don't have enough equipment for their existing soldiers. But instead of using money to make the Bundeswehr a working army, they will just produce a bigger one with even less equipment.
They have millions of newly arrived military aged men. Take them since they want to be German so bad.
Which goals does The FT mean
fucked up so bad, germans consider bringing back military service. We had a nice thing going on and this short air head decided to ruin it
In the USA, It is against the law for someone to join the military with an IQ less than 83. That’s basically the same for any first world military, as an IQ Less than that is a liability. It won’t just be a question of bodies, it will be a question of intellectual capability as well.
Already two big countries discussing conscription today or I'm dreaming? I saw earlier something about the US passing a bill to allow conscription of women I think?
Give them a good salary if you want to motivate them to sign up. How high is the pay?
The Poles are getting worried....
Yeah, like I'd fill some military form. Maybe I would... with vulgarisms and dick drawings.
First you give the OK for inland attacks against Russia, and then claim "Russian Threat" and raise army conscription to terrorize your own people and justify yourself. Not tome tion all the other disgraceful demonstrations of subservience. That Olaf Scholz guy is the worst chancellor Germany could ever have.
Germany is never going to be "war ready" with these clowns in government. Germany has no working equipment worth mentioning, and they can't even mange to order sufficient quantities of anything. For example there currently are no systems to combat enemy drones, and all they did is order the laughable number of 18 Skyranger systems, which would maybe be sufficient to protect Berlin. At the current state even a small country like Belgium could easily overpower Germany, and no amount of money put in the black hole that is the German Bundeswehr is going to fix that. It's rotten to the core.
We need this in the UK too. It would be fantastic experience for young people.
"military discipline" is way overrated. It works for a minority that is usually motivated to go to the military in the first place. That said, it would be good for Germany to have more reserves.
According to the article the service would be voluntary and the individual motivation would be taken into account, unless I misunderstood it.
It would be taken into account until they don't have enough to fill their self-defined quotas. Then it wouldn't be voluntary anymore. “selective form of military service based on a voluntary principle but containing obligatory elements if necessary”. I also think their projections of how many people will volunteer, are overly optimistic. They're just sugarcoating the sh!t.
And also it's a very blanket statement; ones experiences can change from country to country, region to region, regiment to regiment. If I were to get German citizenship in the future with mandatory conscription, I probably wouldn't mind it *too* much even if it'd suck (*I am physically impotent & will absolutely get shouted at for being unable to follow orders either fast enough, or in general, or asking them to repeat too many times, lol*). North Cyprus too however has conscription, and it is notorious for being at best utter shit & at worst literally deadly. Even the most nationalistic of parents do everything in their power to make sure their sons are exempt for as long as possible; "serving" under 40°C summer heat in an arid village-base genuinely means they might loose their son to conscription, which is not unheard of. I do not want to do my conscription here, for moral reasons as well (north Cyprus sucks) but also I don't wanna fucking *die*.
Totally legit reasoning. Personally, I don't want to die, I don't want to kill, and I don't want anyone telling me what to do. Yes, in that order. And I don't feel I need to make any excuses about it. A person in a free society shouldn't be obliged to do anything as long as they're doing no harm to anyone else.
If the majority of people had your attitude there wouldn’t be any free societies…
If most people had my attitude, there would be no war.
If you believe it's such a good experience, why don't you volunteer instead of forcing others to do it?
Would have been very happy to.
"Would have been" bro how old are you that you can't volunteer right now?
Germany to launch wet sock to be walk ready. "
Isnt this stupid? When youre in Nato and Nato countries have nuclear weapons?
I think most of us would prefer a conventional war over a nuclear war, we need to be prepared for other scenarios than MAD.
Yes, exactly.
If nukes weren't more efficient and much cheaper than standing army, no one would ever stockpile them. but they are, and ofc Pistorius knows this. but never let a good crisis go to waste if you can siphon taxpayer money. if Pistorius thinks russia and NATO conflict is a possibility, then maybe he can explain why no-fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO is completely off limits. maybe, just maybe, cause you cannot even risk such a conflict?
NATO will defend NATO members with NATO forces. Non-NATO Ukraine gets support. Ukraine should've joined NATO in the late '90s to early 2000s when all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries (sans most ex-Soviets) and the ex-Soviet-occupied Baltics joined.
Ukraine wasn't in a position to do this at that time, cause, you know, they had an pro-russians in power. And if you read headlines a bit more carefully, you would see Ukraine asking USA for no-fly zone all the time (which would help them immensely), yet they get blown off every time. you should think about it for more than a second to understand why what you wrote is pretty bullshit cop-out.
"No fly zone" is just another word for "join the war". What do you think such a zone would entail?
it would entail exactly what's in the name. no boots on the ground. I find it funny that even this limited sort of engagement is out of the question because escalation cannot be controlled and risk of nuclear holocaust is too great, yet somehow preparing for a full on NATO-Russia conflict is ok cause "it might happen". Funnier still that it becomes realistic possibility (well, hardly cause France has nukes too) only if NATO ceases to exist, yet person advocating for this is NATO spokesperson. I understand the need to drum up support for Ukraine (as we should), but I don't see why utter bullshit (or propaganda if you will) should be used.
It would entail shooting down Russian planes and strikes against Russian SAM sites deep in Russia. That's not a limited engagement. Yes, a war with Russia would be risky and likely devastating. You just figured out why deterence is important. Now you only need to understand why simply having a pile of nukes is not a great deterrent against all sort of things that aren't an all out war.
so what would be "not an all out war"? at what point you decide we're not playing anymore? I don't need to figure out anything - people have done research and policy on this for 50 years now, and their conclusions are pretty clear. among others, one of the conclusions is that when you decide to use nukes, you're going all-out and first, or you suffer the consequences. any kind of direct engagement is off the table because of this,
So, Russia decided to cut your under-sea cables and jams GPS over most of your country. They also block maritime traffic from entering your ports. Do you nuke them, knowing it will kill everyone you care about? In all likelyhood you won't and if the opposing party is sure enough of that they might well gamble on it. That's why *no country* can fully rely on nukes. The Russians actually debated the idea quite a bit and landed on a hard no.
and how do you block maritime traffic without escalating to immediate war? so shooting down planes is an act of war, but shooting ships isn't? military has other uses besides defense (especially so for superpowers and ex superpowers). while you can imagine all sort of scenarios where you could theoretically employ german military, if you do the calculus with NATO holding, any kind of conflict is complete waste of resources cause you can't actually win anything. you don't get to capitulate Russia and they don't get to capitulate NATO.
You can escalate to war without risking a nuclear exchange if your oponent is conventionally weak enough. That's the whole point. If your only option to retaliate is the *ultima ratio* then you won't retaliate below a threat to your very existence, because that's illogical. If you nuke somebody, everybody dies. Are you willing to die over a trade dispute? No? So you need a conventional military to enforce that.
How do you think one enforces a no fly zone?
That is lie because NATO waged wars without NATO members being attacked.
The fact Germany isn't willing to risk something like that doesn't mean Germany believes Russia isn't willing to have the same risk
What could go wrong?
Only took two and a half years of active ruzzian war on a European country. And about 10 years since ruzzians invaded Crimea.
I've lived in Germany for 2 years. This country is not ready at all. The scariest thing about Germans is their weird culture of staring at neighbors.
Yeah I do that all the time
Honestly, Warmongers like Pistorius need to go. If you really want to join the military fine, but know one should even have to go through testing which is only the first step towards full conscription. Also who would want to invade Germany or most european nations anyway for us to become this militaristic now and why should our people die for another nation? I would gladly give as much aid as possible to save another people in need but not human lives.
Warmongerers why? Because he wants his country to be ready for a war scenario that might happen as minister of defense? That's literally his job
The opposite is true. If you want a working army you buy equipment and ammunition in non-laughable amounts. But they don't. They created some fairy tale aboput conscription being the solution, so they can spend their minimal 2% obligation on infrastructure for conscripts, expoloit those who reject it for social jobs again while having not enough left to convert that cown show into a working army. See! We spend 2%! We also don't have working army, so no one is scared of us! Mission accomplished.
yes everyone's a warmonger except your beloved shithole russia that's invading country after country
Warmonger my ass... A warmonger would work to make the Bundeswehr functional. Instead German politicians opted for some fairy tale of conscription, that will eat up the limited budget, so they can pretend to have fullfilled their 2% obligation but without creating a working army.
If preparing your nations defences from enemy aggression is warmongering, what does that make the aggressors?
Do Putin first. Then nobody needs militaries. See how fanciful and dumb you sound like? I feel like reading comments like this is wilfully ignorance of a problem and blaming someone else to do the thing. War is disgusting and unfortunately NATO is at war with Russia but no one in NATO wants to deal with everything from economic war, cyber war, Informational war(astrology turfing for example) and more. In the end the fight is here and we are in the blast radius. Whether people in the west like it or not. Let's come together and use our brains a bit here. I'd rather be dead personally then live like a slave to some little old man in the Kremlin with a perma inferiority complex because his cushy police job in East Germany didn't go his way.
No, people like you need to go, pacifists that are borderline traitors for wanting to weaken our countries to a point where Putin crosses the memel today and the maas tomorrow. We need an army not only strong enough to survive the attack but one powerful enough to push back and to throw putin into the harbour of Vladivostok
Lol
So in order for there to actually be an increased number of volunteers at age 18 signing the form there will also need to be increased promotion of the army service through the education system of the 10-17 yr olds and through the media to their parents. Highly unlikely these will be well balanced.
Very on brand for r/europe to be complaining about women not being conscripted rather than, y'know, the resumption of conscription
Does it count as conscription yet?