A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
From 1962, the GDR also introduced general compulsory military service for all men between the ages of 18 and 26 for a basic military service of 18 months. The only recognized reason for refusal was religious conviction.
So if you believed in a god who told you it was immoral to serve in the military you didn't have to, but if you believed it was immoral because you came to that conclusion by thinking critically about the arguments for and against military service, you were just fucked?
It's pretty much the same in the US. Religion is apparently more important than any other personal belief.
World War 3 is ramping up at a faster pace
Si vis pacem para bellum
it's not that we want this but with dipshits like Russia at our borders there is no other way then ramping up those numbers and prepare for the worst.
Also it was very easy to opt out of it. I think I was one of the last who got drafted in 2007 and all of my friends avoided it by simply writing a letter and explaining that they have doubts using weapons.
can you also join the group which responds to flooding and storms, as an alternative?
I’m not entirely opposed to compulsory service, but it shouldn’t be just military. Civil service should be included as well, anything from internship at a town planning and engineering service, to litter pickup, to the military. I could already guess that socioeconomic factors would favor the well-connected and wealthy the soft jobs of working in the governor’s office vs being sent out to pick up trash along the highways, but maybe a lottery system would help prevent that. There’s always ways to game a system, though. Unfortunately.
Mandatory service isn’t the best answer, it’s just one answer.
All the alternatives you suggest don't accomplish what the military does - transforming a person into a non-thinking unconditional follower of orders.
I've seen time and time again when veterans come into the civilian working world. The boss tells them to impale their hand to the desk, and they'll ask which hand, what gauge nail, and what type of hammer. On the other hand, you put them in a situation that requires individual decision making, no matter how small, and they'll be entirely lost.
These are solely my experiences and probably don't apply to every man, woman, and child who has ever worn the uniform.
Fuck this, I can’t stand the idea that in the 21st century you can still have involuntary servitude.
My country recently reinstated mandatory military service. I mean obviously, how else can we get people to sign up. There is of course the idea of actually paying well and giving proper benefits to people who voluntarily sign up, but this is clearly lunacy.
And this is the single biggest reason I am emigrating from my country before my three male offspring are 18, unless this decision is repealed in the next 5 or so years.
What country is that?
Latvia
I thought Latvia reinstated military service to ensure enough trained people to resist a possible Russian invasion. Is that correct? And, if so, is this not a worthy cause?
Genuine question, since I live far away and don't have to worry about being invaded by Russia.
Note: conscription is just one of the 65 proposals being thought over
I would think it's "of the 65 proposals, at least one includes conscription as part of its plan".
Meaning, two things:
I think the submitted proposals are likely multifaceted, and conscription is but one potential facet
I bet more than one proposal also employs conscription
I wonder if any reports will ever be publicly published about these proposals.
they can eat my shit I'm not going to a war just because some dipshits told me to do so
and I'm also not going to join this "don't ask why just do it" hierachy
btw our former head of state advocated for the Iraq war so yeah fuck no
Isn’t it rich that all the fat boomers with their broken knees get to force young people to go fight their wars and protect their fortunes when in reality it is young people that are actually working and providing for their country and the over 25 million German pensioners and the rich living off of our taxes, subventions, and much more?
When I’ll be able to afford a home at a fair price and not worry about basic necessities even though I’ve been breaking my back studying for five years and actually working, then I’ll maybe think about fighting their wars and protecting their fortunes. Because as it stands now, I can’t afford shit, and I surely can’t afford to waste one year learning how to protect old fucks that have destroyed our economy. I don’t have anything to fight for. Maybe if I owned shit I would actually be interested in joining the military. As it stands now, they can go enlist themselves.
I've read Machiavelli's The Discourses on Livy and he makes a potent point about republics: because people feel they have some investment in the government - and something to lose - they fight harder.
A key difference versus fighting members of a monarchy.
You make a fair point that the government and its economy aren't serving you well. The more people feel that way, the less effective a military may be.
People fight to keep things they care about. If the government isn't one, that's important.
Edits: spelling only
Yes! And in ancient Athens, citizens had to provide their own arms and armor. So, to fight as a hoplite in the phalanx, you had to be wealthy enough to afford the gear, which pretty much meant that you had to be a landowner. Poorer men would fight as skirmishers. So, the burden of defending the state was put directly on those who had the most to lose.
Outside of war, wealthy citizens were also expected to contribute the most towards public infrastructure projects. There was a strong link between wealth and privilege, but also between wealth and responsibility. It is exactly the opposite today, where the most wealthy pay almost zero income tax and would never fight in battle. And that is why people are losing faith in our system.
Isn’t it rich that all the fat boomers with their broken knees get to force young people to go fight their wars and protect their fortunes
Welcome to most every modern war ever.
Germany and many other European countries which had abolished the compulsory military service years ago, are considering reintroducing it.
We had some decades of peace, but those times appear to be ending: EU should prepare for war by end of the decade
Add fyi: Is compulsory military service coming back in Europe
That will be a severe shot in the foot.
Professional, volunteer, military forces are a better solution. This only implies governments need to create conditions for people to want to join and the possibility to handle guns and use them against other human beings should be the bottom of an 100 items list, along patriotism and duty fulfilling towards national interest.
The last two plus an intriguing "character development" statement figured in a report for the reintroduction of mandatory military service in my country (Portugal), written by a civilian comitee, headed and divulged by a woman in her very early 30's. Severe public backlash followed, which was met by very thinly veiled proto fascist rethoric from the same spokesperson.
Mandatory military service is a de facto control and pressure tool over the population. Never again. Anywhere. Governments exist to serve the country and the people, not to make use of it.
How about we try making it less shitty first?
La puta mili, as young men called it in Spain. Lots of hurry up and wait. Very little fun time driving tanks around. My father got drafted. I got lucky and didn't.
It's been only 13 years since the last conscripts were called up. Crazy. I really thought it was over. It's probably not going to be brought back immediately, but the way things are heading...
Can't conscription help build a more anti war sentiment? It's easy to send young people to war when it's the poor and the elites and middle class call the shots. But if the military has more equal class representation, maybe leaders in a democratic society would behave differently.
Except when you're privileged its easy to find some doctors to get you exempted. I've seen it with my own eyes. None of the boys with rich parents had to serve.
Just pay the dr to say you have bone spurs lol.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Since taking office at the beginning of 2023, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has been thinking about ways to make the Bundeswehr more attractive as a career.
As journalist and defense and security policy expert Thomas Wiegold told DW: "A major frustration in the Bundeswehr is the bureaucracy.
When Pistorius floated his ideas about conscription in December, he faced a barrage of criticism, including from within his own center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD).
Party co-chair Saskia Esken said it would be impossible to implement mandatory recruitment on an ad hoc basis "because the training units required for this are no longer available."
"The reintroduction of compulsory service would be a serious encroachment on the freedom of young people who want to orient themselves professionally," FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr warned in an interview with the Funke Mediengruppe.
"Who would have thought around two years ago that the Bundestag would decide on setting up a special fund of €100 billion for the Bundeswehr against the backdrop of a Russian war of aggression?"
The original article contains 900 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Fuck them. They can go fight themselves their own shitty wars. I do not stand with the German government supporting and fueling all conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. If it ever comes to that, I'd rather break my own legs than take part in their neonazi filled summer camp.
Won't happen. We don't have the infrastructure. Or weapons. Or trainers.
Infrastructure can be developed, weapons can be built, trainers can be taught (or borrowed, probably). It's a speed bump, not a roadblock.
Germany has currently a 80 billion euro hole in its budget. It does not even has the money to pay for the existing situation.
Even the extra budget (Sondervermögen) of 100 million € is not nearly enough to do this. Suren technically it is possible, but it would require so much money, that it is highly unlikely, that we would see the parliament in unison here. Currently the Bundeswehr cannot handle millions of conscriptions.
I don't think infrastructure would be the limiting factor. Looks like Germany is 20k short of their target.
Denmark, for instance, still has compulsory service. However, it is only enacted if they have fewer volunteers than their target, and will only compel participation up to the limit. Denmark has not needed to compel anyone to join in quite a long time, fortunately.
That said, under a similar model, Germany would only need to add 20,000. Likely less per year depending on the commitment term. Eg 10k/year if they are conscripted for 2 years. Also assuming that volunteer attrition and signups offset each other.
the bigger issue is about the moral justification of forcing someone into military service in the 21st century.