At the end of October, the Bundeswehr said it counted 181,383 soldiers in its ranks — that’s still some distance from the target of 203,000 that the German military hopes to reach by 2025. This has given rise to concern in times of Russia’s war against Ukraine, which has once again reminded Germans how quickly conflicts can erupt in Europe.

Since taking office at the beginning of 2023, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has been thinking about ways to make the Bundeswehr more attractive as a career. He said he has received 65 concrete proposals from his ministry on recruitment and reforming training methods.

  • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?

    • avater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      it’s not the want this but with dipshits like Russia at our borders there is no other way then ramping up those numbers.

      Si vis pacem para bellum

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        In a dire situation, I have serious doubts common would not volunteer or simply take up arms to defend those dear to them.

        But we are not speaking about defending family, friends and home here: this is war preparation. And the overall general feeling is that war is undesirable.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      but it shouldn’t be just military.

      Already the case. Quoth Article 12a GG:

      1. Men who have attained the age of eighteen may be required to serve in the Armed Forces, in the Federal Border Police, or in a civil defence organisation.

      2. Any person who, on grounds of conscience, refuses to render military service involving the use of arms may be required to perform alternative service. The duration of alternative service shall not exceed that of military service. Details shall be regulated by a law, which shall not interfere with the freedom to make a decision in accordance with the dictates of conscience and which shall also provide for the possibility of alternative service not connected with units of the Armed Forces or of the Federal Border Police.

      3. Persons liable to compulsory military service who are not called upon to render service pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this Article may, when a state of defence is in effect, be assigned by or pursuant to a law to employment involving civilian services for defence purposes, including the protection of the civilian population; they may be assigned to public employment only for the purpose of discharging police functions or such other sovereign functions of public administration as can be discharged only by persons employed in the public service. The employment contemplated by the first sentence of this paragraph may include services within the Armed Forces, in the provision of military supplies or with public administrative authorities; assignments to employment connected with supplying and servicing the civilian population shall be permissible only to meet their basic requirements or to guarantee their safety.

      4. If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms.

      5. Prior to the existence of a state of defence, assignments under paragraph (3) of this Article may be made only if the requirements of paragraph (1) of Article 80a are met. In preparation for the provision of services under paragraph (3) of this Article that demand special knowledge or skills, participation in training courses may be required by or pursuant to a law. In this case the first sentence of this paragraph shall not apply.

      6. If, during a state of defence, the need for workers in the areas specified in the second sentence of paragraph (3) of this Article cannot be met on a voluntary basis, the right of German citizens to abandon their occupation or place of employment may be restricted by or pursuant to a law in order to meet this need. Prior to the existence of a state of defence, the first sentence of paragraph (5) of this Article shall apply, mutatis mutandis.

      The short of the story is that the draft was never abolished, instead they suspended its application. Constitutionality-wise what became an issue is that the army would only call up a fraction of eligible people, if we re-do all this they probably have to make sure to call up everyone and then funnel lots into other areas as the military doesn’t even want that many people. Civil defence certainly won’t mind.


      internship at a town planning and engineering service, to litter pickup, to the military.

      It’s generally either medical services (EMT, distributing food for the elderly, various other stuff) or civil defence. If you’re picky and engaged you could even get a gig counting birds as certain nature preservation efforts and data collection count as civil defence (to do catastrophe relief it helps to have an eye on nature), don’t think they’ll take a random slob over someone who actually wants to be an ornithologist, though.

      What we really shouldn’t be re-introducing is that “distribute food for the elderly” stuff. Zivis were always a way for the system to depress wages in the sector and now noone wants to be a nurse for the elderly. I mean if people really want to sure go ahead but we shouldn’t be funnelling people there on a default path, that should probably some big-picture civil defence stuff, definitely including evacuations if only because it’s way easier to evacuate a city when a lot of people there already know how to do it.

    • Zomboomafoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m in favor of mandatory civil service before college, most kids could use a few more years of development before picking a career

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Absolutely not. Being required to perform service instead of living in your mom’s basement, unemployed, getting stoned and drunk for a few years while you concoct hyperbolic statements about mandatory service is not slavery. You are not forced into service based on sex, color, religion, economic status (sort of, as explained), or used to raise someone else’s profits while you get nothing.

        Service should be paid. You should be able to fill out a wish list for the jobs you want or might qualify for. You get to leave, uncontested, when you’ve completed service. That is not slavery.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          by your logic the North Korean people aren’t slaves, so North Korean labor is fine, got it.

        • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          6 months ago

          Slavery isn’t always life-long, and it isn’t always done to just one group. Indentured servitude and serfdom are forms of slavery. It’s forced labor against your will and with no way to avoid it if you’re subjected.

          Mandatory service means forcing you to work at the point of a gun.
          This sounds hyperbolic, but what happens when you refuse and simply want to keep living your life freely instead?
          You are given a prison sentence, and if you refuse that, in the last consequence, the state reserves the right to use deadly force to make you comply.

          You can ad-hominem every young person as useless basement-dweller, assign beautiful words to your forced labor, use bad comparisons, and pay people to do it.
          It doesn’t change the fact that you want to force people to work, and their only other option is prison (where they will also be forced to work) or death.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Mandatory service means forcing you to work at the point of a gun.

            What?

            Slavery isn’t always life-long

            Oh. so that’s ok then? lookit you simultaneously saying slavery isn’t THAT bad, but OMG mandatory service is SLAVERY.

            You’re full of shit, that whole reply is. Maybe some countries are extreme, but it doesn’t have to be like that, and it’s stupid to paint with such a broad brush about mandatory service. If someone’s country is pointing guns at citizens to pave a road, that’s a problem with the country, not the service.

            • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              What?

              I explain my reasoning in the following paragraph.

              you simultaneously saying slavery isn’t THAT bad

              I’m not saying slavery isn’t bad, I’m saying the term slavery applies even to forced work that is temporary.

              And please explain what you think will happen if someone refuses to do this mandatory service OR go to jail for their refusal?

        • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          School isn’t work. And you don’t get sent to prison if you don’t attend.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            School isn’t work.

            I think quite a few students would beg to differ. And you do get sent to juvenile detention centers iirc. The parents certainly can be jailed.

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would think it’s “of the 65 proposals, at least one includes conscription as part of its plan”.

      Meaning, two things:

      1. I think the submitted proposals are likely multifaceted, and conscription is but one potential facet

      2. I bet more than one proposal also employs conscription

      I wonder if any reports will ever be publicly published about these proposals.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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

      • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      While I agree with you, a military force used exclusively for territorial defence is kind of a different animal to militaries used to project force in another country.

      I think the reason Finland exists as an independent country today is a result of the theoretical ability to field 250-900k strong decently equipped military force. It is a comparatively expensive solution as we have implemented it, and there is an equality issue in an all male conscription, but as a former conscript and current reservist I don’t feel that the elder generations are taking advantage of me in this way. My father and grandfather served in post war FDF and great grandfathers fought in the war.

      Even though I’m fine with the system, I do have a few caveats: the FDF currently employs professional military and volunteers in peacekeeping and other international force projection operations. I personally would have a moral objection in operating outside of Finnish borders in all but few situations.

      I am happy to expand on the subject if someone has questions.

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Look, again, I have nothing to protect. What should I protect? The homes I will never able to afford? The lifestyles of the rich that I will never have?

        If this society was actually fair then maybe I would indeed have something to protect. As it stands now, I literally do not care one inch. I own nothing and probably never will. If I had a home, then I’d be willing to pick up arms. But half the homes in Germany are straight up owned by corporations. They can go hire their own mercenaries.

        • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          That is a fair point.

          I have at least some confidence that the system I would protect is better than the one any realistic invader would offer.

          The behavior of attackers toward civilian population is another aspect: I want to ensure my family and friends don’t get subjected to the same kind of treatment as we have seen from various armies.

    • qyron@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Riddick3001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m unsure about the practices in Portugal. In Northern Europe we use the so called Scandinavian model..

        This entails :1) gender-neutral and 2) selective and competitive, and therefore in principle still voluntary. Also there’s an opt-out option, and or a civilian service option. According to some comments, it appears to work that way as well.

        • qyron@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Current voluntary system, to the extent of my knowledge, is open for all portuguese citizens, of legal age, regardless of gender. Level of education can be a factor taken into consideration for career and entry rank.

          The system is voluntary only, as in those interested have to actively request entry and go through the selection process.

          Civilian service, like firefighter duty, was an option for conscience objectors, that refused service, either by religious, philosophical or moral reasons, but no longer exists as the state ceased drafting/mandatory military service.

          When a portuguese enters the military is solely by their own willing choice and that makes sure we fight for a cause.

          • Riddick3001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Sounds pretty much like how it is in the North (Scandinavian model ) afaik.

            added: example Dutch army chief article

            "Some 600 youngsters took part in a voluntary year of service with the armed forces introduced this year along similar lines to Sweden. Wijnen said he hopes that in the future 2,000 to 3,000 youngsters will take part, around one third of whom will probably sign up for an army career. "

            • qyron@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              No.

              Here, volunteering for military service already implies becoming part of whatever branch the candidate applies to. It isn’t a trial experience. Some will be integrated into the permanent ranks, others will serve a few years under contract and then relieved of duty.

  • Additional_Prune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    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…

  • Copernican@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • tribut@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    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!

    • avater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      ist ja nicht so dass wir eine andere Wahl haben bei Arschlochstaaten wie Russland…

      Und mal ehrlich den Wehrdienst verweigern war sehr einfach, zumindest hat im Gegensatz zu mir keiner meiner Freunde an der Waffe Dienst getan.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Riddick3001@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      their neonazi

      You seem disoriented.

      THEY are not the “neonazis”, in case you haven’t been paying attention.

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        In case you are disoriented, because you definitely seem so, the German army has been having a huge neonazi problem for years now. You’re welcome.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          ya, but EVERYTHING has a neo-Nazi problem, they are at least addressing the worst of it, and yes they have disbanded and kicked out half the special forces a few years ago due to this

          • febra@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Look, a friend of mine has been in the Bundeswehr as a proper full on soldier and he quit after four years of constant bullying because his parents are turkish. I used to want to join as a reservist until he told me to stay away from that place.

        • Riddick3001@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          German army has been having a huge neonazi problem

          Maybe should’ve started with that instead of:

          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.”

          These are not the same.

  • olizet@lemmy.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Won’t happen. We don’t have the infrastructure. Or weapons. Or trainers.

    • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Infrastructure can be developed, weapons can be built, trainers can be taught (or borrowed, probably). It’s a speed bump, not a roadblock.

      • Metz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Germany has currently a 80 billion euro hole in its budget. It does not even has the money to pay for the existing situation.

      • lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s not how it works in Germany. You can’t just pull in the small number of men you need to fill up your quota. That violates the Wehrgerechtigkeit and is the biggest reason conscription was frozen in the first place.