# The German Army



## Fader (24 May 2003)

Being a big world war 2 buff, I felt like looking up the website for the German Army and found the "German Federal Armed Forces." My German is... well, nonexistant; and the google translation seems somewhat lacking, but from what I gathered, it seems military service is somewhat mandatory in thier country (it also looks like the uniforms and equipment they have are modernized versions of the uniforms and equipment they had during the second world war).  Now I know other European nations, like Switzerland have mandatory military service for it‘s citizens. On that note, what do people here think of mandatory military service?  Personally, I‘m against it.  It‘s something completly unnessesary in a modernized society such as ours.


----------



## Danjanou (24 May 2003)

I think you‘ll find that mandatory national service is the norm in most countries wheter among the developing nations and/or what would be considered the industrialized ones. 

As far as I know the only industrialized nations without conscription of some form or another are Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the USA. Mind I may have missed one or two.

Most of the European nations have it, including what I‘m sure you would consider the more "enlightened" ones such as Sweden, Denmark Norway etc.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 May 2003)

The same people who bitch about youth crime, gangs, etc. are often the first ones to object to compulsory service.

National service doesn‘t have to be military; the Germans had a neat set up in the Reich Arbeits Dienst before WW II; all males went into the RAD and helped build roads etc. before their compulsory military service.

Today, national service could involve such things as tree planting, which many kids do before university any way.  

The problem with making national service military only is that it dilutes the talent pool in the Army and instead of gung ho volunteers, you have a lot of whiny, long haired slack jaws who don‘t want to be there.

As fore society being too civilized or modernized ‘for that‘ - you‘ll need to explain that one to the class because on the face of it, it seems rather silly.  If you mean we are too fat, lazy and stupid, I could agree with that, but I‘m not sure that the word "modernized" really means that.


----------



## Danjanou (25 May 2003)

Nice points Michael. 

Cuba as far as I know has something similar, in that while the majority go into the military (army, navy, airforce, border guards), others do their mandatory service in other areas such as MINIT (Ministry of Interior) fire department, national police etc.

I presume by Modern, he was referring to industrialized society or natiosn (G8 nations etc.). You know the type where 90% of the youth is out of shape, pasty looking and parked in front of their computers playing games all day long.

Ooops sorry didn‘t mean to start ranting there.


----------



## Etown (25 May 2003)

> As far as I know the only industrialized nations without conscription of some form or another are Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the USA. Mind I may have missed one or two.


Both Spain and France have dropped mandatory service requirements (much to one of my friend‘s delights after having served 2 months in a French prison for desertion). It actually seems that most of the western nations are moving away from conscription. Anybody know what Greece and Italy do?


----------



## Etown (25 May 2003)

> On that note, what do people here think of mandatory military service? Personally, I‘m against it. It‘s something completly unnessesary in a modernized society such as ours.


Well I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I don‘t believe that forcing people to enlist adds strength to any military, it just lowers the moral of the people that chose to serve...well, sort of. 

On the otherhand, having a population that had done some form of military service does have the benefit of increasing public support for military spending. This is good for the military...well, sort of.

Basically you run into the problem of training a significant number of new recruits every year, most of whom will never stay past their minimum required term of service. This is of course not the cost effective way to build a strong military. You also end up with a very large military with very limited abilities, which in turn ends up decreasing support for said military. 

Spain is a very good example, under the dictatorship of General Franco, military service was cumpulsory (not surprising). Spain ended up with quite a large military but it‘s resources were drained and throughout Franco‘s rule Spain‘s army lost it‘s strength and its effectiveness. No money was availiable for new equipment, services or operations. Since Franco‘s death conscription was eleminated and Spain has spent the last thirty years rebuilding a smaller but much more effective military. Now the advantage that they had was that they started with a decent budget (the byproduct of a military led dictatorship) and reduced numbers in order to effectively work within that budget even the purchase of aircraft carriers seemed cheap compared to what they were used to. Here we have bigger problems, we have a limited budget  *and* limited numbers.

So where does that leave us? Without public support it doesn‘t really matter what you do and in this day and age public support is more about media and politics than actual reality. Conscription doesn‘t fit into the modern world, in the west we pride ourselves on our freedom of choice no matter how ignorant the basis for the decision. Until the west wakes up I only want to see the guys who want to defend my country standing on the front lines.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 May 2003)

Do we really want to pattern our military on the Italian Army?


----------



## Etown (25 May 2003)

> Do we really want to pattern our military on the Italian Army?


ROTFL


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 May 2003)

On second thought, maybe the LSVW (good Italian truck) is only the tip of the iceberg....maybe that was the plan all along???


----------



## Bellman (26 May 2003)

While national service would give many of our young people many life skills the cost is quite great. Imagine that the average person has 30-45 working years in their life from the age of 18 to somewhere in their late 40s, 50s, or 60s when they retire. Imagine taking several of those years and instead of using them to be productive members of the ecomony have them live off those other working people. It ends up with lots of economic damage, lots of unhappy teens and an uneffictive force of conscripts. While I think that a large portion of the population could use a two year course on taking care of themselves national service and conscription in general is not a viable peacetime alternative for an economy like ours.

Paul Bellman


----------



## Danjanou (26 May 2003)

Thanks for the update on the French and Spanish miitaries. I‘ll have to let a friend know with dual citizenship he‘s safe to go "home."

I‘d be curious to see the end results of this in a couple of years. The end of the draft in the US in the 1970‘s marked a serious decline in the quality of their army (mind their were other factors too, aftereffects of Vietnam) which took almost a generation to remove as witnessed by their less than good performances in Grenada, and Panama prior to the 1st Gulf War.

Be intereting to see if the French Army becomes worse or better as it goes to an all volunteer force.


----------



## greeves (26 May 2003)

Keep in mind, France hasn‘t completely eliminated national service, only compulsary military service.  Young French men and women are still obliged to attend Defence preparedness courses, register with the Department of Defence, notify the authorities of any change of address until they reach the age of 25.  Also, the last part of their obligations is that they must be prepared to be called up in case of a "national crisis" - a nice way of saying your ***  is in the army the next time Germany invades...


----------



## greeves (26 May 2003)

In case anyone is interested - and can read French - the link to the information in my last post is here...  French Ministry of Defence - National Service


----------



## haplo6 (26 May 2003)

The German army does have mandatory service but it recent times that service has expanded to include options for doing government jobs and civil service.  I think someone down the line probably realized that while instilling a sense of discipline and pride in a nations youth is a good idea, having a weak and unenthusiastic army isn‘t.  By doing this Germany has eliminated those that don‘t want military service from those that do while still ensuring that every citizen has done some sort of service for the Government.  I think its a rather smart idea that other countries should think of adopting.


----------



## Danjanou (26 May 2003)

VeryRudeIndeed 

Thanks for the link. Interesting site, provided as you said one can muddle along in French.


----------



## Gunnar (26 May 2003)

Just out of curiosity, what would you say to a way of increasing motivation by following Heinlein and giving a vote only to those who have served?

Not that I support it, but it seems along the lines of the "service to the gubmint" thread.  It would guarantee that those who were in the army had some motivation for being there...


----------



## Fader (26 May 2003)

Who has more taxes per social program?  The Germans or us?


----------



## haplo6 (27 May 2003)

Germans pay much less tax then we do however everything is balanced in the fact that they "pay as you go."  Meaning that Healthcare isn‘t free, neither are basic things like public washrooms.  Its good if your like me and haven‘t seen a doctor in 10 years but bad if your like all the people back home in Ontario who abuse the system by going to the emergency room if they sniffle twice in an hour.  Other European countries pay even less tax then Germans but they get less social services.  Example, I drove from Lyon to Paris, back through Paris (800km)to NÃ¼rnberg and it cost me 60€ (100Cdn) in Autobahn tolls.  Everything is balanced out in the end.  Personally I would rather pay for that stuff in taxes then be surprised by getting large bills in the mail for stuff I normally take for granted.


----------



## riggah052 (5 Jun 2003)

The Israeli‘s also have a mandatory service set up, right after high school education, where you have to serve a minumum of two years, after that, you are free to choose to continue your service, or join the civilian populace.


----------



## Thaedes (5 Jun 2003)

The reason Canada does not have mandatory military service, and never will is a direct result of the beliefs of which the country was founded on.  Freedoms in particular.  If its mandatory, then you remove the freedom to choose.  How could we allow ourselves to be so hypocritical here in Canada and then go to foriegn countries and prattle about freedom‘s.  What credit would we have?

What would be smarter, is to offer incentives.  An example would be the Peace Corps in the United States.  You do a year or two of service, all volunteer, and you get great  benefits for when you return.

Just a thought anyways.


----------



## rolandstrong (6 Jun 2003)

This issue has arisen in Canada a number of times, particularly during WWI and WWII. The "Conscription Crisis" as it called became a huge political nightmare for King in the 40‘s. Split the country. Quebec was vehemently opposed, and threats were thus made to Canadian national unity. Only when the Japanese invaded Alaska did the public support a draft that could augment our oversees forces. 

On another thread, relating to conscription, the US went to an all volunteer force in 1975, and the professionalism of their forces went up dramatically. Schwartzkopf makes note of this event in his autobiography. I think there is something to be said for an all voluntary force. Generally your troops will be more motivated, and in our situation that is one of our greatest assets given the token political support we get.


----------



## rolandstrong (6 Jun 2003)

Just to clarify a point on the US and stronger military performance mentioned by Schwartzkopf.

It was not instantaneous.

He mentioned that it took a while to restructure the system...around a decade (and a trial war in Grenada).


----------



## Fader (6 Jun 2003)

I think the CF already has great incentives for being in, especially within the reserves.  I‘m the first to prattle on about how sweet we got it as reservists.  I mean for a class A day, $80 a day for a day that normally runs from 730-5 with 2 fifteen minute coffee breaks and an hour lunch (half an hour if it‘s provided).  That‘s about the same as most places for an entry level part time position.  Promotion to Corporal after 2 years time, and a raise to about $100 sweetens the deal.  $2000 a year for University students for 4 years.  Incredibly flexble work schedules.  Normally guarunteed full time employment during the summer (although alot of friends of mine at the unit got screwed over hardcore this year, but not being loaded since they changed the security requirement).  For me, getting a course in a sweet ***  party town within range of New York, Toronoto, Montreal and Ottawa.  I‘ve mentioned it a lot, only to piss off alot of folk here, but that‘s like a paid vacation!


----------



## Stewpid (5 Jun 2007)

WProhphet said:
			
		

> The reason Canada does not have mandatory military service, and never will is a direct result of the beliefs of which the country was founded on.  Freedoms in particular.  If its mandatory, then you remove the freedom to choose.  How could we allow ourselves to be so hypocritical here in Canada and then go to foreign countries and prattle about freedom‘s.  What credit would we have?
> 
> 
> Just a thought anyways.



Just on this one to add to your thought and to say "never will" is a bit naive., dont automatically think there wouldnt be conscription...What about the supplementary reserve list for retired members? If the bubble goes up this list would be activated to release active members to take care of business, sup res would be doing more of the home fires stuff including training cadres and guard duties.


----------



## RangerRay (6 Jun 2007)

I used to believe in national service to give aimless youth direction, but after being in the reserves, and reading on other armies' experiences around conscription, I am totally against it, except for times of great national emergency, or in situations that Israel faces.  Not only is it contrary to liberty and freedom, but it is also detrimental to a professional military to have unmotivated conscripts who do not want to be there in the first place.

My $0.02.


----------



## RangerRay (6 Jun 2007)

I used to believe in national service to give aimless youth direction, but after being in the reserves, and reading on other armies' experiences around conscription, I am totally against it, except for times of great national emergency, or in situations that Israel faces.  Not only is it contrary to liberty and freedom, but it is also detrimental to a professional military to have unmotivated conscripts who do not want to be there in the first place.

My $0.02.


----------



## pbi (8 Jun 2007)

Given the history of political resistance in Quebec to the idea of  wartime conscription, I don't think we'll ever see it as a peacetime measure, nor do I really want it. I'd rather have a few good troops who really want to be there than a big rabble of time-servers watching the calendar. Having said that, htough, I have to question this statement:



> Not only is it contrary to liberty and freedom,



Why do you say that? The Swiss, for example, have compulsory service, and Switzerland is often held up as an example of a democracy that works. The US has compulsory selective service (it's on "hold" right now, but the laws are there), and nobody questions that it is a democracy. The UK had it until the 1960's, and England is the home of parliamentary democracy and basic perrsonal liberties as we understand them today. Isn't it true that in a free society, citizens owe a duty towards keeping that society free and secure? Or is paying taxes good enough?

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jun 2007)

"Some sort" of national service by all citizens would, in my opinion, be a good thing.  Having said that, I realise that it probably would not work in Canada.
To amplify what I mean, "national service" does NOT mean service in the military, though that could be an option.  Working for the state at any level (municipal, provincial/territorial or national) would be, in my opinion, an excellent way to export the idea of Canada as a State to up and coming persons.  For example, assume that after graduation from high school, every person owes one year's service.  They could be a "sanitation engineer" for the local city, a "traffic controller" for the province as part of a road crew or a soldier in the local reserve unit.  Now, I'm not going to pretend that this could be implemented, but I think it would be a "nice idea".  For the local reserve service, mandatory attendance would be a requirement, say one or two nights a week and a weekend a month with summer's "block booked".  
For many, such service would be their "first job" and give them an introduction into the world of managing finances, etc.  There would be no exceptions allowed, except in extreme cases (mental or physical disability, perhaps), and the "conscientious objector" status would not apply, as planting trees in the Yukon is not against any religion or philosophical attitude (as far as I can tell).
But, I'm not smoking my weed today, so I realise that this would not work in our society.  Too bad.


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Jun 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> "Some sort" of national service by all citizens would, in my opinion, be a good thing.  Having said that, I realise that it probably would not work in Canada.
> To amplify what I mean, "national service" does NOT mean service in the military, though that could be an option.  Working for the state at any level (municipal, provincial/territorial or national) would be, in my opinion, an excellent way to export the idea of Canada as a State to up and coming persons.  For example, assume that after graduation from high school, every person owes one year's service.  They could be a "sanitation engineer" for the local city, a "traffic controller" for the province as part of a road crew or a soldier in the local reserve unit.  Now, I'm not going to pretend that this could be implemented, but I think it would be a "nice idea".  For the local reserve service, mandatory attendance would be a requirement, say one or two nights a week and a weekend a month with summer's "block booked".
> For many, such service would be their "first job" and give them an introduction into the world of managing finances, etc.  There would be no exceptions allowed, except in extreme cases (mental or physical disability, perhaps), and the "conscientious objector" status would not apply, as planting trees in the Yukon is not against any religion or philosophical attitude (as far as I can tell).
> But, I'm not smoking my weed today, so I realise that this would not work in our society.  Too bad.



Capt S:

Couldn't agree with you more - see my thoughts here:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/58774/post-546275.html#msg546275

Roy


----------



## RangerRay (8 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Why do you say that?



In my view, compelling someone to do something that they would otherwise choose not to do (be it serving in the military, fighting forest fires, or wiping old peoples' arses) would be taking away that person's right to do something else that they may want to do at that time.  I believe that people have a right to live their life as they see fit (as long as it does not negatively affect someone else) without the state telling them what to do.

Not to mention the general poor quality and low motivation of conscripted soldiers.

EDIT:  I seem to have made a double post earlier on.   :-[  Would a mod be so kind as to delete one of the posts for me please?  Thank you.


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Jun 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> In my view, compelling someone to do something that they would otherwise choose not to do (be it serving in the military, fighting forest fires, or wiping old peoples' arses) would be taking away that person's right to do something else that they may want to do at that time.  I believe that people have a right to live their life as they see fit (as long as it does not negatively affect someone else) without the state telling them what to do.
> 
> Not to mention the general poor quality and low motivation of conscripted soldiers.
> 
> EDIT:  I seem to have made a double post earlier on.   :-[  Would a mod be so kind as to delete one of the posts for me please?  Thank you.



I see your point - however (isn't there always a "however"?) - I don't think (and no, I can't support this opinion with quotes of studies) that MOST folks understand what "service" (or belonging) to a society means.  I think most Canadian citizens (of all ages) understand what their RIGHTS are, but I don't believe that most understand what their RESPONSIBILITIES are.

I'm not an SME on the subject, but having lived in this society for my entire life (and having been exposed to OTHER societies), I believe that we are abysmal at educating our citizens regarding their responsibilities to the world in general, their country (again in general), their local community (provincial and municipal/rural), specifically, and themselves & immediate family in particular.

You seem to be (negatively) focusing on CF service; some (including myself) have advocated a "National Service" APART from the CF - I don't understand your objection to alternate sevice - CUSO, etcetera.

I understand (and generally agree with) your view that people have a "right to live their life as they see fit", and indeed, I am currently doing so.  BUT - in my opinion, I EARNED that right through 25 years of service to the society of which I am a part (and I continue to contribute in extreme circumstances - such as the flooding we are currently experiencing in Northern BC).  You need to CONTRIBUTE to society prior to taking from it - or expecting protection from it.

Those who do not wish to be part of society are certainly welcome to live in the bush - we've got a glut of "untamed land" here in northern BC - but don't expect the REST of us to rush to your assistance when you're flooded/burned/frozen out - if you can't be bothered to contribute to the general good, why should we contribute to your personal good?

I think you need to figure out how your personal "needs" (food, shelter, clean water) are met - THEN figure out if you wish to continue receiving those benefits - if not, by all means fill your boots in the woods - just don't expect ME to come looking for you when things don't work out ('cause I won't).


Roy


----------



## nihilpavor (8 Jun 2007)

Mandatory national service could be a good idea, but let me disagree with you on a few points. 

We work on average 4 to 5 months per year to pay all our taxes. Yup, to receive services like police services, Canadian Forces, Public safety programs, etc. In short, we work hard to pay the salaries of those who will come and help us when we need it. Paying taxes is a BIG participation to the common good (I'd much prefer sitting on my butt than working all those months if it weren't for the common good). 

That's were mandatory national service could be helpful, in providing some cheap labor possibly helping the govs to lower taxes and at the same time give some good working experience and sense of duty to kids who just left school.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Jun 2007)

Hi Roy.

No, I did not mean to negatively focus on the CF.  I enjoyed my time in it and if a reserve unit were closer to where I live, I would love to be back in.  I did mention other forms of national service, including fire fighting and healthcare (or as my German friend described it to me, "wiping old peoples' @$$es").  I am also dismayed at the lack of civics education to teach people how government and it's institutions function, how our Constitution functions, and what our responsibilities as citizens are.  

However, the libertarian in me feels that it's wrong to compel someone to serve the state should they not wish to, for whatever reason that is.  I know one part of me thinks that if aimless youth were directed to some form of national service, it might give them some focus.  But if I were a section 2IC again, the last thing I would want are troops who do not want to be there.  My German friend told me horror stories about some of his fellow conscripts when he did his service.  One of them was the biggest drug dealer in the city, and was routinely selling drugs to his fellow conscripts.  I would like to think that our volunteer recruiting system is able to weed out more of the riff-raff, whereas mandatory service _tends_ to direct riff-raff to the military in hopes of reforming them.  Again, were I a section 2IC again, I would not want any kind of criminal element in my section.

Again, my $0.02.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Jun 2007)

Etown said:
			
		

> Anybody know what Greece and Italy do?



Not sure about Greece, but according to wikipedia Italy ended compulsory service on July 29th, 2004. I know that there has been some opposition to this. For instance, veterans of the Alpini (mountain) regiments were worried about it. With compulsory service members for the Alpini units always came from northern Italy, but with its end, the vetrans groups were upset that now its members would come from anywhere in Italy. 

I also know that Turkey has for some time now been trying to get away from a conscript force to an all-volunteer force, but I'm not sure how successful they have been. I know the Turkish troops I saw in Sarajevo in the summer of 2000, were a lot better equipped than the ones I saw in Cyprus in 1992. (As an aside, when I was stationed in Italy I worked with several Turkish officers and always wondered if they were still allowed shot their men if they were caught mis-behaving, but I never got the nerve to ask :-X).


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Jun 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Hi Roy.
> 
> No, I did not mean to negatively focus on the CF.  I enjoyed my time in it and if a reserve unit were closer to where I live, I would love to be back in.  I did mention other forms of national service, including fire fighting and healthcare (or as my German friend described it to me, "wiping old peoples' @$$es").  I am also dismayed at the lack of civics education to teach people how government and it's institutions function, how our Constitution functions, and what our responsibilities as citizens are.
> 
> ...



I hear you on all your points and I am actually in agreement, except  - you're missing the one important point in my previous posting - it's fine (IMHO) to not want to "serve the state" - it's hypocritical to THEN expect that same state to satisfy your personal needs (protection, shelter, whatever).

If you are a member of a society - you can't ignore your responsibilities to it, and then "cherry pick" it's obligations to YOU.


Roy


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Jun 2007)

nihilpavor said:
			
		

> Mandatory national service could be a good idea, but let me disagree with you on a few points.
> 
> We work on average 4 to 5 months per year to pay all our taxes. Yup, to receive services like police services, Canadian Forces, Public safety programs, etc. In short, we work hard to pay the salaries of those who will come and help us when we need it. Paying taxes is a BIG participation to the common good (I'd much prefer sitting on my butt than working all those months if it weren't for the common good).
> 
> That's were mandatory national service could be helpful, in providing some cheap labor possibly helping the govs to lower taxes and at the same time give some good working experience and sense of duty to kids who just left school.



You're not educating me in any way regarding taxes - I'm well aware of what the personal tax bill is, in fact I think you've LOW-BALLED it a bit (as I recall - "tax freedom day" occurs sometime in late June/early July (I could be off a bit - but not much) - 6 months or more, as opposed to your estimate of 4 to 5 months.  And I understand (and appreciate) your contribution to the common good through your taxes (Amusingly enough, I make a similar contribution - as do most here).

I disagree, however, with your assessment of how National Service (military or non) might contribute to our society in general.  If hiring cheap labour to accomplish our aims overseas was an issue, then we could quickly solve it by hiring off-shore labour - I've seen this in action in Iraq and Dubai (we called these folks "Gilligans" in Iraq in the late '80s).  This is NOT the point (IMO) of National Service.

National Service (whilst, perhaps, a form of cheap labour) enables citizens of our country to actually PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTE to its' stated aims.  Whether digging a well, and establishing a functional water point in Africa, or fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, it would enable our young citizens to understand where we fit in the "great scheme of things" world wide - and appreciate what we've got here - and we have one HELL of a lot to be thankful for.  I'm not sure that MOST Canadians, however, appreciate this fact - National Service may go a long way to alleviating this ignorance.


Roy


----------



## Soldiers-wear.dk (14 Jul 2007)

the danish army have mandatory conscription, but only for 4 months, if you want a contract and a tour to either, kosovo, afghanistan og iraq (they are pulling most of the troops home to august 2007) then you have to do training for further 8 months, wich is only about being a soldier and survive in the field and get all those reactions on you spine (mission orientated) and then you do a tour for 6 months and come home.

But only 4 month conscript is mandatory and womans are allowed.

ps 
sorry for my rather bad english
i have been in the army 2 years now and done one 6-months tour in iraq


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Jul 2007)

Soldiers-wear.dk said:
			
		

> i have been in the army 2 years now and done one 6-months tour in iraq



as with the others that have I understand had that country on their list of tours: congratulations


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jul 2007)

Soldiers-wear.dk said:
			
		

> the danish army have mandatory conscription, but only for 4 months, if you want a contract and a tour to either, kosovo, afghanistan og iraq (they are pulling most of the troops home to august 2007) then you have to do training for further 8 months, wich is only about being a soldier and survive in the field and get all those reactions on you spine (mission orientated) and then you do a tour for 6 months and come home.
> 
> But only 4 month conscript is mandatory and womans are allowed.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the board.


----------

