335

Germany may introduce conscription for all 18-year-olds (www.telegraph.co.uk)

submitted 4 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

125 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago

The title is not entirely correct. They don't plant to "introduce" conscription. Germany had conscription from its formation of the Bundeswehr in 1955 until it was put on hiatus in 2011 because people back then thought that Ivan was no longer a problem. So what they think about is not "introducing" but just reactivate it.

The changes will be that while before 2011, conscription was only for men, it is planned to be for both sexes, and military service will no longer the one preferred service (back then, you had to go through quite some hoops if you did not want to serve in the Bundeswehr and do your time in e.g. social services). This time, the military option is just one of several that can be chosen.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

That makes sense and good on them for conscription not caring about gender

[-] luckystarr@feddit.de 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

At this stage it's all hot air. Nobody has even started talking about how to finance it and the defense minister isn't even 100% sure he will get his requested additional funds for the next cycle. When somebody asked him about the topic he replied that he isn't categorically against it but he would have to finance (and restructure, as the necessary infrastructure for it has been degraded/scrapped) more important topics first.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago

Preparing for world war?

[-] Knossos@lemmy.world 73 points 4 months ago

It isn't just about the military. I've not read the article, but Germany suffers from not having enough people working in social services. This problem got worse after getting rid of conscription. You could either choose military service or social work.

By reintroducing it, they hope to fill in some gaps.

[-] ed_cock@feddit.de 100 points 4 months ago

"What should we do to get more people working in the health sector?"

"Better pay and more manageable shifts!"

"Roll back privatization to shift the focus to sustainability over profits!"

"I'd just enslave the youth again."

[Employee 1& 2 get defenestrated for a change]

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

Defenestrated? You think the German military has that large of a budget?!

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

You can use the same window more than once

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] febra@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Yeah, instead of actually fixing the system and paying people normal wages, while also fixing the stupid education/certification system that social service workers need to go through, let's just throw a bunch of teenagers at it, it will surely fix our problems!

[-] psmgx@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

You could either choose military service or social work.

Also some hospital work. Bedpan cleaning, etc.

But it kept you out of the army, and took the strain off of hospitals and social services.

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 34 points 4 months ago

Sometimes open war comes upon you, whether you risk it or not.

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 months ago

Probably that, and also gender equality. I'm not really in the favor of drafting, but it's unfair that men have to go and women don't.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That is so sad, these kinds of times should already be over in humanity's history. Why doesn't anyone have a solution? Are the war mongering powers just waiting for the new nuclear deterrent? Future AI terminators pls just go straight to Russia/China/USA leadership and let the humans be

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

It’s because the leaders aren’t the ones fighting the battles or being targeted. They’re playing chess somewhere far from the violence.

[-] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 months ago

We should just solve conflicts by throwing the presidents or monarchs of the opposing countries in an arena to fight to death.

[-] power@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think it'd be better if we disregarded highly authoritarian leaders in general and embraced socialism. Back in the day, kings and emperors fought their battles, but it didn't make their feudalism any less... feudal.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is an unserious proposal. Germany spends about 1.5 percent of its GDP(*) on defence, much of it wasted, and increasing it to even 2 percent has involved painful and extended political wrangling. If the country collectively cannot find the will to tweak its budget to fund a modest increase in defence spending, it is not going to countenance universal conscription.

(*) GDP, not budget; error pointed out by Enkrod

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 23 points 4 months ago

It's a serious proposal, but not as a universal conscription. It's intended to only call everyone in for the health check and use that as a way to get young people interested in the army.

There are different models floating around, the most serious being that everyone (including women) gets called in and you basically choose between civil service and army. The civilian side can ramp up slots rather quickly, the army doesn't. So the army probably will ramp up over several years.

Also, I wouldn't call 100 billion € a "modest increase".

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Enkrod@feddit.de 23 points 4 months ago

This is PATENTLY wrong. It's 1.49% of GDP, not budget.

Defense budget is 10.9% of the governments budget, it's the second largest budgeted item after social wellfare and in front of infrastructure (which is crumbling) and debt. To increase it to 2% of gross domestic product means spending an additional amount equal to the entire budget for education and research.

[-] MBM@lemmings.world 9 points 4 months ago

Oh wow, this is the first time I see this difference mentioned. NATO really expects that much military spending?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 12 points 4 months ago

In the USA I had to sign up for the draft when I came of age, but luckily the draft system hasn't been utilized since 1973.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

i don;t like conscription into the military but i've always felt some sort of manatory non-military civil or social service or peace corps participation would do a lot for encouraging civic participation in exchange for some sort of universal educational system or some form of reimbursement for secondary education.

[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 6 points 4 months ago

in exchange for some sort of universal educational system or some form of reimbursement for secondary education.

That's supposed to be the taxes you pay for the rest of you life

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] lemmytellyousomething@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 months ago

Well, the main opposition party wants that... Sooo.... Maybe in the future, maybe not....

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 12 May 2024

335 points (95.4% liked)

World News

38659 readers

3790 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
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.
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.