O/T National Service
 

Recently in my local paper (The Advertiser) I read that Germany has National Service. Which I admit I never knew and actually surprised me.....I knew there are a few small countries with it, like Switzerland and Israel.......But Germany shocked me because of the reasonable size population. Just as a matter of interest, just like to know of other countries that have it. In Australia, our population is just above the 20mil mark which is relatively small but we don't have National Service, but some are talking about introducing it. If you do have National Service, just wondering if it benefits yourself personally and the country or just the country. Also how do the regular Armed forces react with the National Service troops? Hope you understand my last questions.

O/T National Service
 

Holland ended compulsory military service in the mid '90s. When the threath of a major military conflict on the continent of Europe had vanished.
The result was a much smaller military, much more dedicated and professional and much better equipment.

The National Service in Germany is a relict of the Cold War era. A standing army that is capable of defending against Warsaw Pact troops would have been much too expensive. In the Eighties the Bundeswehr had 500k soldiers and could be expanded to 1.3 million in a matter of 3-6 months. That was only possible because we could mobilize a large number of reservists.

As far as I know there is no longer a mobilization plan. The times have changed and today the Bundeswehr only has 250k men. Today you spend 9 months as a conscript, in the Eighties it was 15-18 months.

I´m not too sure yet if a professional army would be better, I think it´s good to have a large inactive reserve in the background.

German'S unadmitted main reason to stick to this system is becasue those who reject to serve can do that at the price of serving in a social service, also almost for free, of course. The social service ("Zivis"=Zivildienstleistende; nursery, ambulance driver, home service for old people, etc.) is heavily depending on this system and tailored itself to depend on this steady basis of helping personnel that comes all for free. Parties have failed to tackle this unlucky link between social and military service. Going to a professional army would delete the personnel pool for the helping service that never has learned to manage it's finance without these free workers. expose them to market regulation would increase the misery that has become apparent in the service and treatmeent with old people even more, the whole branch is going down the drain, it seems. Noone with a healthy mind would easily wish to become old and dependant/ill in this society! Loosing the Zivis would be a major blow as long as not an obligatory year in social services is implemented to replace military service. And here the debate starts: if it is just to send the men alone to this social service and leave girls our, who in principle can do that kind of work, too, it's is discriminatory towards male sex and a ignoration of equaolity of chances for both sexes; and if girls are allowed, then the other side argues that then they would be the ones treated unjust, for now they would have a double effort: social work now, children and family later. Most politicians avoid this theme like the pleague. It is also a deeply rooted fear of Germans. We once had a professional army, and we know where it lead to: scaring efficiency, as even the enemies of NaziGermany admitted, but also: Hitler, personal cult, an army not under control by the people. The development in America since the end of the second WW and Eisenhower are often referred to in defense of the current system. also, often there is voiced doubt by the critics that a professional army would reduce costs, they say they would go up. I cannot judge that. the most preferred argumkent of politicians is that the service brings together the youth of all federal countries and that it forms a unique interqaction between different regional temperaments. What a pathetic BS! As to what i have been told who went through it the service was wasting time, boredom, and all that poltically stressed idealism nowhere to see. It's babbling for the mikes only, I suppose.

When I cam to Muenster in 2000, I met a Major of the German tank army on a meeting where we were guests, it was no offcial military thing, but private. We srtarted to talk and he ended in admitting with a grim but also sad smile: "I hope this army as a whole never has to go to war as long as it is in it's current shape. Ich kenne Bataillone, die müßten die Hälfte ithres Fahrzeugparks fleddern, um die andere Hälfte zum Laufen zu bringen" (difficult for me to translate: he said that he knows bataillons where they have to cripple half of their vehicles in order to make the other half of their vehicles drivable again).

I personally think that Germany is more than ripe for a pro army, and would like to see the British army as an example for that. I would like to see size shrinking if needed for paying for better and newer equipment. Parts of German equipment are rotten somethings nowadays, nothing more, and this in a time where crazy politicians have started to shuffle German troops around the globe for vague political ambitions only. Idiots. German army has many examples of very good and innovatiove equipment, but most of them are not available in combat-efficient numbers, if combat efficient would be understood as able to defend a country in a full scale war with the whole body of the army. That'S why our international expeditions are very daunting efforts. The German contingent in Afghanistan is unable to supply it's own logistical needs and is heavily depending on the help of others. In case of emergency this troop also would not be able to hold it's ground for onger than just 24-36 hours, but also would need other nation's to get them out. some years ago a German frigate was send to participate in an international excercise. To get that ship into operational staus it was needed to rip vital spareparts out of two or three olther ships that then were non-operational for the months to come. Parts of our armed force live "von der Hand in den Mund".

It's high time to skip the conscript system and go professional, also to not longer understand the BW as a humanitarian help agency, but as what it is: an army, and it should be finan cially supported as that. this does not mean that I like to see the BW beeing scattered around the globe in silly adventures here and there. It's a moral problem for me: if yopu tell a soldier to risk his life, you have the dfamn obligation to give him the best training, informationa nd equipment and supply money can buy. If you do not do that, you have no right to put demands to him.

My edited version, sorry Skybird.
Your first paragraph is a load of ****e in my opinion Skybird, (I have given up on this arguement because I never can explain it, like I would like). Your second paragraph is like most major democratic nations, the armed forces live on a 'shoe string' budget
But I must say still spun out over Germany with National Service.

I see. So the Wehrmacht was incompetent, it was in fact under control by the people, and it did not obey to a personal cult around Hitler at all. Sure.

The German army was never incompetent back than....Maybe you should enlighten your mind and watch a british program called 'Spitfire Ace', that exactly explains why the Germans lost the "Battle of Britain' or does it? See I mean I give up on this arguement of who lost the war for what reason, for if I argue the German side I am Nazi, Yes I should not have personally attacked someone back than, I don't care I am no Nazi!

*editors note
This was meant to be an innocent question*

Was, verdammt, willst du eigentlich von mir? I have no clue what kind of noise you make, and why.

Skybird, that was totally enlightening. I knew a bit about your border patrol, but not the social service. Very interesting.

When you "cripple" your vehicles to make others run, that's called "cannibalizing" parts. You have to cannibalize to make your vehicles run. Navy does this with it's aircraft and helicopters. Army has to do the same thing to up-armor their tanks and troop-carriers in Iraq. :)

Generally speaking, "professional" armies sustain better morale under arduous conditions. In part because of the need, but in part because it's a choice.

Look all I was asking only who performs National Service and if it improves the individual and how the regualr armed forces perform with the 'conscripts' or Nationals service people. I could say something about "cannibalising" vehicles or even personal equipment in Iraq, but I shall refrain. If you want to know how hard it is in Iraq go here
http://www.anysoldier.com/

Yes, I consider the choice factor to be be very important for training and moral. But many Germans fear, as I said, that exactly these qualities, free choice, motivation, would turn the army into an elite that is somewhat autark from society, a society within society. the US pentagon in Germany often is referred to as the "secret society", for example, and German awareness of the infamous military-industrial complex in America is pretty high, and concerned. We tend to think of the US military as an example like we never again want our armed forces to be structured and embedded in a national context again, we think it is too dangerous. This is somewhat hipocritical, because German industries are not more shy than other nation'S corporations to spill their military products if not onto the BW, then into foreign countries, if possible. I do not claim the debate around all these things is the most logical and reasonable one, it is not, and often it is highly emotional. We have a phrase here that describes soldiers as "Bürger in Uniform" (citizens in uniform). This also points to the wish that the bundeswehr should not step onto a path were it would distance itself more and more from society, maybe melt more and more with the industry and starts to have economcial interests and power interests of it's own, and overruling that of the state or community. Germans are very hesitant concerning a professional army for this reason. but i think the argument gets abused, at least too exessively used by those who want to stick with the conscript system. as far as I do know - and I am no insider, my impression may be flawed - the military in Britain has not formed so close ties with the defense industry as they have in America, where now the economical interests of companies often form the military instead of the other way around, so I think it should be possible to have professional armed forces and still keep them under tight control of political instances and communal consens on wether to use them or not.

I forgot too mention that the drafting procedure already is very unjust, because only a smaller part of each year's generation is asked to meet with the doctor to check if they can join the consripts army. Most young men are no longer asked, because they simply do not need so many recruits anymore. So some young men have to go, and if they do not want, they must pass time with civil service, and other young men even do not get asked for both services. So much for justice or "chance eqaulity". they really should skip it, the procedure no longer works well.

Damo,
you lost me. No idea what you are about, you hop around with your thoughts wildly, no structure or red line of argument I see in your replies. You originally asked for how a country , germany in my case, comes along with it's army system, and I described it to you, and told you why it is the way it is currently, and why it is so difficult to make it a different one. Bye.

Sorry, I lost myself too I was doing other things. All I was trying to say about your comment of
'It is also a deeply rooted fear of Germans.'
is that I don't believe this should be true anymore, but I understand why it could be true. I was trying to be kind of diplomatic. But anyhow thankyou for your response.

I'm glad the Germans remain militarily weak.

While i don't subscribe to making sons pay for the sins of their fathers, there has to be something about a society that would allow itself to be led to utter ruin twice in the past hundred years which bears watching.

Perhaps its the fear of a third trip into national madness that makes at least some of their citizens see secret societies and hidden agendas behind every rock and tree.

Perhaps it's their inherent desire to dominate those around them, one which causes them to criticize the motives, morals and honor of nations that showed them mercy and helped rebuild their country from the ashes of war.

I do not know nor claim to, but I believe German is not, and may never be, ready for a professional military.

there not that weak in fact i rekon if they took france on germany would win like most germany would strangle france like they tried to do with us in WW1 and 2 they got the submarines for it so they can effectively do it.


as for nation service

russia maintains it too you must do 2 years millatery service in any force while between the ages of 18 and 30 (think age has changed again)

Maybe Germans just have learned their lessons - and for that reason question the shallow motives of questionable honours and theatralic speeches and hidden soceities within societies that hide solid economical motives in other nations that have fallen victim to see military action as a solution to almost everything. And about the time between Versailles treaty and 1939 a lot can be said that goes slightly beyond just some inner characteristic of German society. It's the same society without whose rich cultural treasury of writing, philosophy, music and arts the world today and Western civilization would not be what it is. German history did not start with Hitler.