264
submitted 11 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] febra@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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 11 points 11 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 6 points 11 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 -2 points 11 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 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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 1 points 11 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.

this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
264 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39153 readers
1474 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS