The Law Conscription/National Service

[Malifice]

I didn't say they did, Malifice. I asked you.

The Austria-Hungarian Empire was an ally. That got carved up too. Austria ended up fighting alongside the Germans again in WW2.

Ally or not, Austria was never part of Germany (outside of Anschluss in WW2) and it wasn't part of Germany that the Germans lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (although the Treaty did forbid the two from merging). The Austrians were on the losing side of a power struggle for Germany with the Prussians (when the Prussians and the Austrians aligned in the German Confederation) until 1866, but it opposed the Prussians and Bismark and ultimately formed the AH Empire, outside of the German Reich.

Poland, Malifice, did not exist.
Czechoslovakia, Malifice, did not exist.

What complete and utter bullshit.

Poland has existed for literally centuries before WW1. In the centuries prior to WW1, it had been invaded and annexed by the Prussians, Russians and Austrians.

Poland - Wikipedia

You're not only posting apologist bullshit for the Nazis, you're also posting revisionist history denying the historical existence of Poland (and Czechoslovakia).

Polish before that? Sure. Back in the 1700's. Fairly long and storied history.

There we go. By 'fairly long and storied history' you mean a thousand years of constantly fighting off the Prussians (and the Teutonic Knights before them), Russians and Holy Roman Empire from constant annexations.

Go up to an Irish person and tell them Ireland didnt exist under British rule. See how far that gets you.

There have been a fair few of those sorts of places. Bit silly to magically will it back into being so that you've got some land to put Germans on, though, particularly when those Germans don't really want to be Polish.

The Germans were only there, for the same reasons Jewish settlers are currently living in the West Bank.

Their land was annexed, and settlers moved on in.

Of course at this point we could get into the subject of ethnicity clashing with nationality,

German Nationalism (like most forms of Nationalism) all boils down to ethnic nationalism. 'One Germany for all German speaking Germanic people'. If those German speaking peoples happen to live in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Belgium, France or wherever, then that land is fair game for annexation and incorporation into the Empire, while people living inside that land that are not 'Germanic' (Jews, Poles, Slavs, Africans, Romani etc) are forcibly expelled, stripped of legal rights and persecuted or worse.

The Treaty of Versailles forbade this from happening for precisely this reason (and also to ensure a resurgent Germany would not have another crack at establishing a European Hegemony).

The only Germanic speaking outlier was Switzerland. The only thing that stopped the Swiss from being annexed and invaded was Hitlers view that they were all a bunch of backwards Cow farmers, the difficulty of invading and annexing Switzerland (the mountains) and the fact a 'Neutral' Switzerland allowed the Nazis to operate financially and funnel a shitload of money through Swiss banks (plus being a useful place for diplomatic talks).

You're aware that even today, there are German speaking peoples in Switzerland and Austria that desire a 'unified Germany, for the German peoples, incorporating all German speaking peoples including Austria and Switzerland' and think Hitler was on the money? They're a minority, but they certainly exist.

You call those people German Nationalists. They're the ****wits that are responsible for shit like WW2.

The only reason you don't see the same shit in Poland and the Czech Republic is because the Allies enacted a genocide on the German speaking peoples in the East, and forcibly relocated them all Westwards.

I agree with your point that the Treaty of Versailles was fertile ground for German Nationalism to grow in. Coupled with the 'Stab in the Back' lie, rampant antisemitism (always a problem in Europe, but especially so in Germany) and the Great Depression it created ideal conditions for the rise of Far-Right wing ultranationalist government like the Nazis to emerge.

But you cant say the Treaty (which forbade the very annexations the Nazis engaged in) was the cause of the war. The cause of the War was German Nationalism.

You remove German Nationalism from the picture, and you dont get WW2 in Europe (and you also dont get WW1 for that matter).

 

[Malifice]

Episode IV

Explain to me how the Treaty of Versailles is connected to the Nazi German State invading and seeking to Annex Russia for 'Living space' in the East and to fight the 'Asiatic Hordes united by Judeo Bolshevism'.

Is that down to German Nationalism, or the Treaty?

You want to try and frame the Treaty that carved off parts of Germany and forbade Germany from reuniting with those areas, and also Austria as being the reason why those things actually occurred.

What about the invasion of the Soviet Union, and its desire to annex vast swathes of it?

Can you point me to the relevant part of the Treaty that caused that? Or is it more correct to say that was down to German Nationalists (Nazis) running the show and doing German Nationalist type of shit?

 

[Episode IV]

Ally or not, Austria was never part of Germany (outside of Anschluss in WW2) and it wasn't part of Germany that the Germans lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (although the Treaty did forbid the two from merging). The Austrians were on the losing side of a power struggle for Germany with the Prussians (when the Prussians and the Austrians aligned in the German Confederation) until 1866, but it opposed the Prussians and Bismark and ultimately formed the AH Empire, outside of the German Reich.

Well, see Mal, I didn't say Austria was "part of Germany". I said it was an ally. I remember posting something like "ended up fighting alongside Germany", too.

What complete and utter bullshit.

He says, and then posts a map of Poland as it roughly looked in 960AD.
Heh. 960AD.

Poland has existed for literally centuries before WW1. In the centuries prior to WW1, it had been invaded and annexed by the Prussians, Russians and Austrians.

Yes, Malifice. I said it had existed up until a couple of centuries before, and noted it was a historied empire.
You got anything of your own to add to anything?

Focus, Mal. Focuuuussss.

You're not only posting apologist bullshit for the Nazis, you're also posting revisionist history denying the historical existence of Poland (and Czechoslovakia).

Wow.
I think you're getting a bit flustered now.

Posting apologist bullshit for the Nazis, am I. Where, Mal?
Denying the historical existence of Poland, am I. Where, Mal?

Yes, Malifice, I am denying the historical existence of Czechoslovakia. That's because, prior to Versailles, it didn't exist.
Not ever.
Other than in the heads of a few nationalists here and there who wanted to have a country just for Czechs. A few activists, in other words.

There we go. By 'fairly long and storied history' you mean a thousand years of constantly fighting off the Prussians (and the Teutonic Knights before them), Russians and Holy Roman Empire from constant annexations.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I mean. That's why I said " long and storied history" which ended in the late 1700's.
Is there some part of any of that you're having difficulty understanding?

In 1914, Poland did not exist. It hadn't done since the end of the 1700's. The allies wrote it back into existence, for a very specific purpose.
How often do you want me to keep saying the same thing?

(more repetition)

Yeah, righto.
Think I'll leave this here, Mal. Unless you want to keep posting the same thing a few more times.

 

[Episode IV]

Episode IV

Explain to me how the Treaty of Versailles is connected to the Nazi German State invading and seeking to Annex Russia for 'Living space' in the East and to fight the 'Asiatic Hordes united by Judeo Bolshevism'.

Is that down to German Nationalism, or the Treaty?

Doesn't matter, Mal.

You want to try and frame the Treaty that carved off parts of Germany and forbade Germany from reuniting with those areas, and also Austria as being the reason why those things actually occurred.

Yep.
Catalyst, more appropriately. Not actually "the" reason, as I've been at great pains to point out.

What about the invasion of the Soviet Union, and its desire to annex vast swathes of it?

Can you point me to the relevant part of the Treaty that caused that?

Nope. I can point to the relevant parts of the treaty that led to the Nazis coming to power in the first place, though.

Are there a few other ways you'd like me to say the same things?

Perhaps you'd like to twist a few sentences, maybe substitute a word or two here and there? Outright lie about what I've said a couple more times? Call me a Nazi again?

Or is it more correct to say that was down to German Nationalists (Nazis) running the show and doing German Nationalist type of s**t?

Alright, Mal. Nazis gonna Nazi, I see what you're saying.

They magically pop into being because "Nationalism". Wait, no... hang on, gotta get this right... German Nationalism. Because that's different.

What did I say, Malifice, right back at the very start of all this?
We've been here before.

You're still hanging on to tired old themes because you don't like Germans or something, I'm still right, and now I'm bored.

 

[Malifice]

Well, see Mal, I didn't say Austria was "part of Germany". I said it was an ally. I remember posting something like "ended up fighting alongside Germany", too.

Your point was German 'only really annexed bits that were part of Germany before the Treaty of Versailles stripped them from Germany (the Sudenland, the Polish corridoor etc)'

Seeing as the Treaty didnt strip Austria from Germany, and that Austria was literally the largest German speaking bit they annexed, then your argument kind of doesnt hold up.

He says, and then posts a map of Poland as it roughly looked in 960AD.
Heh. 960AD.

And it continued to exist for nearly a millennia afterwards, until the Prussians, Russians and Austrians invaded it, annexed it and carved it up among themselves.

The Polish argument is that Poland always existed, it just did so as occupied lands for a century or two.

Your argument (which was the Nazis argument as well) was 'Poland does not exist anymore'.

Neatly ignores over a thousand years of history, and the fact the dominant ethnic group were Polish speaking Slavs, and not German speaking Germanic peoples.

Posting apologist bullshit for the Nazis, am I. Where, Mal?
Denying the historical existence of Poland, am I. Where, Mal?

1) You're saying 'The Treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW2' which is exactly what Neo Nazis argue to this day to downplay Germany's actions before and during the War.

2) You literally said prior to WW1, Poland did not exist. Which is objectively wrong. It existed, as lands annexed by three separate European powers.

Yes, Malifice, I am denying the historical existence of Czechoslovakia. That's because, prior to Versailles, it didn't exist.
Not ever.

Where did all these Czech and Slovak people come from then?

Did the Treaty suddenly bring them (and their language) into existence magically or something?

In 1914, Poland did not exist. It hadn't done since the end of the 1700's. The allies wrote it back into existence.

Yes, it did exist. It existed as lands annexed by three separate European Empires. On that land lived literally millions of Polish people, speaking Polish.

Much of that land was given (partly) back to Polish people after WW1.

Think I'll leave this here, Mal. Unless you want to keep posting the same thing a few more times.

I keep posting it because you keep missing it.

Your argument is that the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW2.

I argue that the treaty (a piece of paper that forbids everything that happened in the lead up to WW2) is not the cause.

The cause is German Nationalism.

Remove German Nationalism from the equation, and you don't get WW2.

Yes the harsh conditions of the Treaty was fertile ground for German nationalism to grow in, but it was not the actual cause of the war. The Nazis could have arisen in a totally different background context (absent the Treaty), and they still would have launched an invasion to the East into Russia, they still would have gone after Jews, Poles, Romani and Slavs (along with LGBTI people etc), and they would have attempted to bring all other 'Germanic' States (Switzerland, the UK, Scandinavia, the Low Countries etc) into the fold (one way or another).

Again, remove German Nationalism from the picture, and you don't get any of that happening.

 

[Episode IV]

Given Trump is giving NATO the finger and saying that unless they up their defence spending, they can eff off in terms of expecting US support, we'll need to up our spending to 3-5% of GDP - currently at 2%. That means finding another $25b - $75b annually.

Just to pop back to an earlier post, Australia is not a NATO member.
Trump's comments on that had nothing to do with us.

Trump is also not the only one saying that sort of thing with regard to NATO, either. He's just silly enough to be doing it publicly, and clumsy enough to be doing it... well, clumsily. Which is probably a fairly mild word for one statement in particular which was a direct repudiation of Article 5.
Obama was saying much the same sort of things (2014), but was circumspect enough to be saying it diplomatically and quietly.

In all instances, Trump-related or otherwise, the exhortation for NATO members to up their military spending is code for "Buy more of our stuff", which traditionally requires a spectre, an enemy to be vilified... sometimes that enemy is real, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes that enemy becomes an enemy as a result of being continually told it is.

 

[Episode IV]

1) You're saying 'The Treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW2' which is exactly what Neo Nazis argue to this day to downplay Germany's actions before and during the War.

I prefer the word "Catalyst". Pretty sure that's the word I've used before, in an earlier discussion at least. Usually I'll put the word "major" in front of it, but I get a bit lazy sometimes, and most people think my posts are too long and wordy anyway.
There are lots of causes. I think you'll find, posting history wise, I'm one of the the last to reduce "causes" down to only one.

So now we're down to the old "Well, that's what the Nazis would say, so you're a Nazi" are we?
Sigh.

2) You literally said prior to WW1, Poland did not exist. Which is objectively wrong. It existed, as lands annexed by three separate European powers.

I "literally" did no such thing. I said it was re-created in 1919. Does the term re-created mean anything to you, or is it just a random couple of letters and a dash that don't mean anything? I also mentioned it had existed with a long and storied history up until the late 1700's. That, I "literally" did say.

This is what I "literally" said:
"In 1914, Poland did not exist. It hadn't done since the end of the 1700's".

Now compare that to what you claim I said, which is
"You literally said prior to WW1, Poland did not exist"

Personally, I think if you can't see the difference between those two sentences, then you should head off back to school, lad.
And pay attention to your teachers this time.


You're just making things up now, Malifice.
I'll take it as your capitulation.

Nighty night, and don't forget to check under the beds for Nazis before you go to sleep.

 

[Malifice]

I prefer the word "Catalyst". Pretty sure that's the word I've used before, in an earlier discussion at least. Usually I'll put the word "major" in front of it, but I get a bit lazy sometimes, and most people think my posts are too long and wordy anyway.
There are lots of causes. I think you'll find, posting history wise, I'm one of the the last to reduce "causes" down to only one.

There were tons of catalysts. The Great depression was one, as was the Treaty of Versailles.

But the reason was German Nationalism. Without it there would be no Anschluss with Austria, no Pan German arguments, no attempting to retake the Polish corridor, no military build up, no Concentration camps, and heck, there would be no Nazis and no Hitler.

That was the ideology (Nationalism, in this case German Nationalism) that led to the outbreak of War in Europe.

The Japanese Empire was mostly the same with its desire to create the East Asian Co prosperity Sphere. Remove Japanese Nationalism from the picture, and you don't get them invading all of SEA.

Remove nationalism from the picture, and you dont have a single Nazi.

So now we're down to the old "Well, that's what the Nazis would say, so you're a Nazi" are we?

I didnt say that. I said you're being an apologist for the Nazis (and German Nationalism).

The treaty of Versailles is a bit of paper. It cant cause a war. It takes a nation of people to do that. The fault lies with German nationalism, not with the Depression, not with the Treaty, and not with any other thing or event.

I "literally" did no such thing (claimed Poland did not exist).

Yes you literally did:

Poland, Malifice, did not exist.
Czechoslovakia, Malifice, did not exist.

Poland existed, as a country annexed by three separate powers (Prussia/ Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary).

You cant gloss over that fact. Poland was (mostly) given back to the Polish people after WW1 as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Ultimately this is what triggered the war, when the Germans invaded Poland to secure the Polish corridor to Danzig (now Gdansk) and reclaim (re-annex) much of the land the Prussians had previously annexed (plus a lot more).

Youre claiming the Nazis goals were mainly revanchist. That's simply not the case, they were also (expressly) expansionist, openly stating (as early as Mein Kampf, but repeated many times afterwards) a desire to 'expand to the East' for 'Lebensraum', and to create a European hegemony, by incorporating the Scandinavians, Luxembourg, Low Countries and all 'Germanic' States into a larger Reich.

While the Treaty may very well have prohibited revanchism by the Germans, the expansionist goals were all their own.

 

[Episode IV]

There were tons of catalysts. The Great depression was one, as was the Treaty of Versailles.

But the reason was German Nationalism. Without it there would be no Anschluss with Austria, no Pan German arguments, no attempting to retake the Polish corridor, no military build up, no Concentration camps, and heck, there would be no Nazis and no Hitler.

That was the ideology (Nationalism, in this case German Nationalism) that led to the outbreak of War in Europe.

The Japanese Empire was mostly the same with its desire to create the East Asian Co prosperity Sphere. Remove Japanese Nationalism from the picture, and you don't get them invading all of SEA.

Remove nationalism from the picture, and you dont have a single Nazi.

I think that removing the Versailles Treaty from the picture results in much the same thing.
I've given reasons for that. One, everyone in Europe (and most of the world, actually) was nationalistic at the time, and yet it didn't often result in fascist dictators springing up all over Europe, and two, respectful treatment of an enemy after a war has more often resulted in that enemy becoming a friend than not, World War Two being the most obvious and immediate example of this thought, both Germany and Japan now being allies and neither one really looking to start a war with anyone. Much less so, at the very least, than the treaty writers at Versailles of World War One have been since. Food for thought? Yes? No?

Punitive action, Malifice, most often has the opposite effect on an enemy than that intended - unless you get totally Machiavellian about it and destroy them completely.
Bit of a fan of Machiavelli, are you? Not something I would have believed myself, but here we are.

You're relying upon reiterating the same statement (which someone has correctly pointed out, is rather facile) over and over without providing much in the way of evidence to back it up.

I didnt say that. I said you're being an apologist for the Nazis (and German Nationalism).

Still haven't managed to back that up, either. Flinging Nazi accusations around doesn't really do you much service in support of your argument, Malifice. It detracts from it.

Your intent was, as you say, to infer that I'm a Nazi apologist because I agree with something someone identifying as a Nazi said once, then you've taken the further step to say that because I can agree generally with that statement, then I must also support Nazi actions taken as a result of it.
Do I really need to explain why that's an absurd position for you to take?

The treaty of Versailles is a bit of paper. It cant cause a war. It takes a nation of people to do that. The fault lies with German nationalism, not with the Depression, not with the Treaty, and not with any other thing or event.

And you're going to keep on saying so, and saying so, and saying so, twisting responses and engaging in misdirection and misrepresentation, until everyone who doesn't think alike gets bored and wanders off, right?

Yes you literally did:

Poland existed, as a country annexed by three separate powers (Prussia/ Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary).

Yes, Malifice. That's one of the reasons I said it had a storied history, which ended in the late 1700's. I don't really think that I should have to restate the context of a thing every single time just so people like you can keep up.
Context, Malifice. You're a very dishonest person, and it's become quite boring.

We can even go into the history of Poland a little, see if we can establish how they came to be Polish even further back, if you like. Have a chat about your little map from 960AD. I'm quite capable of holding an end up in a historical argument, as I'm sure you well know.

I also think you should also try to figure out if you're arguing about Poland as a sovereign state, or as an ethnic identity (same goes for Czechoslovakia). You've attempted shifting the goalposts on more than one occasion back there. Was that deliberate, or are you just a little confused?

If you're arguing for ethnic identity being the basis for the creation of states and sovereignty, as you seem to be with particular reference to both the Polish Czechoslovakian comments, are you aware also of the wider reaching implications of such a stance?
Have a think about it. Try not to walk into it.

You cant gloss over that fact. Poland was (mostly) given back to the Polish people after WW1 as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Ultimately this is what triggered the war, when the Germans invaded Poland to secure the Polish corridor to Danzig (now Gdansk) and reclaim (re-annex) much of the land the Prussians had previously annexed (plus a lot more).

Youre claiming the Nazis goals were mainly revanchist.

No, Malifice. I've barely mentioned the Nazis at all, in fact I believe not at all, other than in response to you.
You are the one who keeps bringing them up, and then you have the gall to tell me what I've "said" about them. You do like to talk about Nazis, don't you. A lot.

While the Treaty may very well have prohibited revanchism by the Germans, the expansionist goals were all their own.

Yes, Malifice, and it was all because of Nationalism.
Heard you the first time. Are you done filibustering yet?

 

[Malifice]

I think that removing the Versailles Treaty from the picture results in much the same thing.

German Nationalism was alive and well before the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler still would have existed without it, he still would have wanted to get in power and eradicate the Jews, Poles, Slavs and Romani, he still would have desired 'living space' in the East (Russia and Poland) and still would have promoted National Socialism, at a time when Fascism was already sweeping Europe (and was already implemented in Italy, Portugal and Spain).

The depression still would have seen discontented workers in poverty, we still would have seen the Friekorps fighting street battles against Communists and the 'Stab in the back' conspiracy was thriving. Questions in relation to German national identity were still being hotly debated, and the Prussians (as always) loved a good war, and had the Soviets breathing down their necks.

The conditions of the treaty certainly provided fertile ground for all that to fester in. But the only thing you can remove from the equation and not get WW2 is 'German Nationalism'.

Its like how you dont get the Troubles if you remove Irish Nationalism (although you also dont get them if England doesnt invade Ireland and annex the joint).

Nationalism as a whole is a ****ing cancer.

I've given reasons for that. One, everyone in Europe (and most of the world, actually) was nationalistic at the time, and yet it didn't often result in fascist dictators springing up all over Europe,

Wut?

****ing Napoleon had just been marching Armies all over Europe, before World War 1 erupted and killed tens of millions, and at the time of Hitler, there was also Franco (Spain), Mussolini (Italy), Salazar (Portugal) and Fascist parties flourishing elsewhere.

Here is a list of interwar European dictators:

European interwar dictatorships - Wikipedia

There are 31 of them, most of them Fascist, Nazis or Far Right-wing ultra-nationalists (the rest are Commies).

Your intent was, as you say, to infer that I'm a Nazi apologist because I agree with something someone identifying as a Nazi said once, then you've taken the further step to say that because I can agree generally with that statement, then I must also support Nazi actions taken as a result of it.

I didnt say you support Nazi actions. I said you're being an apologist for them coming to Power. 'It wasn't their fault they arose, created a dictatorship and annexed half of Europe; they were only forced to because of the Treaty of Versailles'.

The treaty did not make them do jack shit. German Nationalism did.

Yes, Malifice. That's one of the reasons I said it had a storied history, which ended in the late 1700's.

It didnt end. The only thing that ended was the social construct of 'the State' (the fiction). There were still real flesh and blood Poles, living on real actual factual Polish land, speaking an actual and real Polish language, on lands invaded and annexed by other European powers.

We can even go into the history of Poland a little, see if we can establish how they came to be Polish even further back, if you like. Have a chat about your little map from 960AD. I'm quite capable of holding an end up in a historical argument, as I'm sure you well know.

They were there a lot longer than 960AD. That was around the time the issues with the Teutonic Knights, and their German (Prussian) settlers started causing grief for them.

If you're arguing for ethnic identity being the basis for the creation of states and sovereignty, as you seem to be with particular reference to both the Polish Czechoslovakian comments, are you aware also of the wider reaching implications of such a stance?

No, I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying they were arguing for that, and that's largely how States in Europe formed and were defined (around ethnic and linguistic identity), especially before Nationalism came into being in the 18th century (which only made shit worse).

Yes, Malifice, and it was all because of Nationalism.

It was all about Nationalism. As was WW1, the Napoleonic wars, and pretty much every other War conducted in Europe over the past 200 or so years.

Remove Nationalism from the picture, and you don't get literally any of the above conflicts. They weren't about food, or resources, or anything else other than Nationalism, with Nationalism being at the core of every single one of the above conflicts.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

An article today on News.com.au suggested that in the event of an imminent war conscription may be utilised to bolster defence numbers.
Without resorting to fearmongering, in what circumstances, if any, would you support or accept the reintroduction of conscription?
Given the connected social media world we live in at the start of 2024 would it even be possible to implement conscription at any meaningful level in Australia? If so, what do you think would be some of the drawbacks of utilising conscription that would need to be overcome?
Is there a way to encourage substantially more voluntary service to bolster numbers in the defence force?

Given the possibility of geopolitical conflict Australia has obviously been taking a number of steps to better defend itself (including the recent purchasing of 72 F35 fighters, the AUKUS pact and provision of nuclear-powered submarines and the implementation of the recommendations in the Defence Strategic Review to name a few). Are there are alternatives to conscription to enable Australia to be better prepared for future conflicts in the region (with the priority being to defend our borders)?

Interested in your thoughts.

What would be the likely parameters of such a conscription? Age, gender, sex etc

 

[Taylor]

What would be the likely parameters of such a conscription? Age, gender, sex etc

If it followed previous examples it's all men under 35 and all single men under 45.

 

[Gralin]

If it followed previous examples it's all men under 35 and all single men under 45.

Why would it follow previous examples?

 

[Taylor]

Why would it follow previous examples?

Fighting age men tends to be a fairly consistent group in that mid teens to about fourty male style throughout all of human history, everywhere in the world.

Biggest change could be that unmarried men up to 45 could be pivoted to men without children up to 45 given social changes.

I don't think women will be sent to boot camp while there are fighting age men available

 

[Gralin]

Fighting age men tends to be a fairly consistent group in that mid teens to about fourty male style throughout all of human history, everywhere in the world.

Biggest change could be that unmarried men up to 45 could be pivoted to men without children up to 45 given social changes.

I don't think women will be sent to boot camp while there are fighting age men available

Conscription in Australia has always been young men and boys but we've not had it or national service since 1972

Women were not allowed to hold combat roles until 2013

There's no reason to think if conscription was brought back that women would be excluded or that they'd be interested in 45 year old men

 

[Gough]

Fighting age men tends to be a fairly consistent group in that mid teens to about fourty male style throughout all of human history, everywhere in the world.

Biggest change could be that unmarried men up to 45 could be pivoted to men without children up to 45 given social changes.

I don't think women will be sent to boot camp while there are fighting age men available

If you want to win a war why would you ignore 50% of the population? The Nazis found that out in Russia to their own detriment.

 

[CM86]

It seems that some people are completely unaware of how modern wars are fought.
They think it's still very much like Gallipoli and trench warfare.



Side note.
Why do the people who always complain that women never have to do dangerous jobs, like go to war... Always insist women shouldn't be in those roles?

 

[kickazz]

What would be the likely parameters of such a conscription? Age, gender, sex etc

Family's net wealth.

 

[Gralin]

Family's net wealth.

That covers where you get assigned if you do get conscripted

 

[Taylor]

If you want to win a war why would you ignore 50% of the population? The Nazis found that out in Russia to their own detriment.

I am confident I'm a better shot than you but even though we are the same height and you've had more summers of training, you'd tear me to bits if you were within reach of me purely because of your man parts.

I could fly the planes, drop the bombs, land the helicopters that drop of the warriors but when the time comes to deal out and more importantly take a punch, that's a man's world.

Conscription in Australia has always been young men and boys but we've not had it or national service since 1972

Women were not allowed to hold combat roles until 2013

There's no reason to think if conscription was brought back that women would be excluded or that they'd be interested in 45 year old men

What are the rules in Ukraine? As far as I see it's men even into their senior years and no women.

 

[Gralin]

I am confident I'm a better shot than you but even though we are the same height and you've had more summers of training, you'd tear me to bits if you were within reach of me purely because of your man parts.

I could fly the planes, drop the bombs, land the helicopters that drop of the warriors but when the time comes to deal out and more importantly take a punch, that's a man's world.

Lol

What are the rules in Ukraine? As far as I see it's men even into their senior years and no women.

Again I don't care about the Ukraine
We're not going to be dealing with a land invasion here if they conscript people

 

[kickazz]

Lol

Again I don't care about the Ukraine
We're not going to be dealing with a land invasion here if they conscript people

It's not called "the Ukraine" anymore, fwiw. Considered offensive by some

 

[Taylor]

Lol

Again I don't care about the Ukraine
We're not going to be dealing with a land invasion here if they conscript people

The history of conscription in Australia has nearly entirely, as far as I can see, building a force to send overseas to "defend commonwealth interests" etc.

Conscription in Australia will look like the young men being rounded up and sent somewhere else to fight and die, you're right, a land invasion in Aus doesn't need conscription. There's a lot of good old country boys with rifles to get through before they reach the cities in the South.

 

[schneebly111]

Conscription in Australia will look like the young men being rounded up and sent somewhere else to fight and die, you're right, a land invasion in Aus doesn't need conscription. There's a lot of good old country boys with rifles to get through before they reach the cities in the South.

Errrr this isn't the USA. A couple of outback cattle farmers with their bolt action .22s aren't going to stop a mechanized or airborne force with fire support trying to occupy the country. The only nation with the capacity to invade Australia is the USA.

For fun let's say hypothetically Elon decides he wants to minerals here or something and convinces Daddy Trump to invade. The assault would be multi pronged and targeted at cities or regional centres with major ports to allow amphibious reinforcement. Airport would be sezied and used to fly in supplies, and all military bases with any combat capability would be destroyed within minutes. The Navy has two bases with combat ships, Sydney and Perth, and the Airforce in Newcastle, Amberley and Katherine. All would be destroyed in minutes. The Army is too scattered to make any difference, a couple of light infantry battalions with some armour mostly sitting in sheds.

By the time the "good old country boys" have figured out what's going on then all major cities plus Canberra have been seized.

 

[schneebly111]

The history of conscription in Australia has nearly entirely, as far as I can see, building a force to send overseas to "defend commonwealth interests" etc.

That's right, sending young Australian guys to die in Vietnam against their will proved pretty unpopular. 200,000 people marched against Conscription in 1970, and with population increase that's the equivalent of half a million today, biggest in Australian history.

Point being unless there are foreign troops literally coming out of landing craft onto Aussie beaches then there's zero chance of conscription ever proving to be politically popular.

I have no kids but an attempt to re-introduce conscription would be one of the few issues I would gladly join a protest against. It's abhorrent.