cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
EDIT: looking at non-Telegraph news, it appears there are three options on the table, going from completely volunteer to universal obligation: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/von-optimierungen-bis-hi...
This was why GB wanted the war.... it is called Thucydides Trap.
Im no expert on ww1, so i can't comment there, but the German army of ww2 was (by far) the most well trained, and effective, fighting force of the war.
Yes, their politics were terrible, and the leadership at times questionable, and losing is never going to win accolades, but the reasons for losing had nothing to do with skill, ability, or execution.
They had world-leading technology and arms, well respected general officers, and a battle tested force that occupied all of Europe (and came within a whisker of invading the UK). But for the fairly obvious strategic error of invading the Soviet Union, the outcomes may have been very different.
Citation needed. MCDP 1 "Warfighting" is basically a tl;dr of Clausewitz.
What the USMC called "Mission tactics" ca. 1989 was, by the Prussians, called "Auftragstaktik" over a century earlier.
as to "conformity", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildung
Finally, Germany needed to invade Russia for the oil. (eg Maikop, Grozny, Baku, and fields to their southeast) No oil, no Blitz.
Militaries are not democracies. Orders flow downhill.
In this specific case the guy on top wanted to invade for reasons. Yes, What objections the generals would have had would have been partly suppressed by the natural military doctrine (but that exists in all militaries) but equally the nature of their leader's personality would have suppressed objection. He was not known for changing his mind.
Equally after the successes of 1940 it Likely wasn't as obvious a mistake then as we see it now.
Had the UK fallen in 1940, and there being no second front, (and hence no North Africa) Barbarossa would have like succeeded as well.
The veterans for those conflicts often went in enthused, and came back entirely disillusioned. Pretty much created a machine for damaging their reputation, which ran for decades.
As far as the US goes, I'm also curious how the dawning changes led by AI technologies in the workplace and budding trends in the labor pool will affect their military's posture recruitment-wise.
We've seen them attempt to appeal to more diverse crowds in the last few years, but I think that the particular demographic(s) in question are most likely to equate serving the armed forces in general as bad.
A generation comprised of mostly men without college educations who are not satisfied with Door-Dashing or "Twitching" for a living may not feel the same.
https://www.ausa.org/news/paper-recruiting-crisis-national-s...
Russia has a huge army. Its use of mercenaries is not brandishing the russian flag for invasions
Russia is a different case altogether.
I don't know about that.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/4/30/germanys-crackd...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/1/we-jews-are-just-arr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/world/europe/germany-pro-...