A different way to think about it: if the army has to use everyone (in this case, an IDF-style gender-blind everyone?), it has an incentive to ensure that everyone gets educated.
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.
Maybe Germany wouldn't have invaded Russia if more officers had spoken up about how bad of an idea it was; conformity and following orders is something the Prussian education system instills in people.
To some degree all military ideas are bad, so there is very limited scope for "speaking up".
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.
I'd read somewhere a hypothesis that Germany would've done better to have just kept the peace and (at least by pre-1914 growth paths) outcompeted the British economy. I guess (a) people at that time thought growth wasn't possible without colonies, and (b) people in all times seem to lose any commitment they might have had to free trade once a serious economic competitor emerges?
The US Army all-volunteer force only seemed like it was working well in the 1980s and 1990s because of persistently high unemployment, low opportunity, and general discrimination against African Americans in the civilian economy. With unemployment at or below 5% for all races, military recruiting must be effectively impossible.
This is an interesting take and it sounds sensible. I wonder what the labor market looks like in Germany.
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.
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.
Pay might be motivation for some, but it's not the only source. People also join for reasons such patriotism, sense of duty, or family history of service. Boosting pay could certainly help, but I think its effect would be limited if it's facing cultural headwinds.
"Mercenaries" in pre-modern times were people whose career was soldiering. They were available to any principality that would pay them. Not the same as volunteer military now who only fight for their own country.
