Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post

The problem with conscript armies is that the army leaders want to use conscripts as active force personnel, they don't consider conscripts to be men who get a training and then leave. As a result, conscript training is cut down to press at least some months of reduced effectiveness active service out of them - and many conscripts are being mis-used as cheap forced labour to be used on the most stupid jobs with minimal training.

The political leadership can force the military leadership to consider conscripts as men to be trained for war, and nothing else. That, after all, is the purpose of conscription in wartime, true to Scharnhorst's idea.

Allow the top brass in uniform to consider conscripts as cheap unfree labour that's available no matter how attractive the service is and you'll end up with a ####ty for of conscription.
Force them to train the conscripts and then release them - you will end up with a huge pool of trained reservists when the #### hits the fan.
I do think you really hit the nail on the head with that post, and have really nothing to add to the intent of it.

[OT:

Having followed the debates in quite some European countries in the last ten years, the most important argument for conscription seems to have been that without it you can not offer civil service as an alternative to it, thus loosing a very important work force for the social sector. So now we finally know the true idea behind conscription, it is a legal move to force young males to work in the social sector for almost nothing.

:end the OT part]