Discussion History WebVideo / EpicRapBattlesOfHistory

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted - [[DoubleSubversion who then]] served for quite long terms and generally were perceived as more akin to \\\"(initially) involuntary professionals\\\" than to \\\"long-time serving draftees\\\") which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s. (12/15/2013): After all - the indisputably BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the [[BadassArmy opposite]].

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted - [[DoubleSubversion who then]] served for quite long terms and generally were perceived as more akin to \\\"involuntary professionals\\\" than to \\\"long-time serving draftees\\\") which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s. (12/15/2013): After all - the indisputably BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the [[BadassArmy opposite]].

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s. (12/15/2013): After all - the indisputably BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the [[BadassArmy opposite]].

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s. (12/16/2013): After all - the indisputably BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the [[BadassArmy opposite]].

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s. (12/16/2013): After all - the indisputably BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the opposite.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s.: After all - the indisputably BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the opposite.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s.: After all - BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy or CannonFodder- quite the opposite.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.



p.s.: After all - BadassIsraeli [[UsefulNotes/IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Army]] is based upon universal conscription, and hardly anyone would dare to argue that IDF is a RedShirtArmy - quite the opposite.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted) which were essentially composed of long-time professionals. Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the [[AustroPrussianWar 1866]] and [[FrancoPrussianWar 1870-1871 wars]], the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already. (Dec 12 2013)/

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already./

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austria-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already./

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than low-class mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from volunteering [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already./

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
:::/As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already./

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)
::As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already.

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

<strike>Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)</strike> As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already.

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

<s>Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)</s> As noone oposed, I\\\'ve removed it already.

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.\\\" .... \\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.) Similar sentiments were voiced also by {{Thomas Jefferson}}: \\\'\\\'\\\"But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings.\\\"\\\'\\\'

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer [[KiplingsFinest British Indian Army]].)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced in Prussia late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier (after the [[TheFrenchRevolution French revolution]] TropeMaker) for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Is it just me, or does the list of StealthPuns contain a lot of puns that aren\\\'t very stealthy? Some of them are, but a lot of them are painfully obvious puns (for example \\\"… ten-thousand-dollar shoes I use to stomp out a beatle.\\\" is not trying to hide that they\\\'re playing off the word Beatle) and others aren\\\'t even puns, just play on words (\\\"You\\\'re the least talented rat in your whole pack of rodents!\\\" is referencing the rat pack, but there\\\'s no actual pun) and some aren\\\'t even that (\\\"Dissing these dynamic douchebags\\\" is just word replacement) I think it needs to be seriously cleaned up.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced late in/after the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army infantry made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the professional military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much \\\'\\\'improve\\\'\\\' the average quality (both moral and physical) of the army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually - Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in the continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

Actually Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.
Actually Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders. Actually Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary, [[FollowTheLeader followed the leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]] - leading to the [[TheDukeOfWellington Wellington\\\'s]] remark about the [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores \\\"scum of the Earth\\\"]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders. Actually Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary [[FollowTheLeader followed leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seeing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders. Actually Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary [[FollowTheLeader followed leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders. Actually Prussian 1866 and 1871 victories can be considered as the RealLife TropeCodifier for the practice in continental Europe - most nations, starting with France and Austro-Hungary [[FollowTheLeader followed leader]], convinced that mass conscription-based armies can be not only much numerous, but also much effective in combat than an army composed of long-time professionals.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality (both moral and physical) of army enlisted personnel, who is also more imbued with sense of patriotism, and more willing to fight for the cause, rather than seing the army merely as an alternative to unemployment.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people [[WarIsGlorious enamoured with the prospects of adventure]] or \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' [[FallenOnHardTimesJob hard down on their luck]]), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese Empire, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not to mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the - non-existent - service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\' have no reason to evade the service obligation]]), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\' [...] \\\'\\\'The rich, powerful, talented, or well-connected can often find ways to get out of serving.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs (and [[CaptainObvious \\\"\\\'\\\'the rich, powerful, talented and well-connected\\\'\\\'\\\" have no reason to evade the service obligation), in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" rifles - muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was considered \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than the Austrian and French armies which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle - arguably superior to the Dreyse \\\"needle gun\\\", but in the army service still complemented by the \\\"Tabatière\\\" muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loaders.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - that can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqualified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription - with many exemptions and buying-off options - notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, removed - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription-based army is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay and other benefits in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] - the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the government was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation, often quite the contrary.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries. (Of course - [[ValuesDissonance these times]] most of the nations involved had not governments backed by the popular consent, so the loyalty to the governemnt was not considered the same thing as the loyalty to the nation.)

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.)

Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.) Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

\\\"\\\'\\\'Armies of conscripts are often drawn from [[ArmyOfThievesAndWhores the lower classes of society]] - on average poorer, less educated, inferior in discipline, and less loyal than volunteer forces.\\\'\\\'\\\" - can be also played both ways, and chiefly depends on the pay in the military - if the army do not offer enough (e.g. during the Napoleonic wars, an enlisted private in British Army made something like a chimney-sweep apprentice or an unqalified agricultural worker, which made soldiering attractive either for people enamoured with the prospects of adventure or very hard down on their luck.), or do not offer additional incentives (prospect of qualification, education and other veteran benefits etc.) the better qualified, more intelligent and capable tend to find better paid jobs, in which case the alternative of the general draft can actually much improve the average quality of army enlisted personnel.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from [=POWs=] from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.) Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. (For the record, [[ConvictionByCounterfactualClue it\\\'s not even true for the World War II]] - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army Indian National Army]], fighting for the Japanese, was composed from POWs from the completely volunteer British Indian Army.) Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay (which in most European states happened during suppression of the 1848 revolutions), who were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay, which were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, not only more numerous thanks to the general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them), but \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay, which were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, thanks to general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars, not only more numerous (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them) but also considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (although here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay, which were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically inferior in training or equipment (or a trope maker for cannon-fodder) - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, thanks to general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars, not only more numerous (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them) but also considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (altough here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.

Statement \\\"\\\'\\\'In an extreme situation a conscript army is even capable of [[TheDogBitesBack turning its weapons against its own people]], as happened with Vlasov\\\'s Army in World War II\\\'\\\'\\\" should be, in my opinion, eliminated - this simply does not apply to the conscript army \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\'. Actually, in the 19th century debates in continental Europe, one of main arguments \\\'\\\'for\\\'\\\' the general compulsory service was the right opposite - i.e. that the army of short-time drafted citizens was \\\'\\\'less\\\'\\\' likely to turn against its own nation than an army of long-time soldiers serving for pay, which were deemed essentially no better than mercenaries.

I also can not agree with the notion that the conscription is generally or typically a trope maker for cannon-fodder - for example, in the 1866 and 1870-1871 wars, the Prussian army was, thanks to general conscription introduced post the Napoleonic wars, not only more numerous (and able to draw on considerable pool of trained reservists, which other armies of the time did not have, or at least not so many of them) but also considerably better trained than Austrian and French army which were essentially composed of long-time professionals (altough here it gets complicated, as in both empires peacetime conscription notionally existed and if there were not enough volunteers, suplemental soldiers were drafted). Not the mention its equipment - the Dreyse rifle was far more advanced than Austrian muzzle-loaders and was in general service, unlike the French Chassepot rifle.