Richmond Times-Dispatch; Jan-June 1908

[P3D]

The North American continent is still not less peaceful than OTL Europe (with a much higher conflict density) so I think that justification is not valid.

How much of women suffrage did the OTL ACW cause?

[Carthaginian]

The North American continent is still not less peaceful than OTL Europe (with a much higher conflict density) so I think that justification is not valid.

How much of women suffrage did the OTL ACW cause?

Well, there was Anti-Slavery movement, which gave rise the Temperance movement and to Prohibition, which was the primary political motivation for Women's Suffrage in the 1920's. These developments piggybacked each other, and had large female participation- right up to the highest levels in each era.

Also, if you look the first suffrage group- the National Woman Suffrage Association- was formed in 1869 and 3 states (WY, UT, CO) gave women the right to vote before 1880. Several more western States followed suit before 1919, and even NY had done so by 1917. All in all, 14 States had given women the right to vote prior to the end of WWI and the amending of the Constitution.

[Ithekro]

How many European nations had required service from the 19th century or in the early 20th century?

[P3D]

All European countries at least have draft (as in taking account of all males of military age). All countries that took part in WWI reverted to conscription. Spain did so in the war against Morocco. I bet Sweden, Norway and Netherlands did so, if only as a preventive measure against further escalation.

[swamphen]

[Bending reality to my will]
While OKW, as I said, remains skeptical torwards females in any form of service, the Legion Kondor - also as mentioned - accepts recruits from the fairer sex, as Oberst Hammer follows the doctrine that 'every woman in the rear is another man at the front'.

While there are a few actual "lady soldiers" in the LK, they number less than a dozen; one - now 'Fregattenkapitan' Sally Schilling (and a Norman to boot!) - has made a name for herself; through a combination of brute competence, wily politicking and (seemingly?) preternatural reflexes - as seen in the 'Anahuac spy on PD' incident, which netted her a Blue Max - she rose to the top in the unit, and when the Slammers acquired Agrival's pleasure yacht, Hammer saw the opportunity to put that wretched crew of scum and villiany's pathalogical fear of Marissa Mars to use...

(I'm currently musing on a way to work a second lady into the Slammers, and I may have an interesting story to work that in...stay tuned.)
[/Bending reality to my will]

[P3D]

The huge once native population base of the DKB provides enough manpower for the current army that even fully mobilized it won't be larger than 2% of the national population. Oberst Hammer's doctrine is totally out of context regarding the DKB.

[Carthaginian]

Oberst Hammer's doctrine is totally out of context regarding the DKB.

Honestly, I fail to see how anything is out of context for a mercenary.
If a woman has a shrewd tactical mind and an air of authority sufficient enough to command a group of men, she would be an asset to the organization. If she would an asset to the organization, then she is someone that they would employ, because mercenary groups have to snatch up anyone that is capable... lest someone else employ them, and force that person to become your opponent.

Mercenaries (worked with a lot of them) don't have prejudices when it comes to making money.
They snap up whoever is useful to them and keep them as long as they remain useful.

I noticed that working with groups like Blackwood in Iraq.
Mercs don't see color, creed or sex- they just see $$$.

[P3D]

I was referring to the 'every woman in the rear is another man at the front' quote and the DKB manpower situation (its relative abundance), not implying that female general/flag officers should not be accepted by the Legion Kondor if they had proven themselves previously.

[Borys]

How many European nations had required service from the 19th century or in the early 20th century?

All.
Only UK didn't.

Borys

[swamphen]

Well Hammer isn't Brandenburgian...he's Dutch. Naturalised Brandenburgian.  ;) So it wouldn't be surprising that his opinions differed from the OKW norm.  :P

[P3D]

Didn't UK had to resort to conscription in 1916?

[Borys]

Ahoj!
It did - Ireland exempt.
The dominions also stayed volunteer thruout.
Borys

[Korpen]

Remember, conscripts are suck-arse soldiers... and generals know that. Volunteers are more motivated and do a better job- especially in the kinds of jobs that we would put women doing.

You know, not for one second could I agree with that. Generally "volunteers" for the army have been the misfits of society that have been unable to hold down a regular job.
IN general a conscript army have a much better raw material to work with then a professional army, and it soldiers have a wider skill base that they can utilise in the field.

There are however plenty of exceptions both ways, but I would say that there is nothing that say that an army based on conscription would by default have a disadvantage against an army were people serve on a volunteer basis. The amount of training is generally about the same in both kinds of forces.

[Carthaginian]

Remember, conscripts are suck-arse soldiers... and generals know that. Volunteers are more motivated and do a better job- especially in the kinds of jobs that we would put women doing.

You know, not for one second could I agree with that. Generally "volunteers" for the army have been the misfits of society that have been unable to hold down a regular job.
IN general a conscript army have a much better raw material to work with then a professional army, and it soldiers have a wider skill base that they can utilise in the field.

Here, Korpen, the volunteers have proved to be- by far- more motivated and efficient soldiers.
Since adopting a volunteer-only setup for the military, the average education level of soldiers has increased to far above that of the general population (ALL soldiers have secondary education and all officers have at least 4 year degrees) and the retention rate for experienced soldiers has also risen. Even the war in Iraq hasn't hurt us as bad as a conscript-based military retention-wise.

There are however plenty of exceptions both ways, but I would say that there is nothing that say that an army based on conscription would by default have a disadvantage against an army were people serve on a volunteer basis. The amount of training is generally about the same in both kinds of forces.

The volunteer has one innate advantage over the conscript- he WISHES to be there.
The conscript will have somewhere else he would rather be than where he is.
The volunteer may wish he was elsewhere at times, but always comes back to the fact that he is satisfied enough with his situation to remain there.

Having heard tales of men who served under both systems during the Vietnam war and it's aftermath, and having served in a volunteer force alongside conscripted forces myself... I'll always take an empty file left by a lack of volunteers over a soldier pressed into service and thinking about all the other things he'd rather be doing besides watching my back.

[P3D]

Carthaginian,

The situation 100 years ago was much different. Today, for medium-scale overseas war like Vietnam/Korea/Iraq, professional soldiers are much better. Due to the sophisticated equipment used today, high education levels are desirable. To use a rifle, you don't need much pre-existing education. And I could find three examples of exeptional conscript armies from the top of my head - Wehrmacht, Finland and Israel.

The big difference IMHO is the quality of the officer corps. Or, even more importantly, is their number is large enough to fill positions in the fully mobilized army, in time?
Severe war losses in the professional cadre hindered the performance of several armies in WWI (AH and UK).

In both World Wars, the US addressed the issue with a huge training effort, taking about a year until the first large-scale land operations.