>>18407477
probably Russia by sole virtue of WWII. I doubt we'll ever see another country use so many women in direct frontline/combat roles as the Eastern Front from 1941-45 ever again. North Vietnam also had huge numbers of women serving as antiaircraft gunners, militia personnel, etc, Other than that, physical warfare has been 99% a man's game literally everywhere on earth with few exceptions.

>>18407477
It necessarily implies that you're losing the war if you have to draft the segment of society associated with domestic production and keeping basic stuff running while soldiers are fighting

>>18407675
not really. Just means you're engaged in total fucking war. Might even mean your capacity for domestic production is already high enough in excess to start using that labour force as more troops to win faster.

>>18407675
not true, depends on how primitive or simple the society was before the conflict, also sometimes it could just be a natural system from already having low numbers to begin with, that doesn't necessarily mean you are losing or will lose the war, the Eritrean war of independence is a good example

>>18407675
nah, it could also mean that you have excess population(including females) that you can just throw out