Germany Introduces New Travel Restrictions for Men Aged 17–45 Amid Military Reforms
Posted by CourtofTalons@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 349 comments
pass_nthru@reddit
what’s would be hilarious is saying to all immigrants to the EU from the ME fleeing war is that a condition of staying in your new country is mandatory military service
OCDEngineerBoy@reddit
Singapore already does it.
KerashQSA@reddit
Has Singapore fought any major war recently?
NymusRaed@reddit
Very Starship Troopery.
"You want to be a citizen? Do your military service!"
Nethlem@reddit
Nearly as hilarious as the US doing exactly that with people fleeing from South America who are promised US citizenship in exchange for military service.
supposedlyitsme@reddit
Oh wow people dying, such funny, much wow. Imbecile.
Bonar_Ballsington@reddit
I think giving them guns would be a pretty bad idea
One-Reflection-4826@reddit
very hilarious.
Kitchen_Letter8775@reddit
What's with the sexism? Isn't Germany a liberal country with equal rights for all genders?
NezumiAniki@reddit
I hope German men have enough dignity to dodge draft in such case.
YourFuture2000@reddit
You are talk about a country where the population are the most willing to be subservient to government "order" and propaganda.
Grotzbully@reddit
Ah yes because of that 70% of those who can be drafted are against it. Draft is mostly supported by those who can't be drafted due to being too old already.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
In 2002 a vast majority of of Germans opposed any participation in the war against Iraq, millions of people out in the street protesting against it.
The result wasn’t that the German government stayed out of it, the result was that the German government secretly supported the war.
Bundeswehr soldiers who were ordered to support that illegal war of aggression overwhelmingly followed such illegal orders, orders in violation of the Grundgesetz, only a single soldier refused.
If you don’t understand how bad all of that was, and how much worse it has become since, then I don’t know what to tell you except: Bundeswehr soldiers are in Iraq right now, a fact the majority of Germans don’t know about.
Grotzbully@reddit
What do you mean secretly supported the war? What did we do? Did we send soldiers?
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
https://de.connection-ev.org/article-307
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/those-guys-are-heroes-how-german-agents-helped-pave-the-way-into-iraq-a-596584.html
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/befehl-verweigert-a-f07b8940-0002-0001-0000-000040788879
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/urteil-bundesrichter-rueffeln-deutsche-unterstuetzung-des-irak-kriegs-a-372819.html
Since 2015 Bundeswehr troops themselves have also been directly deployed to Iraq as part of a „NATO mission“ and with rather questionable legality: https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-01/bundeswehr-irak-bundestag-mandat-voelkerrecht-kommentar
Sorry for just linking-dumping, for some weird reason old.reddit stopped working and I have no idea how to format on “new” Reddit in mobile.
Grotzbully@reddit
I know that hat we supported the Iraq war, what I asked what what was su secret about it, it was way in the open nothing secret about it except the BND stuff which is to be expected of them
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Schröder made promises to Bush in secret to support the war, Schröder couldn’t fully keep his promise due to the massive public opposition.
So instead of sending Bundeswehr soldiers to Iraq, they were sent to US bases in Germany so the US could free up more manpower.
Instead of following the will of the German people, the Schröder government followed the will of our American “allies”.
“Nothing secret except for the secret parts!”
Let’s just ignore that in Germany international law is also domestic law with the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. Making such support, and even just the endorsement, of illegal wars of aggression a crime in Germany.
So is your argument really we can’t expect our government to not break our laws for US interests?
Or what are your weird attempts at relativising crimes, even those of our current chancellor, supposed to be?
I doubt you were around back then and protested if you can’t recognise what a betrayal, what a crime, that was and is in regards to our allegedly so important “rules and values”.
Northzen@reddit
Like a modern bureucracy in Germany. 90% against it, but 99% obey and follow it. What do you think it would be different for draft?
Grotzbully@reddit
90% of people can't even tell you what specific bureaucracy theyz are against.
Young people are against the draft, old people are in favour.
SyriseUnseen@reddit
They already did their military service when they were young.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
As somebody who went through it I can tell you that military service back then mostly consisted of getting really drunk and racist.
That’s because the war we were training for, the Cold War going hot, was one were conventional troops wouldn’t even play much, if any, role as a conflict against the Warsaw Pact would have escalated to nuclear stakes very quickly.
This is something even modern day Bundeswehr soldiers realise: I know a guy with the Gebirgsjäger who is on call for the NATO quick reaction force in Eastern Europe.
He knows very well should he ever be “called in” then first would he be fucked and then the rest of Europe would be fucked.
The other major difference: Back when conscription was still in place West German soldiers were only deployed in Germany, as the Bundeswehr is supposed to be only a defensive military.
Yet since the 90s, since the fall of the Warsaw Pact to be specific, the Bundeswehr suddenly started participating in „international interventionism“.
It’s why that whole narrative about Germany allegedly “demilitarising” is nothing but a lie.
What the German military actually did was retool from a protracted long war of attrition against the Warsaw Pact, needing many soldiers and tanks, to a “interventionist” military with global power projection.
Thousands of thanks and over a million conscripts ain’t gonna do you much good if you want to deploy on the other side of wolf the world.
Case in point: The first combat deployment of German troops on foreign ground, since WWII, was as part of the first Iraq war when German navy helped demine for the US.
What followed was Kosovo (to this day illegal), the “defensive occupation of Afghanistan”, Bundeswehr soldiers in Iraq, in Sudan, the Bundeswehr helping the US bomb Syria.
Which is a very different picture compared to conscription of old where the prospect of having to go to some conflict zone/war was literally zero.
While these days somebody conscripted into service will suddenly be serving in support of conflicts far away from Germany, with the last government even floating the idea of sending the Bundeswehr to Ukraine.
Thats why you can’t really compare the situation.
floralbutttrumpet@reddit
i.e. aporoaching 50% of the German population. Welcome to gerontocracy.
YourFuture2000@reddit
There is a big difference between being a gains a government law and civil disobedience.
Grotzbully@reddit
I don't understand this comment, maybe due to autocorrect.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Back in 2003 the German Bundeswehr helped the US invade Iraq.
Only a single Bundeswehr soldier refused to participate, refused following clearly illegal orders.
Madam_Hel@reddit
I think we are forgetting the most important thing here; this is fucked up. Instead of acting like it would be ok if they did this to women too (who are excluded because patriarchy considers them weak) realize how fucked up it is that they do this to ANYONE. This should be met with massive protests.
Anthro_DragonFerrite@reddit
Oh yes. Men forced to go to war and it's the women who are at a loss. Real benefit for men.
About as tone deaf as the "women are the primary casualty of war" comment
CoffeeWorldly9915@reddit
«Hillary Clinton "women are the primary victims of war"»-ahh statement from the OC :v.
YourFuture2000@reddit
Women are excluded because patriarchy consider them object of labour class reproduction. They are literally the ones who can delivery new men/people to replace those dying at old age and at wars.
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
This argument falls apart under the reality that the fertility rate of German women is 1.3, so they're not reproducing new labour/cannon fodder. In a society dominated by patriarchy in such a scenario you would expect to see significant efforts to force women into having children, but that's not happening and would be politically impossible in the current climate.
YourFuture2000@reddit
You should read "Caliban and The Witch". The book is exactly about it and will elucidate you a lot in this subject.
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
Looks interesting from the synopsis, will check it out. Thanks.
Cabracan@reddit
I'm halfway through it myself, and in regular conversations it's honestly hard to not just start pointing at the book and tell people to look at this woodcut from the 16th century that attempted to promote exactly the same monstrous thing as is being done now, for essentially similar reasons.
Really important book.
SquirrelAkl@reddit
It’s not because “they’re considered weak” it’s because those are the child bearing years
Madam_Hel@reddit
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It is numerous reasons, that’s true but I was trying to make the point very briefly. The point is that patriarchy kept them out of the army, and that I don’t think it’s right to take men’s freedom to force them to be cannonfood.
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
So draft women over child bearing years and lesbian and trans women according to your logic.
SquirrelAkl@reddit
After child bearing years you’d be too old anyway. The cutoff for men is 45. Trans / lesbian - irrelevant. The rules were to do with biology not preferences
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
No, it's not irrelevant. You claimed it's about saving child bearing aged women. So you admit you're full of shit and it has nothing to do with 'child bearing years'
jinks@reddit
I hate to break it to you, but lesbian women can, in fact, get pregnant.
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
No, lesbian women will not get pregnant. How are lesbian women useful to repopulate the country, incel? Do you think the government is going to mandate them being impregnated against their will? Or are you gonna admit they are just as disposable as men according to your dehumanizing fascist logic?
ElMatasiete7@reddit
I have a problem with framing men being conscripted exclusively as a result of the patriarchy. Are we really laying the blame for sexism where men are disadvantaged and DIE as a result exclusively at the feet of men yet again? Then we question why men feel abandoned or left out? Cmon
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
The reality is they are excluded because society considers them to be human, unlike men.
Women are perfectly capable of fighting in wars. Look at PKK, Kurdistan, Russian, Armenian female soldiers, and tons of women in the US reserves.
Grotzbully@reddit
Woman can be drafted too. Men up to 45, woman up to 55.
ikarusproject@reddit
This bullshit comes up every time. The reason is simple. Changing it would require a change of the constitution and there is no majority for that, not even close (>2/3 needed) . Therefore all the government can do is to stick to what they got and that is all men.
Kitchen_Letter8775@reddit
It's not bullshit really. One could argue that the constitution is bullshit though, considering that this issue can become very serious during actual war times.
Crossy_V@reddit
I think they just mean that in Germany this topic was somewhat discussed but the outcome would be always the same because the government really wanted it to pass and there wasn’t a 2/3 majority to change the law.
But I agree it isn’t bullshit I am personally waiting until someone actually goes infront of court with a constitutional lawsuit because of discrimination based on gender.
But also the travel restrictions are even more bs because before the new law it was only in emergency and the current government specifically changed it to be applicable to peace like fuck the male populus of Germany for no real reason.
Arx_724@reddit
Yeah, an old law meant for wartime situations being discriminatory and hard to replace is one thing. Choosing to start applying that same law in peaceful times is a different thing altogether.
MajorGef@reddit
The German government is currently working on the assumtion that there will be war with Russia no later than 2030. We are firmly in the "lead up to the war" section of the history book.
BendicantMias@reddit
War where? Not in Germany. They're preparing to be fighting in Latvia, not Germany. Somehow I suspect that's going to be a lot less motivating.
TurelSun@reddit
Europe. If there is going to be a war with Russia then Germany won't want to start the fighting when the Russians get through their neighbors and are at the German border.
BendicantMias@reddit
I already addressed that in my follow-up comment to this -
Djonso@reddit
Ah yes, russia, the country of sensible strategies. Also you thought about this but think nato does not realise the possibility and counter it as well.
BendicantMias@reddit
What's NATO going to do? NOT come to the aid of the Baltic states? They're treaty bound to rescue them.
TurelSun@reddit
Your assumption is flawed. The treaty would only obligate NATO to fight Russia if they invaded a NATO country. It doesn't force any particular military strategy onto NATO to fight that conflict. Once NATO is at war with Russia, it could fight that conflict anywhere and in anyway it wants. That doesn't mean they wont fight Russia where ever it has a presence but it also doesn't mean they HAVE to put their troops in a disadvantaged position.
BendicantMias@reddit
And what would those be? NATO can arrange all the troops it wants in Poland, Russia can just sit tight and further fortify its hold on the Baltics. NATO try pushing through Finland to St. Petersburg, which would be an invasion of Russia proper. Oh boy, would you not like what that leads to. Never mind nukes, how about the worlds' largest forest fire - a literal firewall (which would also destroy one of Finlands' major industries btw - logging). NATO can try pushing through Ukraine, which isn't a NATO member btw, and they'll just be running up against already existing fortifications from this war - that have already been tested and withstood a full offensive 3 years ago. And so on. And none of these moves would liberate the Baltic states btw, you'd just be hoping Russia moves out of position.
And keep in mind that, as I've mentioned in other comments here, I'm not predicting this war now. This prediction is about a war either during or after an American war with China, which will severely deplete western air and naval power. And likely open Chinese support for Russia for this war afterwards. A war in the South China Sea would weaken the American navy and air force (a lot of which is carrier based), and this war in Europe would serve to weaken American ground forces.
This isn't even about the west losing to Russia - Russia may get what it wants in Europe, but the biggest winner from all this is China. And, although this is a separate discussion, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey as well (but that's a not of concern to Europe, well except for Turkey...).
TurelSun@reddit
The point was that your assertion that they HAVE to fight on Russia's terms due to the treaty is incorrect.
Djonso@reddit
how about move faster than russia to stop baltics from being taken. How about if baltics are taken, not just march blindly forward while russia gathers troops in belarus to "push them to the sea" but instead challenge that troop gathering. Also you know, attack kaliningrad and lock down the nato lake
BendicantMias@reddit
You'd have to go through Kaliningrad, which is already a highly militarized exclave, to get to the Baltic states anyway. The grinding would begin there anyway, so that isn't changing anything.
Attacking Russian forces in Belarus runs into the problem of being sandwiched between the forces in the north and the one in the south - not a great position. And that's assuming there even are forces in the south to begin with. There could be, but that'd be obvious. The original idea was to have that force assemble (such as from conscription, which takes time, while the regular army is quicker and so could push out faster to take the Baltics) AS NATO is being ground down pushing through the Baltics
Also one thing to note is that I'm not envisioning this happening now, but AFTER a war with China. Which you guys will be dragged into. An American war on China will be primarily involving sea and air power, which will severely cripple NATO naval and air forces (as a LOT of American air power will be on carriers, and thus sunk). The idea is that the China war weakens the wests' navy and air force, while China then supports Russia in order to weaken the Wests' ground forces. So you won't be as dominant as you think. But be that as it may, a lock down of the Baltic Sea would require you to sail ships close to St. Petersburg. Russia doesn't have to fight a naval battle there - it can sail its subs out in advance. Instead it can share with you a taste of Ukrainian medicine. Same principle - draw the enemy into your lands, and crush them close. You'll have to maintain a constant presence outside of St. Petersburg - exactly as Russia had to outside Odessa. And just like Ukraine, they can pepper your (weakened) navy down from home turf. You'll face the same fate as the Black Sea Fleet did.
This serves China well btw, as a crippled west can't interfere in its region anymore. Even if Russia succeeds, it'll be China that ultimately emerges as greatest victor. Though Russia gets what it wants.
To fight an enemy on their lands is a mistake. Make those lands your own, and the mistake becomes theirs. - Eardstapa
You can prevent this btw. The simplest solution is just to get the Yanks to not be stupid enough to get into a war with China. Good luck with that lol! If they don't, they'll end up embarrassed on the world stage. As I've said repeatedly, this is all comes down to western hubris. Your greatest enemy isn't Russia, or China. Your greatest enemy, and greatest vulnerability, is your own damn arrogance.
Djonso@reddit
I'm just gonna ignore all that china stuff since you pulled it out of nowhere. As for the baltics, why would nato be sandwiched instead of russia? One line goes to baltics, one attacks from poland to the east to belarus and at this point ukraine is definitely back at it trying to take back their territories so russia has to stretch there too.
BendicantMias@reddit
Lol! Ignore it at your peril. It wasn't pulled out of nowhere, my other comments have already covered it. It's the most likely series of actions - Russia attacks the west when it's weaker, which would be during or after a conflict with China. It doesn't even require some grand master plan, it's just the most opportune moment to do so.
As for why NATO would be sandwiched, lolwut? If you send a force south, then you've automatically got the northern force, you know, to the north of you. Your 'solution' is to split your forces? That just makes each individually weaker lol. And you'd still be fighting in fortified enemy territory, just in this case half of it will be in Belarus.
And Ukraine isn't doing anything. This is well after the Ukraine war, after which that country is crippled simply from the war itself, territory or no - they're spending well over a third of their GDP on this war, a ridiculously high figure only possible thanks to western financing. After the war they'll be a debt-ridden impoverished nation struggling to stay afloat, akin to current Lebanon. If they don't get back their territories NOW i.e. during this war, then they'll likely also be facing significant political unrest owing to both anger over the whole thing, and a shattered economy unable to employ all their (finally) de-drafted soldiers. A lot of whom will just emigrate once wartime restrictions are lifted. Ukraine has to achieve its turnaround now, its doomed as a country afterwards. Plus they've already tried to push Russian defenses even during their high point in 2023 - and still failed.
Djonso@reddit
So nato can't split forces but russia can. Sure makes sense. No war ever is fought in one straight line. Poland alone could pull enough forces at belarus boarder that they could not be ignored by sending main army north where nato is already setting up.
Ukraine economy will be struggling, but it seems clear eu will be bankrolling them after the war and they will have the most experienced army in europe. Russian attack will not come out of nowhere so why would not europe keep arming ukraine in preparation. They should be capable unless this current war ends really badly which does not seem clear at the moment.
BendicantMias@reddit
NATO can split forces, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that you're going to be pushing into fortified positions either way. It just means each push is that much weaker, similar to when Hitler split his far more massive Operation Barbarossa between multiple targets and lost it all. Russia still has the fortifications, so instead of one army pushing into the Baltics and being ground down and then eventually cut off from below, you'll have two smaller armies being ground down separately. Remember that Russia's goal here isn't even to hold territory, only to grind you down.
Methinks you'll find European enthusiasm for bankrolling Ukraine will fade fast once the romantic excitement and indignation of war fades. Hell European farmers are already unwilling to sacrifice for Ukraine even DURING this war. The estimates for what it'll cost run from half to more than a trillion dollars. Do you really think Europe is going to pay that much, when its own economies are sluggish?
And remember that Ukraines' army depends on the draft - once that's recalled a lot of them are going to be eager to leave to join their women and children abroad. Keep in mind that Ukraine had a demographic disaster even BEFORE this war - it's fallen from over 50 million people in the 90s to 30 million now. That's not from war deaths - that's from folk leaving. No one wants to stay in Ukraine, and even less so if the economy is shattered and jobs scarce and low paid. Most Ukrainian expats and refugees say they wouldn't like to return, so you'd have to force them back. If the result of the war is disappointing, they're not even gonna have national pride to enthuse them.
This doesn't mean Ukraine as a country ceases to exist. We already have an example of a country shattered by years of war as well as economic crisis that I mentioned - Lebanon. Whatever the state of Ukrainian borders at the end of this war, Lebanon is a vision of its future. The Lebanon of Europe.
MajorGef@reddit
An attack on one is an attack on all. Besides, waiting until they are on german soil isnt going to imrpove things.
BendicantMias@reddit
That slogan doesn't mean much when you're sending people off to die for someone else's home. And they won't be on German soil. The most sensible strategy for Russia would be to simply use the Baltic states as a death trap to wear NATO forces down, not to push outward even unto Poland, let alone Germany. They surround the Baltic states on 3 sides, with the sea on the 4th. Close the Suwalki Gap, take them, then sit tight and fortify. NATO is treaty bound to march in, Russia wages a defensive war with a planned retreat as it grinds NATO down while building up to the south in Belarus. Then, as NATO reaches the third of the Baltic trio and has its logistics stretched, simply push up from below, cut off their supplies and drive them into the sea. None of this will happen on German soil. Germans will be being sent into a meat grinder on foreign soil that they otherwise never would had to walk into. By contrast, them fighting at home, or even in Poland, would be far more advantageous. Fighting for the Baltic states is just walking into the most obvious death trap.
FrightenedChimp@reddit
My friend, the Baltic Sea is a Nato-sea now, with sweden, finland, denmark, Germany and the UK closeby. St. Petersburg would be under naval blockade before Russia could Block the baltics from the sea
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
A NATO Sea that allowed a supposedly non nato member to destroy a pipeline in the NATO Sea.
ZealousidealTrip8050@reddit
why do you care ? germany always said it was not a german pipeline but private and non political
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
Our highest court in the system of ordinary jurisdiction the Federal Court of Justice already decided that:
https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/bgh-stb6025-nord-stream-anschlag-2022-haftbeschwerde-immunitaet-ukraine-russland
if you deem this decision to be wrong, you'll be able to find their contact address of the Federal Court of Justice to be wrong ;) Ukrainian soldier and his defense wasn't able to convince them though, so good luck with that.
So why shouldn't I care just because Ukraine is fighting Russia? What the Federal Court of Justice laid out is there to read for everyone.
ZealousidealTrip8050@reddit
Kinda not really objective right? its like asking russian goverment about it
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
The Federal Court of Justice is not the government.
Let me guess you'd deem Ukrainian court objective in this manner?
ZealousidealTrip8050@reddit
right a court choosen by politicians is so neutral , i have a bridge to sell you if you think that.
BendicantMias@reddit
They don't need to block the Baltics from the sea, nor was doing that anywhere in my comment. You feel like doing another Normandy bro? By your logic the Strait of Hormuz should be American by now btw, but it isn't. You'll be doing that Normandy while dealing with constant harassment from drones and mines, and what forces are left will have already been depleted by grinding through the Baltics already.
A blockade of St. Petersburg would be as exhausting as Russia's earlier blockade of Ukraine. Don't think you're immune to what Ukraine did. Russia doesn't even need to break it - again, you're coming to THEIR battlefield, so it affords them the opportunity to whittle you down much like Ukraine did them.
What you should've said was that you'd try taking St. Petersburg via Finland. And oh boy, would you not like what that'd lead to. Here's a hint - the worlds' largest forest fire, a literal firewall...
FrightenedChimp@reddit
You said “sourround them by 3 sides, with the sea as the 4th”, but nato controlling the baltic makes the seaside more of an asset to the baltics than encircling them. You give the baltics away in two words. Russia just “take them”. Whatever Sir couch general :D
BendicantMias@reddit
Unless your name is Caesar at the battle of Alessia, you never fully encircle an enemy. How did the enemy get into your circle lol? Dunkirk wasn't a full encirclement either, yet still a desperate seaborne retreat of a shattered army.
And the territory Russia has already taken in Ukraine - almost all of which it took in the early days of the war btw - is already enough in land area. They've already done that in Ukraine, I just posited them doing the same in the Baltics. Which also have much smaller militaries btw, they depend on NATO coming to rescue them. Which is what the strategy is counting on.
FrightenedChimp@reddit
You said “surrounded”. Lets not get lost in thr semantics of surrounding and encirclement.
First and formost the baltics rely on deterrence through Nato, as we have no interest in attacking Russia, nor do we wish for dead russians on our soil. Deterrence through to Facts Like there are still about 2000 US-soldiers in the baltics that killing wouldnt even be taken lightly my Trump. European countries would Join the fight for sure, maybe not hungary, Austria or slovakia, but sweden, finland, poland, Germany, france, etc. I’d even bet on the Uk.
Right now a russian invasion in the baltics is out of the question as Russia is occupied with Ukraine. An Invasion wouldnt happen over night too and show similar amounts of Pre-invasion build up that Ukraine saw with the nato countries a Lot less willing to downplay what Russia is prearing for. Of course all of this can Change a Lot in the near Future, Thats why Iam strongly in favor of boosting european military spending. Deterrence.
BendicantMias@reddit
You think 2000 soldiers will stop them? That's less than the army of the Baltics themselves lol. The rest of US forces will be part of the force that has to push into the Baltics, which is exactly what the strategy is counting on. And keep in mind that this is taking place either after or during the US' conflict with China, so they're already weathered down. I wasn't even counting on Trump being in power, as I'm not expecting this anytime soon, but if he is then all the better - the whole point is to get the enemy to make an idiotic mistake, and Trump is a master at that. I was only counting on NATO obligations to draw western forces in, but if Trump is still in charge then all the better. He'll likely make it go even worse by making even more mistakes that weren't even planned for, but provide even more opportunities nonetheless.
And ofc the rest of Europe would join too - that's the whole point! Get all of the wests' forces, already depleted by war with China (especially its navy and air force which is what a war with China would mainly hurt, hence your operations in the Baltic Sea won't be as strong as you imagine) to march into a death trap. China fights the west at sea, Russia on land. And keep in mind that a large part of the wests' air power is on carriers i.e. fighting at sea, so a naval war with China will cost the west much of its air force as well.
As for it not happening overnight, that didn't stop them from taking a fifth of Ukraine fairly quickly in 2022. I'm not counting on it being any faster here. NATO would also have to organize itself for its counterattack, and this right after fighting China half a world away, just as Ukraine took a year to do so. And when it did counterattack, Russian defenses held. In this case I'm not even counting on them holding indefinitely - the whole point is for them to carry out a staged retreat, sacrificing Baltic state after Baltic state, using scorched earth tactics if need be, to grind NATO down, while arranging their own upward thrust from the south to cut that army off as it goes deeper.
None of this is inevitable of course. It can be avoided easily. You just need to remember one thing - DON'T FIGHT CHINA. And I don't just mean Europe, I mean America too. But good luck getting the Yanks to display such humility. If the west fights China, you're gonna be in for a world of pain. Russia will just bring that pain home to Europe.
andraip@reddit
NATO can fight at the other side of the globe. Thinking their supply lines will be outstretched while fighting on home turf is quite optimistic, even for Russia.
NATO doesn't adhere to Russian's human wave doctrine, even if Russia set's up defensive positions NATO doctrine will bomb those to smithereens before going in.
If Russia is bogged down in Ukraine they can't open another front with NATO. If there is a cease-fire with Ukraine, Ukraine would gladly jump in to help defeat Russia in return of their occupied territories.
Now thinking that Russia could drive NATO into the sea when they can't even push Ukraine is so delusional, not even the worst Russian general high on their own propaganda would suggest it.
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
Technically true, but it would be more accurate to just say that the USA can fight on the other side of the globe, because you and the rest of NATO can't without US support. Germany today would struggle to muster even a single expeditionary division.
BendicantMias@reddit
Lol. More arrogance, typical of westerners. You should focus on successfully bombing Iran into submission before thinking you can so easily take on Russia. Against whom you wouldn't even have air dominance, whereas you do with Iran and are still falling short. What's more, you had your chance to prove how strong you are in 2023, when Ukraine tried breaking their fortifications. You failed.
As for Russia being busy in Ukraine, you're arguing with a strawman. A hypothetical NATO war would be taking place after the Ukraine war, not now lol. Unlike you, I'm not speaking of Russia doing anything more than they already have - they've already taken as much territory in Ukraine as they'd need to in the Baltics in such a war. Whereas you are boasting of capabilities you haven't even demonstrated in your past - and even the current war with Iran, let alone a future one with Russia.
Do you even know what comment chain and article you're arguing under btw? I'm not the one who brought up a possible war with Russia, I simply responded to it. And if NATO was so confident, we wouldn't see its members - like your own country - instituting measures like this.
You WILL be fighting on the other side of the globe btw. I expect this war will likely follow on from a war with China, which as usual your Daddy America will drag you into. Which also means you'll likely be fighting not just Russia, but a Russia with active and open Chinese support and supplies. Why? Cos most of your defense comes from Daddy America, and in such a conflict it serves China to destroy American forces everywhere to unwind its hegemony once and for all. America will drag you into the Pacific, and then China will bring their war to you in Europe so as to destroy American might there as well.
You better hope your bravado isn't just that. Cos rn you're not demonstrating it well even in Iran lol.
andraip@reddit
Bro, we are not at war with Iran. The orange turd is.
And no, we won't fight China either.
Most of our defense is domestic and becoming more European by the minute.
I clearly went into both scenarios, or did you think Russia can conquer Ukraine lol.
And I do hope "Daddy America" is bogged down in Iran or China or where ever if Putin decides to invade the Baltics. Trump opening a second front while we are busy with Russia would be problematic.
Russia is bleeding out in Ukraine and you think they could take the rest of Europe if they wanted to. Hilarious.
BendicantMias@reddit
That orange turd and his country is the bulk of your strength. That's the best you've got lol. And he's fighting a relatively weaker enemy, and still flailing. Plus he gets to bomb the enemy with impunity, whereas you'd have the small issue of having to bomb your own ally (Russian fortifications would be in the Baltic states, which you're ostensibly trying to save), and without as much air dominance.
And Russia doesn't have to conquer Ukraine lol, that isn't even their goal. If they're successful at their current goal, Ukraine will be left an impoverished wreck. Over a third of Ukraine's GDP is going into defense - a ridiculous figure only possible thanks to your funding. Once the war is over, they're in a soup if that level of funding stops. If Russia is successful, it'll also lead to political unrest. Ukraine won't be able to donate much to helping you, unless you pay for it all again.
Lastly, I clearly didn't talk of them taking the "rest of Europe", keep up. In fact I specifically argued against that. This started with the OP speaking of a Russian war with Germany, and how it'd be better fighting them abroad than fighting them when they attack Germany itself. My whole point was to call out that idea. Never mind Germany, I pointed out they wouldn't even bother with Poland. Just the Baltics, so that your own dumb treaty would force you to march into the most obvious trap.
Russia couldn't control the "rest of Europe" even if it did somehow take it. But nor does it need to. That's what you ideological idiots keep getting wrong. It isn't about territory, it's about NATO. That's why, as I also pointed out before, they even offered to let Ukraine keep the Donbas, and avoid war, if only NATO could be humble enough to do what your Daddy America demanded Russia do back during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and which Moscow was indeed humble enough to do, averting war).
And that humility is key. Cos the biggest danger to you is your very lack of that. It's your arrogance that led you to this war in Ukraine, that arrogance that led the orange turd to getting stuck in Iran, and that same arrogance may very well cost you more wars as well. Until you overcome your hubris, it will remain your biggest vulnerability. But unfortunately hubris is by now core to your very identity.
MrDemonRush@reddit
Russian hubris is what led to Ukraine war lmao. They thought they could just buy the leadership in 2013, guess what happened? They thought they could march to Kiev in 2022, guess what happened? Current year is 2026 and Russia loses trading hubs to ukrainian drones, oh wait, this is just cars smoking too much in Saint-Petersburg, not fumes from burning oil(real article by russian gov news source btw lmao).
The war is 4 years and going and Russia still has to get a single regional center in Ukraine(they had one briefly at the start, and had to run once Ukraine started getting proper western support). They had to get NK troops to free their own land from invasion. They used actual analogue comms at the start of the war, I'm talking soviet shit from the 80s. Digital only found its way to them in 2023. If you think they are in any position to win anything, you have a real harsh lesson coming.
Squashyhex@reddit
I think you underestimate the camaraderie among European countries these days. While there's always some bickering, by and large the EU stands fairly united, especially in the face of threats like Russia
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
There is no camaraderie among Germans that aren't already in the BW they aren't going to suddenly join and defend Eastern Europe lmfao.
BendicantMias@reddit
Cool. That changes nothing about how obviously dumb marching off to fight in Estonia would look.
And even right here in this comment section you're seeing people bickering not even about that, but about divisions between citizens of the same country i.e. between men and women, both German.
Radiant-Fly9738@reddit
It would look dumb for Russia too, and Russians are not motivated to fight as we can see right now. they hire north korean forces for a reason. all the things you wrote abiut gerrmany and Germans are applicable to Russians.
BendicantMias@reddit
Not really. You clearly didn't even read my comment. Most of my comment was about the map of Europe and where you'd be fighting. That looks good for Russia. That fifth of Ukraine they already occupy (and which they took without any North Korean forces btw, who only came in to help kick Ukraine out of Kursk) is about as large as the Baltic trio, after which they just sit and defend as they already have successfully against Ukraine's much hyped 2023 counteroffensive.
Remember Russia offered not to invade Ukraine at all in 2021 - it literally sent an official offer to NATO. Ukraine could've got off lightly, they didn't even demand Donbas. Russia does see NATO as an enemy, and it already has plenty of territory. So all they'd be focused on is grinding NATO to dust in such a war, adopting scorched earth tactics (on Baltic soil mind you, not their own) as needed, and happily falling back as NATO grinds against their defenses. As long as NATO is ground down, and then cut off, they win. That's a much easier ask than telling men to go up against fortified defenses.
sakezaf123@reddit
My god, you are clearly very proud of russia for managing to take 1/5th of Ukraine without North Korean support! But it's funny that you honestly believe that Russia would have a chance in the baltics, when it means declaring war on the EU. Also just because Russis chose to completely abandon all of it's military allies in the past 4 years, we don't feel the same in the EU, beside some far right politicians supported by russia.
BendicantMias@reddit
That expanse is about all they'd have to take to have the Baltics bub. Ukraine is far larger than the Baltics - I'm not giving them any more credit for doing any more than they already have. Otoh you're giving yourselves way more credit than you've ever earned. My claim is based on actual territory conquered, yours is based on nothing but standard empty western arrogance and hubris.
sakezaf123@reddit
Hilarious.
Radiant-Fly9738@reddit
Russian propaganda is strong with this one. Not going to argue with a Russian bot.
Russia could take Kiev but sure bud, they're going to take the Baltic states and wear down NATO. I
I just can't decide if these Russian bots believe in all the dumb things they write or not. but who cares.
BendicantMias@reddit
Lol sure bruh. Wikipedia is Russian propaganda now - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO
And I spoke of the territory they've already taken in Ukraine, not Kiev. Ukraine as a whole is larger than the Baltic states bub. Pay attention in geography class next time.
Just accept that you're a close-minded rube who can't read, and leave discussions to grownups.
I just can't decide if these idiots believe in all the dumb things they write or not. but who cares.
HaamerPoiss@reddit
This is exactly why you are an armchair general from bangladesh and not an actual military leader.
You have 0 idea what you are talking about. Absolutely 0. A tapeworm could come up with better military strategy than the absolute nonsense you just wrote down.
Beagle_Knight@reddit
Aren’t you a armchair general too?
HaamerPoiss@reddit
No, I’m not trying to make strategic suggestions to the Russian high command nor am I under the impression that real war is a hoi game where the AI just keeps funnelling troops into an encircled port.
BendicantMias@reddit
Wow, I'm so hurt bro. Your meanie words really got to me lol.
Imagine wasting so many sentences on saying absolutely nothing lmao.
HaamerPoiss@reddit
All I said was that you have no idea what you are talking about and should probably figure out your own subcontinent first and then try to make sense of everything else.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
I find it absolutely laughable that Russia is going to "attack" a NATO country.
I feel bad for the German people that can't understand why Germany is doing this.
MajorGef@reddit
It was also laughable that russia would attack Ukraine. They did it anyways.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
From who's perspective it was laughable? As a person from Turkey, we KNEW Russia was going to invade Ukraine if West pursued this path. We knew all the way from early 2000s.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
And with how much Russia is struggling with Ukraine, it has only become more laughable that Russia would manage anything against a NATO country.
curiousindicator@reddit
Not all of warfare is about actually fighting the opponent.
A large segment of the population being trained and in-country to at least take up arms is ensuring that a certain amount of manpower is not only available, but also that this then becomes an active deterrent to any attack.
If any opponent can estimate that in an affluent country like Germany a significant amount of the potential defense force could simply emigrate then this deterrent becomes less considerable.
Arx_724@reddit
That doesn't make it any less discriminatory; it's a choice to start applying a discriminatory law more than they were before.
Crossy_V@reddit
More than just unnecessary I just can’t anymore
burgonies@reddit
Okay, but why is it hard to get 2/3 of the people to agree on what should be an easily agreed upon issue?
Crossy_V@reddit
So the problem would be with the parties in the Bundestag because the government of CDU/CSU and SPD want the draft the SPD would like it for all genders and the CDU/CSU wants it mostly only for men but is up to give up the position.
In the opposition on the left side of the coalition are Die Linke and Grüne Bündnis 90 they don’t want the draft (you would need both of these parties for a 2/3 majority and Die Linke has a absolutist opinion on this) on the right side is the AfD doesn’t really have a position but they tend to have a position on yes forced conscription but only for men (they are the most right wing party and claim a “traditionalist” position) but they also claim to be the party for peace and apparently against war in general.
The problem is basically the government only has a 50% majority and parties left of them want no conscription and the extrem right doesn’t really have a real position (with the part they don’t care about gender discrimination in the conscription)
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
The country wants the option to call in a draft, so that alone already means that the more likely proposal would be to extend draft to both gender.
If hypothetically such proposal is presented, the issue itself is a touchy, hot potato subject. Nobody wants to be drafted men or women, a woman can be the most feminist and would still end up to be against women being drafted.
cookiengineer@reddit
Sign me up!
Does anybody know if there's a precedence lawsuit in Germany in front of the BGH? I have no idea how to approach this from a legal perspective, but we might be able to increase the chances with multiple lawsuits chipping in together to cover the legal costs.
DieDoseOhneKeks@reddit
It's impossible to abolish the draft for only one gender by court. Grundgesetz art 3 (equality part of the constitution) isn't "stronger" than the draft part. They can exist both because the draft part can ignore article 3 because it's both the same hirachy
felis_magnetus@reddit
Don't be so naive. They don't need a reason to give in to their inner authoritarian, just opportunity.
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
That is just the excuse sexists say. In Poland abortion is also possibly against constitution. It would require 2/3 approval and rn i dont think it would get 40%. Politicians need to have balls so implement new laws that force women into conscription + explain what they want to change and why u should vote for them. In Poland we are protesting and want same sex marriage but constitution is against it. People still demand change
keepthepace@reddit
Tell that to the 1/3 of representative who would vote against that change.
Aggressive_Chuck@reddit
The constitution decides what's bullshit or not.
Kitchen_Letter8775@reddit
What if a country’s constitution permits slavery? There is a distinction between morals and laws.
FrightenedChimp@reddit
Yea its bullshit, but it got drafted in 1949 when there was actually a wide difference in rights of men and women in western Germany
ikarusproject@reddit
It's bullshit because it's a very ignorant comment that shows lack of fundamental knowledge of the subject matter. Yes there is historic path dependency and the constitition is a cold war era document from 1949/1955. If you are suprised about that then see above.
BendicantMias@reddit
Ah Path Dependency. Nice to see that term again. Doesn't get mentioned enough. Pity that it almost always gets brought up to excuse western nations but rarely applied to the 'third world'. Cos if it was it would undermine all the excuses the west makes wrt colonialism and smugly telling their victims to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and to just 'move on' from being looted i.e. blaming their victims for their present state.
Kitchen_Letter8775@reddit
There are countries that discriminate against women based on their constitutions. According to your logic, calling them misogynist is ignorant. A more sensible stance is to characterize the German constitution as discriminatory.
TrizzyG@reddit
Lmao good joke dude you were just trying to make a lame jab and you're completely clueless on the details. This garbage you're making up is just cringe please stop lol
Silver_Middle_7240@reddit
Isn't sex discrimination unconstitutional in Germany, and illegal under EU law?
novae_ampholyt@reddit
Someone could sue, that is very much clear. Convenient for the politicians since then they get that figured out by BVerfG and can use it as political capital against whoever is blocking wider reform. Right now they figured they needed to do something because of the general state of geopolitics.
Grotzbully@reddit
Suing with what? Men CAN be drafted. Woman CAN be drafted too. Woman can even be drafted till a older age than men btw.
novae_ampholyt@reddit
Suing on basis of gender discrimination
Grotzbully@reddit
Woman can get drafted too dude.
novae_ampholyt@reddit
Not into service at arms. In VFall they can be drafted into zivil service.
Grotzbully@reddit
For up to 10 years older than men. You can always deny serving at arms and instead serve in the civil service like woman.
novae_ampholyt@reddit
This is not about VFall though. This is for peace time. Also, you still have to give reasoning to deny serving at arms as a man.
Grotzbully@reddit
In peace time we don't even have draft, so this whole argument is void then.
So what? You can't be forced to serve under arms.
novae_ampholyt@reddit
Yes we have draft. They reactivated it. Are you living under a rock
Grotzbully@reddit
Who got drafted then? Tell me because we don't have a draft, we have the legal basis for a draft which we had before nothing changed.
TheNeronimo@reddit
Since both equality of genders AND the draft™ are in the constitution, they're of "equal rank" and therefore this is constitutional.
wytnesschancealt@reddit
No it isn't as easy as that. Technically speaking the norms of institutions are of equal rank, but it is not uncommon for them to conflict with one another, in which case the balance must be reassessed. Sometimes such cases are brought before the Federal Constitutional Court, which then rules on them 'once and for all'. It's not as simple as saying, 'Well, there's nothing we can do about it', because when they conflict with one another that also means that another fundamental right might also be at stake here.
DieDoseOhneKeks@reddit
The thing is: the draft itself is in the constitution so I don't know if the travel restriction is against the constitution or not
Auspectress@reddit
Interesting. But why constitution? Does it have something that directly forces men to serve or smth?
aculleon@reddit
12a GG
TorontoBiker@reddit
Have you considered changing the definition of “men?”
I’m not helping.
Seriously thanks for this. I had no idea and it makes sense about why and how it’s being handled.
Hot-Championship1190@reddit
Haha, you're not too off the target.
In German the term for (biological) sex and (social) gender is the same - "Geschlecht" - so of course it is a 'hot topic'.
Since a legal change it is now possible to change the "Geschlecht" and of course some asshole used this to get into the (softer) female prison. And of course some politician immediately claimed it would not be possible since the change is just "cosmetic".
But that bypasses completely the legal implications - saying "Chicago is basically the same as Toronto so if you rename yourself in ChicagoBiker is purely cosmetic" of course ignores the fact that they are on different judical areas.
Currently the precinct responsible for the famous case (Svenja Liebich) claims that "She does still identify herself as male" and thus the change can be ignored. Which of course is an idiotic legal approach. Because using this approach people will identify as "single and childless" and bypass aliments which obviously should be enough as a legal argument!
acthrowawayab@reddit
It's been possible for a long time, the difference is it's now much easier
Hot-Championship1190@reddit
The main difference is you don't need an "expert proof". The new law has basically changed it into a simple declaration of will. Obviously there is a huge difference between an expert appraisal mechanism and just announcing your will.
Mammoth-Object8837@reddit
It's not exactly what you intended but legally changing your gender is relatively simple thanks to new legislation from the previous government. I've heard some people joking that they'd do just that to dodge the draft.
TorontoBiker@reddit
We had this happen in Canada: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html
Een_man_met_voornaam@reddit
Switzerland had a guy who changed gender so he could retire a year earlier: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/sgwnfd/swiss_man_changes_gender_to_retire_and_receive/&ved=2ahUKEwjE16Lz7dKTAxU5zwIHHbDECIgQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1kzY-RZ8xz8PZr1ox7S8He
Mammoth-Object8837@reddit
Well if it works it ain't stupid.
AirsoftCarrier@reddit
So what?
Put it to vote, fail. Then and only then make it mandatory.
Democracy is not based on surveys.
imrzzz@reddit
That's literally what democracy is.
kaschperli@reddit
Please don't call the Grundgesetz constitution because it isn't one by design. The German Grundgesetz is not and will never be on the same level as a constitution.
Successful-Bobcat701@reddit
Surely they could ask women the question without violating the connstitution?
DieDoseOhneKeks@reddit
As a German: you know what also needed 2/3 majority but was granted easily? They found way instantly to get the 500 billion€ stimulus for investments in military, infrastructure and military infrastructure. Something they used 95% of to do random stuff that's not investing. Aaaand even like a year ago, people said it's not discrimination, that male only draft still exists on paper, because it wouldn't be used anymore. So we don't need to change it. Sure bro now it fucks us.
If they wanted to they would. It's just sexism
kRe4ture@reddit
It‘s founded in the constitution that conscription only applies to men. It‘s shit, but currently you won’t get enough votes to change the constitution.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Couldn't you just have a non-constitutional regular law that also makes a draft apply to women?
kRe4ture@reddit
No. Constitution „overrides“ any other law. Otherwise having a constitution would be pointless.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
You are missing the point, if the constitution says "Blue hats must not be taxed" that just means you can't pass a law taxing blue hats. You can still also pass a law that says "Red hats are also not taxed".
If the constitution says Men must be drafted, nothing stops a law from saying "women must also be drafted", it just means it will be easier to change the draft of women in the future.
Shrubgnome@reddit
The constitution explicitly says "women shall not be forced into military service"
Parrotparser7@reddit
And militia service?
Initial_Ad_9250@reddit
Equality is only aimed at the desirable outcomes lol
Red_Lola_@reddit
Congratulations, you have just discovered how dictatorship of the bourgeoisie works. You're just few steps ahead now from realizing that the only ones who have ever protested mandatory draft are the ones you're trying to blame for all of this in your cynical attempt to save your worldview from being completely crushed
dylanx300@reddit
Congratulations! You are only a few steps from realizing that the person you replied to did not blame anyone.
But you went ahead and made up a whole comment pretending that they did. You’re attacking them for no reason. Classic reddit with the self-aggrandizing strawman nonsense, I’ll give you that. But hey it will get plenty of upvotes at least
EtteRavan@reddit
Thought I was on the 4chan subreddit for a moment
Bobambu@reddit
One of the most perfect comments ever typed.
Annual_Document85@reddit
Lmfaoooo so accurate it made my heart flutter
TheCoordinate@reddit
This is profound!
Schwifty0V0@reddit
ironic considering these ideas were manifested by a “German”
Clairvoidance@reddit
Fucking thank you
unbelizeable1@reddit
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀
BendicantMias@reddit
Selective 'equality' lol.
russellvt@reddit
Well, in the US, they do call it "Selective Service."
samplebeast@reddit
True facts
Graybeard_Shaving@reddit
Same as it ever was.
JustChillin3456@reddit
Equality is a myth
Main_Significance478@reddit
Unequal equality
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
The government is making plans for conscription, yet people spend their focus on gender wars. You can't make this nonsense up. Its the GOVERNMENT that is doing this and not women. The outrage towards missing equal rights makes no sense as it will achieve nothing. Neither the AfD nor the Linke Party would vote for including womens as they are against the Wehrpflicht. The Green Votes are thankfully not enough for such a constitution change.
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
Plenty of women in the government supporting this. Derp
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
The women in the government are still the GOVERNMENT. Congrats for noticing that.
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
And women in the government are still women derp!
Fern-ando@reddit
Over 100 years of feminist and is still the same suckers being sent to die in wars they don't benefit from winning.
Lazy-Field-1116@reddit
One woman can only make 1 baby a year. 1 man can make hundreds of babies a year. The "sexism" goes both ways on this one. Women that are fighting age are also birthing age. If a significant amount of women are killed/injured/lost for a long time to fighting, then the birth rate suffers.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
Unless government start forcing women to be injected with some random men’s sperm during wartime, your argument is moot.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
We already have the “leading western democracy” denying women their own bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy, while following a playbook that makes Handmaids Tale look like an egalitarian utopia.
Thin-Limit7697@reddit
I wonder for how much time will governments tolerate low fertility rates and what will they try before they decide to pull off that. And which country will do it first.
BendicantMias@reddit
This assumes the women left are allowed to be impregnated by a bunch of men. Or even by one man, if she doesn't yet have a partner. And yet modern law doesn't allow for that, so that assumption is useless. If she wants, the woman can just say no to everyone and produce no kids whatsoever. Or hold out for her Mr. Right, who's actually lying dead in a ditch at the front lines.
Beagle_Knight@reddit
The spirit of Shinzo Abe disliked that
-___--_-__-____-_-_@reddit
In total war, women work the factories and make babies to recover from loosing 40% of an entire generation to attrition war.
justthisoncepp@reddit
This logic is idiotic
Women aren't having children already, why would they want to raise one by themselves in the future?
BendicantMias@reddit
In addition, who would they want to have those kids with? The men left to have kids with would be either unfit for military service, or draft dodgers. Neither is considered particularly attractive.
abubleh@reddit
you know these aren't hypotheticals, right? this already happened many times before in countries all over the globe, but specially in europe due to world wars.
BendicantMias@reddit
All times when women were still expected to have children, and did. Now they don't.
abubleh@reddit
you want to blame women so badly
BendicantMias@reddit
No? You're the ones trying to make excuses for why women get to have special treatment here i.e. exemption from having to fight. I just pointed out that that excuse doesn't hold up anymore. If you'd like to make that excuse stick by having them sign some sort of commitment to do what you claim they're exempted for, then say that. But you haven't. You just want others to trust that they'll make babies so they can get off scot free.
BendicantMias@reddit
This assumes the women left are allowed to be impregnated by a bunch of men. Or even by one man, if she doesn't yet have a partner. And yet modern law doesn't allow for that, so that assumption is useless. If she wants, the woman can just say no to everyone and produce no kids whatsoever. Or hold out for her Mr. Right, who's actually lying dead in a ditch at the front lines.
MIMADANMEI@reddit
Christian conservatives won, thats why
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
Even the most liberal countries have extremely anti male sexist laws. US has conscription laws at 18.
Every country treats its men like subhumans. In south korea men have to go to military camp. In Ukraine men are kidnapped from the street and sent to die but the women are allowed to leave the country. Plenty more examples.
Soepkip43@reddit
And let's let the men stay home and carry babies to term. The reason these laws are sexist because women are needed at home for the one task men cant do.
justthisoncepp@reddit
Are you saying they will force the women to have children in the event of war?
Morality aside, if the state had the will and power to make that happen, they'd be doing it already. Women aren't having enough babies already.
Soepkip43@reddit
No, but women torn to shreds on the front will have a hard time having babies.
justthisoncepp@reddit
You believe that women should stay home because their country needs them to have babies.
The men, on the other hand, are shipped to the front to be torn to shreds.
In this asymmetric distribution of duty you envision, why are men forced by the state to do their part but women aren't?
Soepkip43@reddit
Listen, being able to articulate WHY something is the way it is, does not equate thinking it is good, nor does it mean i think men should suffer more, nor do I think women should be forced incubators or something.
All the incels downvoting me should go first to the front!
justthisoncepp@reddit
What you said doesn't translate to reality. It was just a stupid comment.
The reason women aren't forced to have babies is that the state doesn't see procreating as a wartime duty, that's something you just made up. We know this because they aren't forced or even encouraged to do so.
Countries do however, see service in the front as a necessary obligation, to the point of enslaving people in the form of conscript to throw in to the meat grinder.
So the question then becomes why must this duty must only extend to men?
Soepkip43@reddit
Jezus man.. you need to lighten up on your diet of andrew tate and whatever it is you consume next to it.
I never even suggested "forcing" anything, the fact a lot of people just go there is disturbing enough, but it says more about them then about me or the law.
And using a term like enslavement for conscription is a choice.. you do you my little island buddy.
justthisoncepp@reddit
What else would you call it? Conscripts completely lose their bodily autonomy after being dragged, kicking and screaming into unmarked vans by uniformed men (see: Ukraine). After that, they either march and die to the whims of the state or get sent to jail at best.
We're talking about conscription, men are not given a choice when it comes to that, which is why they're not particularly keen on the possibility of it being enacted. It being only for males adds insult to injury.
You didn't answer the question, why do you believe only men must be forced into servitude by the state?
BendicantMias@reddit
This assumes the women left are allowed to be impregnated by a bunch of men. Or even by one man, if she doesn't yet have a partner. And yet modern law doesn't allow for that, so that assumption is useless. If she wants, the woman can just say no to everyone and produce no kids whatsoever. Or hold out for her Mr. Right, who's actually lying dead in a ditch at the front lines.
Lckke@reddit
It's not like women are being forced into having children like men are being forced into service, though. Do they not have equal responsibilities towards the state, or is forcing women to have children where people draw the line instead of, you know, sending men to die?
Drded4@reddit
Nowadays most women aren't having children, though.
Nethlem@reddit
Short version; Germany has a few gendered laws on the books, i.e. only men can be charged for exhibitionism.
Affirmative action is also kinda selective, there are women quotas for boards of directors of big publicly traded companies, but no men quotas for other job fields, or women quotas for badly paid/dangerous jobs (construction/manufacturing).
Long version; The FRG never ended conscription, only suspended it, because no government so far had enough of a majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat to actually change the Grundgesetz/constitution.
The conscription law in there is gendered, it only refers to males, and because they lacked the majority to fully remove/change it they only suspended the original version.
Now that they "unsuspended" the original conscription law it only affects men because it was written in the 1950s.
Red_Lola_@reddit
No, germany is a neoliberal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that will protest the interests of the elites at all costs, even if that means sending millions of its own men to their death. Thats what "radical left, radical feminists etc" have been telling you for a while, while all you bunch did was call us insane, and now are trying to blame feminists when you see that "the best of all possible worlds" isnt that great when a crisis hits.
NorthernSkeptic@reddit
really latched onto the important bit huh
FrightenedChimp@reddit
Its because military conscription is limited to men by the constitution drafted in 1949. To Change thr constitution would Need a 2/3 majority in parliament and 25% of parliament are russian bots, 15% are left pacifists, so no way of changing that.
adamtheskill@reddit
Well traditionally almost everyone had kids so you needed one parent to stay home and take care of the kids. Sure could be the dad staying home but; 1. Men are better on average in a war. Higher physical strength (which is still important) and more aggressive on average. 2. If 10% of a country's fighting age men die in a war it doesn't really fuck up the demographics. Women can (and did) continue having kids even if their husband died in a war. Although nowadays maybe not true with the demographic crises. So yeah men are just more suited for war and women are more important for society (in the long run) than men. It's uan unfair reality.
Vishnej@reddit
The prehistorical rationale for risking men is that a tribe with one remaining testicle between them can still thrive and repopulate, while a tribe with one ovary is a dead tribe.
real-bebsi@reddit
and because of this men had special societal privileges that women didn't, such as property rights, voting rights, and more.
BendicantMias@reddit
This assumes the few women left are allowed to be impregnated by a bunch of men. Or even by one man, if she doesn't yet have a partner. And yet modern law doesn't allow for that, so that assumption is useless. If she wants, the woman can just say no to everyone and produce no kids whatsoever. Or hold out for her Mr. Right, who's actually lying dead in a ditch at the front lines.
real-bebsi@reddit
if men are expected to be canon fodder for society then they should have special privileges in society to reap the benefits of that obligation.
it's only fair.
mrgoobster@reddit
Men make better combatants, but a modern military consists significantly of support roles. You just slot women into the support positions, and free men up for the fighting.
eagleal@reddit
That’s what happens when a country is at war.
During both world wars women didn’t just sit home, they worked in the converted industries and support/logistics.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
The keyword is “freewill”, if you are drafted you don’t have a choice, the women in your example will or will not work at her own convenience.
Augustus420@reddit
They're not talking about the manufacturing sector supporting the war they're talking about people in the military that are performing all the roles necessary to support the people in combat. Like finance soldiers, and the load masters, and the air traffic controllers ETC.
adamtheskill@reddit
That's true but doesn't really solve the second issue which I think is more important. If a large percentage of a country's women die they're demographically fucked in the future while if a lot of the men die you're just going to end up with a lot of single mother's. When looking at a 30+ year perspective men are just a lot more expendable than women.
JoBoltaHaiWoHotaHai@reddit
I hope German men will happy to know that if they ever got into a war, and were then sent to war, and then survived the war, they'd get their own harem to breed and repopulate the nation
ManNamedJade@reddit
Oh please, Germany would just import millions of people from ~~questionable~~ countries and call them just as German as Hans over there in the ground, you can't apply this argument in the 21st century.
Maximum-Hall-5614@reddit
Tell me, what are the parameters used to determine which countries are “questionable”?
ManNamedJade@reddit
For simplicity's sake, you can assume the most racist option. However, it does not actually matter here: the point is that everyone can become German according to Getmany.
mrgoobster@reddit
Around 2004, I had an Irish exchange student tell me that people from other countries living in Ireland were more Irish than me (American Irish by blood). At the time it was shocking to hear; now it seems to be common European logic.
Neurobeak@reddit
That guy was most probably right.
Moonlight_Brawl@reddit
I mean it’s true if you never lived there for any significant periods of time? tf
BendicantMias@reddit
The IDF uses women. Yes, even in combat roles. Israel only discriminates based on religion (hence the Haredi, who most Israelies themselves hate), not sex.
mrgoobster@reddit
That used to be more true when a significant portion of women would die in childbirth. It's still true that men are more expendable, but not by as large a margin.
Crazyachmed@reddit
They are reusing the old draft laws that were suspended. Not enough support for a draft itself, so no support to change them.
Trollimperator@reddit
Its quite simple. Never vote for anyone present in the current Government ever again. In Germany the current vibe of the "governement" is, its us or the nazis. And the nazis are winning grounds. Still no reason to vote for a "government" which is acting against the common people in almost any regards. What could go wrong? Seriously, i wish death penality would not be such an alien concept.
YourFuture2000@reddit
Germany has the culture to vote for the same party for 10 to 30 years. Most people in this government has been elected in the government in the past 25 years. Reason why Germany is in deep crises in a lot od sectors now.
felis_magnetus@reddit
Yeah, we are presented with a choice between what has become (again, back to the roots kinda thing) proto-fascist party in the CDU and outright Nazis of the AfD. Hooray for representative democracy.
YourFuture2000@reddit
It is not. It is actually a very conservative country.
MajorGef@reddit
Hardly. Hell if feminists hadnt fought tooth and nail in court even voluntary service for women would still be banned.
The article in the constitution about equal rights never had much teeth.
Dangrukidding@reddit
My biggest take away (sadly) is realizing that 2008 is in fact 18 years ago.
Agasthenes@reddit
This seems to me like one of those things, that make big waves in the first moment, but in the end is pretty much a nothing burger.
If there ever comes a time where people are not allowed to leave due to need for soldiers such a law would be enacted in any way.
Right now it's just paperwork.
What I'm more interested in, does this impact travel and work in the Schengen area?
warnie685@reddit
The optics are bad, how it snuck it without any attention, that you need permission from the army to stay abroad..
But practically it won't really mean much alright.. except for what the punishment for not doing it will be. Then it will get interesting again
Agasthenes@reddit
It's actually not even a permission. You just need to send notice. It's already been reported wrong to sound more dramatic.
It's really just to know who you can draft.
WhatWouldKantDo@reddit
Then why does § 3 (2) WPflG say
"Männliche Personen haben nach Vollendung des 17. Lebensjahres eine *Genehmigung* des zuständigen Karrierecenters der Bundeswehr einzuholen [...]"
and not
"Männliche Personen haben nach Vollendung des 17. Lebensjahres das zuständigen Karrierecenters der Bundeswehr zu benachrichtigen"?
Grotzbully@reddit
Trollimperator@reddit
Niemand hat vor eine Mauer zu bauen...
Grotzbully@reddit
There is no legal basis to deny it. So your whole argument is mute.
Trollimperator@reddit
And "Yesterday", there was no law that said i need to ask for permission. You are naive.
Grotzbully@reddit
That law came into effect on 01.01.2026 that was 3 months ago.
Btw that law, exist since we had the Bundeswehr which was shortly after the second world war, it just limited those permissions to wartime. So you have jack shit knowledge about this and should really shut up
Trollimperator@reddit
Maybe you should shut up, because you sound like an idiot with no clue whatsoever.
A law meant for martial law in wartime now extends to peacetime everyday. This is something Putin does in his war. And he gets more resistence than our democracy gets from CLOWNS like you. So stfu, you dont speak for the thinking parts of this country. If you are ok with this shit, than this is telling me that you arent fighting for democracy.
Grotzbully@reddit
Dude that law came into effect 3 months ago you clown.
You aren't even German I bet and if you vote AFD and think you are the smartest person in every room because of it.
Trollimperator@reddit
Go fuck yourself.
Grotzbully@reddit
Dude that law existed yesterday, it exists for 3 months now and you just figured it out. You are the idiot.
The law is still meant for wartime you moron. There is no provision to deny you a longer stay in that law, so they can't deny it to you.
You fucking moron didnt even know the had that law for decades and now again for months so you are the clown you aren't interested in our democracy neither are you thinking you just repeat shit you picked up twitter.
You clown dont even know that we have a military to defend our democracy fucking hell you are such a clown
Agasthenes@reddit
Okay, what even would be the point to deny when there isn't a Wehrdienst going to happen?
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
The conscription for Military service *is* going to happen, it doesnt matter that the SPD tried to rename it into "Bedarfswehrpflicht". There aren't enough volunteers to reach their soldiers goal.
Agasthenes@reddit
Yeah sure. But this will happen regardless of that paragraph.
They just want to know if you are in the country or if sending the MP because you ignore them is useless.
Nethlem@reddit
Are you really so naive not to recognize how this paragaph, and others like it, are laying the ground work for the "it will happen regardless"?
"They just want to know" is about as good of a excuse for this as You got nothing to hide then you got nothing to worry" is for warrantless mass surveillance.
WhatWouldKantDo@reddit
Even if that's the case now, the requirement to seek permission neccisarily envisions the refusal of said permission. Granting, arguendo, that it will never be denied, the distinction still matters.
On a practical level, the Sachbearbeiter being on vacation, the application getting lost in the beurocratic shuffle, a given office not knowing what to do since apparently nobody bothered to actually establish this process, or any number of other things could lead to your permission being delayed or never received. Either is a de facto denial.
On a deeper level, asking someone for permission acknowledges that they get to decide for you. I reject that notion in this case. Barring criminal process it is a human right to leave any country at any time for any reason. See article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Grotzbully@reddit
Under what legal basis could they deny it? There is no legal basis to deny it in the law text.
WhatWouldKantDo@reddit
... did you not read the 2/3 of my comment in which I address why this is still a bad thing even if a request is never formally denied?
Nethlem@reddit
Very cool and normal to need a "Genehmigung" for something even tho there allegedly is no punishment for having none.
Franz Kafka's corpse is having a field day with this and the people defending it.
Grotzbully@reddit
What is the legal process to deny it? There is no basis to deny it.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
It still is bad optics.
It would be like “doing homosexual” acts are illegal, but the government tells you that “we are not going to enforce it”.
Fun fact the example above actually existed, and was repealed fairly recently.
Agasthenes@reddit
No such a law is essential to have so you can enforce it quickly when necessary.
Nethlem@reddit
Ja, indeed, such a law is totally "Alternativlos"...
/s
Northzen@reddit
The whole agrument "yes, it is bad law, but it will not be enforced" is wilde!
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
Welcome to german discourse. This behavior can be found on so many different topics..
Keyinator@reddit
Hey, sorry to tell you but that's a lie.
~§3 Abs. 2 Wehrpflichtgesetz
It's pretty simple: If you're male and 18-45 you HAVE TO GET PERMISSION if you will leave the country for more than 3 months.
Agasthenes@reddit
Yeah. So what? How many people does this apply to?
Keyinator@reddit
You're trying to shift the conversation.
Just admit you were wrong.
warnie685@reddit
Well they used the words Genehmigung.. einzuholen
It's just that they also seem to write that the permission is always going to be given
JoeAppleby@reddit
The law also used „die Genehmigung ist zu erteilen“ which means that approval is not optional either. The only limit is if you are about to serve, which no one is as military service is still totally voluntary.
warnie685@reddit
But that's still forcing you to get permission, even if it's always granted.
And I mean you can see straight away what the problem will be, when you look sentence 1 and sentence 2 of your post.
JoeAppleby@reddit
I went through that when I went a year abroad when I was 17. I informed my Kreiswehrersatzamt that I would be gone when I turn 18 which would have been when I was supposed to do my Wherdienst.
I really don't see the problem tbh.
Trollimperator@reddit
Yea, its pretty much like a child, asking the teacher to go to the toilet. I dont think, it is any of the states business, where i go and how long i will be gone. This is a very bad optic for any country which values personal freedom. Thats old East Germany-prison state thinking...
Madam_Hel@reddit
This is a major infringement on peoples freedom. Young men do not owe their life for old rich pedofiles wars. This is NOT a «nothing burger» and I think you should seriously try to put yourself in their shoes before claiming that it is.
Agasthenes@reddit
Please don't project your American perspective to Europe or Germany.
Madam_Hel@reddit
I’m Norwegian. My view is not American.
Nethlem@reddit
Germany is a US colony so more than enough reason to project this stuff here.
Agasthenes@reddit
Jesus fucking Christ of Russian propaganda
Keyinator@reddit
Please don't feel entitled to tell other's off because they are not german.
~A german
Ellie96S@reddit
Berlin literally gave foster care kids to pedoes.
Agasthenes@reddit
Everybody has some bad ideas sometimes
attempt_number_3@reddit
The inequality is less in Europe even among pedophiles.
YourFuture2000@reddit
As if Merz was not a lighter version of Trump sucking Trump balls.
BasedBalkaner@reddit
Yeah like Europe isn't run by old rich Pedophiles lol, be serious
Supersnow845@reddit
While not formally in the EU Switzerland has mandatory male military service but you can exempt yourself if you live abroad by simply paying a levy
Maybe they will do something like that
Agasthenes@reddit
We don't even have mandatory military service. And if we had, all you need to do is sign a form "I don't want to".
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
We very much still do have military try service and had it the whole time.
The related laws weren’t removed, they were only suspended.
Nethlem@reddit
It's fascinating how you are all over this submission with these "Factually correct yet practically dishonest" takes.
OtherwiseAct8126@reddit
It was a bit harder than that but in the last years of it, it got quite easy, still not "sign a form" but write a letter where you had to declare that you can't reconcile military service with your morals and conscience.
Significant-Ad-7182@reddit
It's starting to feel like a lot of people in the government and the military wish you had mandatory service.
This "soft" push has been going on for a while now. It's like they sre scared to ask it but they really want to ask it.
felis_magnetus@reddit
When there actually was mandatory military service, it never was that easy. There was a reason for volunteer counsellors with a pacifistic mindset to exist throughout Germany to coach young men through what could easily turn into a more than a little intimidating process. And no shortage of pressure, if you had the bad fortune to not come from a progressive family living in a urban context. You think culture wars are a new phenomenon? The right has always had a military fetish. Including large parts of the SPD, just in case you were confused where that lot actually stands.
It's quite depressing, that it looks like I'll have to waste time on this shit again, but I'll use the holidays to sieve through the attic. My old stuff from the 80ies must still be there somewhere. Given the glacial speed of change in Germany, most of it will still be valid. Back to the counselling it is. *sigh*
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Very cool and normal..
Shrubgnome@reddit
Ah yes, forced military service only for the poor, how nice
Nethlem@reddit
Sure, it could be one of those things that look like a nothing burger in the moment, but will end up a very nasty damocles sword after the fact.
Because no Germany ever did use a bunch of paperwork to do nefarious things?
This is btw the same German government that still hasn't ruled out sending soldiers to Ukraine, the same German government that extended the Bundeswehr deployment to Iraq, which is right now a conflict zone.
The same German government that's trying to frame the war against Iran like Iran just randomly starting a war against the world, already seeding the narrative so our "defensive military" can once again "defend German democracy" half a continent away.
Keyinator@reddit
Then why change the law in the first place and introduce bureaucracy when you literally promised to remove it?
Firstly this is another control measure, secondly this makes it a lot more easier to keep people in the country without calling out a "Belastungsfall".
Agasthenes@reddit
This paragraph has been existing for 70 years ago... Just the circumstances have been changed.
And the reason is that the Bundeswehr knows all the time how many people are theoretical available
Keyinator@reddit
Hey, so that's another lie.
This is the paragraph that changed.
Throughout the whole comment-section you have spewn misinformation and this is another case.
You're assuming things and acting like your assumptions are facts.
kaschperli@reddit
What the fuck are you talking about?
The law is in effect. If you leave the country and don't respond to your military officer you automatically break the law and you're then a criminal by definition.
What is so hard to get? In Germany it is always: GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
Trollimperator@reddit
Personally, i would simply ignore that "law". We didnt demolish the GDR-prison-regime, just to reinstall it for burocratic reasons.
YourFuture2000@reddit
It shows what is the mind on tendency of political intentions of a regime. Given the fact that Merz is a lighter but no less serious version of Trump and is clearly working to move Germany to a war economy.
Agasthenes@reddit
What are you even smoking lmao? Are you serious?
DieDoseOhneKeks@reddit
Would you say it's discrimination when the state gathers data from men and not women? Just gathering data. That's what they do (with a chance to decline especially if they do a follow up law). Just monitoring men is discriminating
Crossy_V@reddit
I wouldn’t assume that it restricts the Schengen area (more like hope because it doesn’t really say something concrete) But I am unsure about the first part because maybe it is a big deal because it is a paper tiger and the army because they have to few offices responsible for this just say no because it is faster. Like why did the government decided to extend this law to fucking peace times what was their goal with it.
felis_magnetus@reddit
Because you never know when turning human capital into cannon fodder again is the more profitable option.
eagleal@reddit
The very fact that they start thinking about total mobilization, with worldwide arms race being in place, should actually be alarming.
Given there’s already a domestic disinformation campaign to drive war support up (intervention in Ukraine and middle east).
Agasthenes@reddit
Alarming? I find it comforting, it shows the politicians are at least aware and are doing something to prepare.
The only disinformation you need is to stop support for Ukraine.
Malekith2874@reddit
All these news post coming out in such a misleading way smells like coordinated propaganda.
the regulation isn’t new. It existed almost word for word since at least 1969, and was only removed from the law in 2011 when the draft was suspended.
it isn’t even a limitation on personal freedom, it exists to protect the individual. There are no penalties to leaving without permission, and the permission has to be granted. It’s purpose is to make sure that the army knows you are abroad and doesn’t send you a mustering order during that time, which would carry a no-show penalty
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
You conveniently forget the overarching context.
This isn’t about the hassle or limitation to personal freedom, this means that as a men you will be legally required to draft. In the age of gender equality, that alone is already discriminative which is the problem.
Grotzbully@reddit
You conveniently forgot to mention that woman can also be drafted, up to 10 years older than men. But that doesn't fit your narrative does it?
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
Lol they can be drafted IF they applied for it, which is different to where you are already automatically registered for it.
Grotzbully@reddit
No they can be drafted for civilian service up to 10 years older than men.
Men can be drafted but can deny service under arms and would serve in the civilian service just as woman.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
The civilian service only covers when the existing system has exhausted its capacity and voluntary services.
This goes very down in the priority list and would be considered somewhat last resort, the bar is way higher compared to drafting.
And no they are not equal at all. The constitution tells you that these services shouldn’t include anything that requires taking up arms.
Grotzbully@reddit
Civil service as a equivalent service to the one under arms is guaranteed under German constitution. You can't be force to serve under arms.
Civil service is the Ersatzdienst, replacement service, for the service under arms. Draft means you can be drafted to be either serving under arms as a man or in the civil service. Woman can also be drafted to serve in the civil service.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
The point being, the situational urgency requirement is higher for women than men as directed by the constitution.
Just for comparison, Ukraine and Russia already do a mandatory conscription for men, but even when the two countries already exhausted a lot of resources and manpower, they still have no plans to mobilize women even for “civil service”.
What you you just said is “a draft is a draft, doesn’t matter what it does”.
Grotzbully@reddit
What even is your point? What are you even arguing about? That it's more likely for men being drafted than woman?
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
It is yes.
In terms of priority list according to the constitution it is literally
Men >>>>> Women
Even when you are technically not wrong that everyone can be drafted, but it is a moot point when empirically even for a countries that are actively in war and already suffered badly doesn’t even have a plan to invoke that.
Grotzbully@reddit
It is literally not. Provide source for that, because the only stuff I can find about it is that men can be drafted and woman can be drafted. There is no priority.
This take is quite idiotic, especially in Germany's case because we did draft woman during WW2.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
Grotzbully@reddit
So nothing to support you gotcha
Malekith2874@reddit
I do not „conveniently forget“ anything. The news article was about travel restrictions, you’re the one shifting the discussion to a completely different aspect.
For what it’s worth, I completely agree that the limitation of service to men is completely anachronistic, but as long as people vote parties into power that apparently still live in the 19th century, that’s not going to change.
NymusRaed@reddit
Yeah, you conveniently ignored.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
That’s not shifting the discussion. That is the bigger picture of WHY this is a thing in the first place.
People usually don’t care about drafting laws even when it’s embedded in the constitution. But part of that is because we have prolonged period of peace time which means it won’t be invoked. Now the government “telegraphed” that we may start to creep into that direction, then people starts to be “angry” again.
The notion that this is because dinosaurs in our parliament (which people voted) is simply not true.
Drafting is deeply unpopular doesn’t matter if you are men or women. You can throw a referendum that make drafting eligible for both gender and see how that won’t pass with the people. You can even argue that by construction this simply won’t pass, rationally noone want to be drafted, 50% of a country is women, why would a woman vote against herself when there is nothing to gain.
Meanwhile the legal bar to update the constitution is higher than 50%. You can infer the rest why it is “problematic”.
Nethlem@reddit
What smells like propaganda are the posts claiming "Nothing changed, please move along" that don't even understand what was changed.
The regulation is not new but for decades it was only in place for war/emergency times, now they changed it to be a thing even in normal peace times.
That is new
orthic_lambda@reddit
No. It blew up after a centre left paper reported on our yesterday.
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
When push comes to shove, all countries will revert to slave armies, no surprise there. It's the implication that fucking makes me shit my pants.
Look at the EU, and Germany. Incompetent, pathetic bootlickers of the USA, hanging on to it like a male angler fish to its mate, unable to deal with a pitiful dictator in their backyard, writing strongly worded letters.
If these pathetic fucks got to the point they are doing something with a shred of actionability... Just how fucking screwed are we??
This is like a shaolin monk with down syndrome saying "sometimes, you just gotta kick ass"
arparso@reddit
It's fake news.
There is no new travel restriction. The rule to send notice to the Bundeswehr if you plan to leave the country for more than 3 months has been present for decades. They aren't even allowed to deny your "request" - they're obligated to accept your travel plans. The purpose of the rule is that the military knows not to call you in for military service if you're not even in the country (long-term).
The rule has been pretty much ignored for the last few years, especially since mandatory service had been stopped.
Accurate_Syrup_1345@reddit
It's not fake news you clown. They aren't allowed to deny is bullshit. Then why tf would you need permission? Being old doesn't make it any less sexist or oppressive.
Apply it to women too then. After all 'it'll never happen' right?
arparso@reddit
The purpose for this whole process is that the military knows how many able bodied men are available if it were necessary to start a draft. Men that leave the country for a long period of time obviously can't be drafted, so that's why they have to notify the military before leaving. In peace time, they have no right to stop you from leaving. Of course, that can change if war breaks out or is about to break out, but that's a different story.
Legally not possible, it's literally against the constitution. Women are exempt from mandatory military service. They can serve voluntarily, but they can't be forced to, unlike men.
Yes, that law is sexist, but it cannot easily be changed, because it's part of the constitution. There is currently no sufficient majority in the parliament to change that.
Sorry that facts are getting in the way of your opinion.
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
The rule did not exist for the last few years.
It was changed to be active in peace times aswell.
arparso@reddit
No, the rule having to notify the Bundeswehr about you leaving the country for more than 3 months (§3 WPflG) already existed back in the 90s, probably even earlier (didn't check). It was in effect back when the mandatory service still existed.
http://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl195s1756.pdf
When mandatory service was stopped 15 years ago, they introduced §2 to basically say: "This only applies in times of war or crisis". §2 did not exist before that (or said something completely different, e.g. it contained some rules about foreigners back in the 90s). Because mandatory service wasn't demanded anymore, it made no sense to require people to get permission from the Bundeswehr to leave the country.
They now recently changed §2 to make this rule "active" again. Which sort of makes sense, given that we're starting (voluntary for now) military service again. So we're going back to the rules as they were pre 2011.
And that still does not change the fact that it's not a travel "restriction", because they have no power to deny your request. Which makes the click-baity headline into "fake news".
Nethlem@reddit
Sure is funny how the accounts who claim this is "nothing" are all Reddit sleepers with hidden post history.
arparso@reddit
Right, because nothing is ever real if it doesn't line up with your view of the world?
You can look at my perverted hentai figure collection from year's back, if you really want. Just a search away.
orthic_lambda@reddit
Thanks CDU bot
arparso@reddit
Not my problem if you're averse to facts.
And no, I've never voted for CDU even once.
X_FISH@reddit
I’m German - so let me explain.
The rule was already in place before the 1990s, so it’s not new.
There is no penalty, so no punishment.
It was common for men liable for military service from the western federal states to move to West Berlin and thus evade conscription.
Completely normal. Nothing new. Except for those whose parents weren’t even born before the 1990s. :D
dat_oracle@reddit
"However, it also states that there is no provision for denying the permit. As long as no call-up for military service is scheduled during the period of stay abroad, the permit will be granted."
max1padthai@reddit
Unless they put up fence around the country and have ~~prison~~ border guards patrol the border, I don't see how the government can stop men from leaving, especially during war time.
Trollimperator@reddit
"IT" does not state that. The politician, who changed the law vaguely pinky promised that. The law says you need permit.
NerdPunkFu@reddit
Choose one: stay in the shadow of the Orange ape, spend lots of money and years of your country's youth to rebuild a proper military and deterrence or abandon your freedoms, lifestyle and embrace a foreign overlord.
There's been a lot of strong talk about European strategic autonomy and whatnot, but if you really want it then pay up. Of course, Europe can continue fucking about, in which case enjoy the next big Europe-wide war. Which is especially fun for me since I live less than 100km from the Russian border and have actually served my time in the military and am in the reserves. A bit more cozier to continue being smug about the Americans without actually doing anything when you live in Hamburg, Paris or Madrid.
wytnesschancealt@reddit
I think there’s a logical fallacy here because you’re assuming that the German people have a unified view on every issue whereas in fact, they don't agree on how heavily Germany should be militarised for instance or what constitutes a serious threat or should be the number one priority, for that matter.
The idea that Germany must become 'war-ready' only appears to be a 'uniform' opinion because the views of one particular group (or party) are disproportionately over-represented on reddit, and this also fits the narrative of many international Western sub reddits, so only articles fitting the narrative get posted here and on similar subs. The truth is though not everyone sees this as a positive development, and not everyone is convinced that Russia would attack NATO, for instance, or that there would be a Europe-wide war in the near future. Heck even if Estland or another nation got attacked it's uncertain how many people are really behind helping another country only because they're in the NATO. As you yourself acknowledge in your final sentence, people's views differ depending on where they live and someone living in Madrid would have a different attittude to someone living in Estonia, whose neighbour Russia has been its number one arch-enemy for centuries.
Neurobeak@reddit
There's this Ukrainian designer who invented a term "colorado bug" for all those Ukrainian citizens that didn't want to praise UPA degenerates. There was an art gallery with his works, where his poster was displayed with a German Shepard that said: "only dogs and slaves serve".
TheBigOof96@reddit
I believe Colorado bug specificlly refers to those parading the ribbon of Saint George for which people got mocked for wearing as far as back as in the USSR - there's even a really fun kolkhoz song from Lithuania about "We shall shread the Colorado bugs into pieces and our potatoes will thrive once more". Technically, the song refers to the tiny potato-eating pests and not foreign occupiers and it's just a coincidence that it grew in popularity in the late 80's.
Neurobeak@reddit
Also, St George ribbon as a symbol of victory against the Nazis was not a thing before the 1990s
Neurobeak@reddit
Yes, and it's a complete coincidence that those who are willingly wear St George ribbon would not bow to the black-red UPA flag. Thus, as I said, he was mocking those who wouldn't agree to respect the UPA degenerates.
BendicantMias@reddit
Most people here are arguing over the gender discrimination, not denying it altogether. They want women to stop getting special treatment.
EstoyMejor@reddit
No thanks, not dying in order to protect a Nazi Nation o7
NymusRaed@reddit
This isn't really news, the so-called Wehrdienst-Modernisierungsgesetz was already introduced in January.
Although some say that this is a nothing burger, I couldn't disagree more.
Back when drafting laws were active, the rules for traveling were active too, which is logical I'd say.
When drafting laws were suspended, these travel restrictions would only be enforced if a state of tension or defense is declared.
Now, since January these travel laws are enforced, no matter whether the aforementioned states were declared or not.
Morgentau7@reddit
This change of the law was completely unnecessary cause these restrictions already existed for the case of war or immediate threats.
We don’t draft and people aren’t required right now, but if it ever happened… And there was no necessity whatsoever to sharpen this paragraph and make it universal. This was completely unnecessary and should be changed asap.
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
This change was necessary to the government as it now exist for peace times as well, it's exactly why this topic wasn't discussed at all in the media prior to April, or did you notice any tiny mention of any mainstream media about this before April? No.
Stop giving Governments, or member of parliaments the benefit of the naive doubt. They know exactly what they are doing. And the parties of the opposition that should have known about this have been quiet. If the AfD actually manages to take this now and spin in it their favor, well then goodbye every progressive party..
kaschperli@reddit
Many "Germans" are coming here to defend the government and the Grundgesetz which is, by design, not a constitution and will never be. We know what you are. No real German in their right mind would defend this law.
As a real German, I learned about this law yesterday and I am shocked, disgusted and angry. Not only because of it's contents but also because the media chose to keep quiet and obedient.
Germany has a law that makes it mandatory to give a significant percentage of leadership positions to women. Even if men are more qualified. And many more laws just like that for gender equality which are just designed to fuck over males. But if it comes to dying on the battlefield or being forbidden from leaving or seeking refuge in another country, it's just men again.
This law would be unconstitutional if Germany had a constitution.
mrgoobster@reddit
It's funny how little things have changed since ancient times. The upper age for a legionnaire (of the Republican manipular legions) was \~45, for a triarius. If I recall correctly, the Athenians expected men to serve up to the age of 60, but not as actual hoplites.
One might expect the age at which men could fight to increase with better nutrition and medical care, but I guess some things are just intrinsic to the species. Fifty is the age at which testosterone starts to really decline.
historycommenter@reddit
Yes, it is important for free peoples to maintain citizen armies. If I recall correctly, the problem with the Roman legions retiring is that they wanted a plot a land, and 45 years old was pretty old for the average Roman. As I understand with the Greeks, especially Athenians, yes they may have served in citizens armies, but their fame and fortune lay in mercenary work. Xenophon's Anabasis for example.
rasdo357@reddit
Retired legionaries being given land was beneficial to he state too, even if they often had trouble finding such land, especially as expansion slowed down.
They'd give retired legionaries land on the frontiers or in newly conquered land where they would establish colonia (colonies, more or less). They would act as an unofficial pacification force, a semi-official border guard/reserve force and also drive forward the process of Romanizing the local populace as the men took local wives, raised Roman children and generally exerted their cultural and economic influence from their newly founded, heavily armed ex-soldier colonies.
As time goes on, the Emporers have to pay out increasingly extortionate bribes to the soldiery to keep them on side. Or they could get couped by the army and replaced with someone who would bribe them.
Carminaz@reddit
How very bigotted and fascististic of the Germany government, where's the diversity here? Why is it only native German men being told to die for their foreign overlords?
Agusfn@reddit
what if you want to migrate? are they stopping ppl from leaving?