7 ms·
Germany suspends military approval for long stays abroad for men under 45
- timokoesters 6mo agoHere is an official response from the Bundeswehr (German): https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/zahlen-daten-fakten https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/zahlen-daten-fakte...
- pantalaimon 6mo agoIt's ridiculous that the German government now has to officially state "Please ignore the letter of the law, we didn't mean it that way."
- raffael_de 6mo agoThat is the main problem with it. It shows the incompetence of our legislative procedures.
- klausa 6mo agoHey, look who doesn't understand how the laws are made now.
- pixelpoet 6mo agoGood, because I was seriously considering returning to NZ out of fear of being drafted into a war.
- yorwba 6mo agoThe suspension doesn't change whether you get drafted or not, it just reduces peacetime bureaucracy at the expense of making a future draft more chaotic if it does happen.
- Mashimo 6mo agoReally? I did expect nothing would happen. I though it was just a very old rule that was not enforced. Low low chance they could or would have enforced that.
- Tade0 6mo agoThe usual suspect would first need to cross Poland, not to mention finishing what they started in Ukraine. I'll be scrolling HN from the trenches long before any army reaches Berlin.
- benterix 6mo ago> The usual suspect would first need to cross Poland, not to mention finishing what they started in Ukraine. It doesn't look like they can break Ukraine anytime soon. And each month Ukraine bites back pushing the prospect of full-scale war with NATO (or what is left of it) even further.
- RealityVoid 6mo agoYes. Democratic collapse is the more real danger than direct Russian invasion of the EU countries.
- ozlikethewizard 6mo agoPoland are in Nato, I'd expect europe wide deployment on an invasion. Itll definitely be volunteer forces at first, but I wouldn't hold my breath on conscripted forces never being deployed if it goes into a quagmire like ukraine.
- pantalaimon 6mo agoIf NATO still exists by then.
- Tade0 6mo agoNATO would have to collapse before the midterms or the current POTUS' natural death - whichever came first. I find that unlikely.
- raffael_de 6mo agoIf Poland is attacked then Germany will deploy troops there. Whether NATO exists or not.
- lifestyleguru 6mo ago[flagged]
- hackandthink 6mo agoI had to undress back then. But anyway: "The Clash - The Call Up (Official Video)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ScaGjwkg2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ScaGjwkg2Y
- lifestyleguru 6mo ago[flagged]
- junon 6mo agoIsn't this just a standard part of a physical exam?
- lifestyleguru 6mo agoThen why girls don't have to show their genitals during medical exam? EDIT. I'm serious. Few girls are summoned (e.g. medical related education). They don't have to show their genitals.
- pinkmuffinere 6mo agowtf, is this a joke?
- sajithdilshan 6mo agoWho is thee creepy pervert now?
- adrian_b 6mo agoI do not know if this has changed during the recent decades, but indeed in the past it was standard in all countries for the military fitness physical exam to be done nude (for males). Moreover, it was completely pointless to be shy about this, because if you were conscripted, the norm was to have common showers, so anyone could have a good look at you for much more than the few seconds of the physical exam.
- Frieren 6mo agoWe are told that we are in a state of preparing for war. When we will start restricting luxury items, unnecessary private jet travel, energy waste in crypto-currencies, etc.? Because it seems that for being so obsessed to be prepared for war the only ones affected are the working class. The rich are just wasting resources away like if there was no tomorrow. I just see austerity 2.0 to cut citizens rights, cut services to the working class and transfer as much wealth and power to the super-rich as possible. I am all for Europe being prepared for war. That is a necessity. So, I am all for better health care, better education, less dependency on foreign gas and oil, better funding for goverment programs ... real measures to be prepare for the worst and less bending over to rich foreign interests.
- jiaosdjf 6mo agoThe only thing we can do is refuse to participate. Europe no longer needs its people, our governments have demonstrated clearly that the average person is irrelevant and replaceable. Our industries have been sold off and outsourced, we no longer make anything except spreadsheets to enable globalists and asset stripping private equity parasites. Our history and diversity has been deemed non-sacrosanct, if some other country in the world can provide infinite cheaper labour then they are invited to replace us. In a decade there will be no jobs even for the Uber imported class - we will all just be a burden on the super-rich who want to enjoy the European land in peace without so many people. Do not let them have this. Refuse to fight.
- usrusr 6mo ago> Refuse to fight. How would that change any of the stuff you lament? Even the worst imaginable invasion would change little for the elites but a lot more for everybody else.
- spwa4 6mo agoInvasions have historically destroyed elites that haven't or can't flee. Which means business/scientific/... elites that see things coming far enough out are fine, or get out with a large loss. And yes, I'm sure there's the occasional one that's really smart that gets out with a small profit, but I'm sure a large loss is the more normal experience. Political elites, which is the large majority: people who are rich because they have a role in government, directly or indirectly are fucked.
- flohofwoe 6mo agoThis was pretty much a big media nothingburger. The rule isn't new, it existed for decades all the way back to the beginnings of the Cold War. Nobody cared back then (neither the people nor the army), nobody should care now (there are no sanctions). I guess some journalist was actually reading through the consciption law (as probably the only person on the planet), stumbled over that passage and turned it into an elephant.
- croemer 6mo agoRules that are not enforced are bad as they create space for arbitrariness and corruption. It was a mistake by gov't, opposition & media that this wasn't spotted at the time the law was revised. The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. You'd expect the people drafting laws to consider such things. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. Not a nothingburger.
- flohofwoe 6mo ago> The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. This I agree with. Might have to do with law changes requiring a two-thirds-majority in parliament though. They could have communicated earlier and better though.
- timkam 6mo agoIt may not be sloppiness. Consider the official statement as shared in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061. The ministry of defense will issue an 'exception' that generally applies. Presumably, revoking this exception is straightforward and much easier than passing a new law.
- croemer 6mo agoIf it wasn't sloppiness they would have issued the directive on January 1.
- 6mo ago
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- 09725290216 6mo agoI cannot understand how German men can be expected to fight while women are exempt. It's pure sexism against men and also very insulting to women. I'm opposed to conscription in general, but I live in Sweden with gender-neutral conscription laws, and I would do my best to defend my country if it became necessary. If I were a man in an alternate version of Sweden with male-only conscription, I would feel so disrespected and devalued by the state that I couldn't imagine myself defending it, so I would either join a non-state-affiliated resistance group or flee the country. If I lived in Germany right now (even as a woman, but especially as a man), I would seriously consider emigrating to a more egalitarian country as soon as possible.
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoAt the risk of feeding this troll, I'll go for it here. Men and women are essentially different in real biological ways, as well as emotional and socialization. For millennia, women and children have been held innocent and protected. This is why Christian societies don't throw them on the frontlines as cannon fodder, but rather, the men go in front and the men fight, as expendables, while the woman and children can be protected far behind the front lines of any conflict. Women can bear children, feed their infants, and care for families even while men are occupied or absent. Women are much more capable of restarting a civilization even when the men are decimated. It is a very logical and pragmatic decision to protect women and children from warfare and violence. Conversely, armies of female warriors have enjoyed legendary status as especially fierce and undefeated. How many of us have enjoyed "Wonder Woman", "Calafia", Amazons, and the rest? Furthermore, a soldier may be victimized by rape. SA of a male has different consequences than SA of a mature woman. You can imagine that a woman who becomes pregnant faces difficult decisions for the rest of her life. Again, the expendable nature of men makes us less susceptible to SA and ransom plots and other manipulation by the enemy. So the trouble today, is that women are "empowered by equality" and demand every right and privilege that is due to men, and that extends to dirty horrible jobs, and fighting in combat. Women who are empowered by equality are also going to be subjected to responsibilities and duties that they didn't have before. Societies are simply coming up with no other choice but to put women in combat, because the women are doing every other job and it seems absurd to hold back. Naturally, putting women in harm's way, and even conscripting them, eventually seems necessary if the adversary is doing it too. I am not sure that our Islamic or East Asian adversaries are doing this, but perhaps Westerners believe that we can thus gain the upper hand. I propose that it will disadvantage and disgrace us instead.
- dude250711 6mo agoHow did Germany treat veterans of the previous major war by the way?
- yorwba 6mo agoThe previous major war was in Afghanistan with 150,000 German soldiers: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-honors-soldiers-who-fought-in-afghanistan-mission/a-59492974 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-honors-soldiers-who-fought-in-...
- dust42 6mo agoThe law is still there though and thus its application can be resumed at any time without need of parliament approval.
- raffael_de 6mo agoThe whole handling of it is utterly incompetent. To reinstate a law and then have it informally and temporarily deactivated. https://youtu.be/dZUu6OkTHlY https://youtu.be/dZUu6OkTHlY
- PhilipRoman 6mo agoHah, based on the title I assumed it was exactly the opposite - that it was the automatic approval that had been suspended
- tsoukase 6mo agoWe are too far away from the last real war in Europe, which was WWII, and forgot how massive thing it is. Let's start saying that a war or a preparation for it is an experience that cannot be expressed wholly by words. Our current life doesn't seem to be anything like that. That's because, IMHO, the war shenanigan is a forced artificial thing, imposed by background global forces just to sell some more weapons and spread some fear and worry. Not much more will happen.
- illiac786 6mo agoOk, that might be true, but what do you suggest if the aggressor is at your door? Discuss and convince them they are being manipulated?
- tsoukase 6mo agoI live in Greece, technically under a continuous more or less hot war with all our neighbours since the last 5 f.. centuries. Coping with aggressivity at group level needs deep historical experience, delicate balance above words and lines and knowing that "the best defense is the attack". Ideally, "the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting", Sun Tzu, but it's difficult, even locally. Leaders like the POTUS, the Chancellor or the "Czar" exert immense influence over the global stuff. Let's press all of them to behave sanely and throw out of their bed the weapon companies. In the 60's the USA had 60000 nuclear warheads, now 5000. Let's make them 60000 again so to stop all conventional wars overnight.
- illiac786 6mo agoAgreed on all of this, they suck, especially the lobbyists pushing weapons. But shouldn’t we start we the likes of Putin? That would significantly lower the demand for weapons. I feel it’s more realistic than getting rid of lobbyists unfortunately. (Still no clue as to how to achieve it though)
- tsoukase 6mo ago
- scoofy 6mo agoPerhaps a cautionary move for potential fallout from the Hungarian election?