We 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.
I can recommend you to visit Michaelibad in Munich and check how the new reality in Germany looks like. Spoiler: it’s different than in movies from 90s.
If it was not enough of sight seeing in modern Germany next destination would be Alter Botanischer Garten in Munich. Fun fact: it was absolutely normal place two decades ago. I used to have a beer there since it’s close to the university.
I guess we're living in two different areas of Europe. And regarding the last point:
> And the EU regime plans what? To send European military age men to die in a faraway foreign country fighting for foreign interests while their homes and way of living are under attack.
First of all, there is no "EU regime", only countries threatened by Russia daily, which decided they need to increase their defence spending to deter Russia. Europe collectively decided NOT to send people "to die in a faraway foreign country fighting for foreign interests" in spite of Trump's pressure to do so.
The 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.
I 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.
Women can help the front line fighters but if I was running a country I would not want to put a large number of women on the front, especially young women.
Sure they can fight and kill.
But a country that loses its ability to make more people won't last longer than a generation.
Two things a country needs from which all other needs derive: people and a border that can be defended.
Men historically get sacrificed to protect the border. And women "sacrificed" to make more people.
Food, entertainment, religion, government, taxes, education, etc... it's all to serve those two fundamental requirements.
At 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.
> Men and women are essentially different in real biological ways, as well as emotional and socialization.
I fully agree, now, larger society doesn't and if all of my schooling is proof of it, feminism is the dominant discourse in Western Europe. So we can'be having women be fully equal in all spheres of society when it benefits women, but then remove them from every obligation those rights come with.
The full consequence of your ideas is that men and women are different people meaning it affects every sphere of life, and leads you to ask some unsavory questions, which doesn't mean curtailing women's rights necessarily but it does mean that the the way we model society and genders is opposite to reality, because when reality, like war, asks hard questions we default to the old order of men in the front and women in the factories.
> I would do my best to defend my country if it became necessary
I still don't understand this in my 40s and after serving in military (conscription) - why would you defend any country?
I can't imagine scenario when I am defending any country just because some other management wanna take over, I mean, what's the point risking your life for having different politicians maybe speaking different language.
If you fight people are gonna get killed, so unless it is some evil taking over who wanna do genocide, if it's just about gaining area/resources whar's the point in fighting?
I'd sure protect my own family if it would be in danger, but if I don't fight other soldiers why would they care about my family?
Btw. while I agree the conscription should be equal, you need much more women to repopulate the country than you need the men, since men don't give a birth.
> 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.
Poland 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.
The 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.
Really? 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.
A doc holding your balls and asking you to cough checks for an inguinal hernia, where your intestine pushes through the inguinal canal. This canal is much wider in men, hence it being much more common in men.
I am in no position to judge the procedure on a medical basis but know that it is (or was) near universal for potential recruits and has become a bit of a meme.
Your strong reaction to this procedure is something for you to dwell on.
whats the deal here with the genitals? normal part of life, and having someone check if theres nothing weird/curious in a full body health check doesn't sound unreasonable. was okay for me too. and girls do get their private parts inspected deeper every year at the female health docs than once in a lifetime ball touching from some drafter, different level, just accept it
Don't be ridiculous. You really don't see a difference between someone choosing to see a doctor for their own benefit and the state forcing someone to be subjected to an examination for the state's benefit?
Nobody should accept gender discrimination or being touched without consent.
It used to be that way, and probably will be that way again. I know of a few of people who got an early testicular cancer diagnosis that way. So it seems that there is a medical use for it.
I 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.
eh, this stirs memories of the similar exam in Italy (abolished ~20 years ago).
The doctor would also grab your testicles and ask to cough, to diagnose varicocele. I wonder how many young men have undiagnosed issues since the military exam was abolished.
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.
Rules 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.
It may not be sloppiness. Consider the official statement as shared in this comment: 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.
> 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.
The way laws work there is that each law either enumerates the penalties itself or the law of penalties enumerates them. So for each law you only have to check two places to know what the penalties are.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWijx_AgPiA
If it was not enough of sight seeing in modern Germany next destination would be Alter Botanischer Garten in Munich. Fun fact: it was absolutely normal place two decades ago. I used to have a beer there since it’s close to the university.
> And the EU regime plans what? To send European military age men to die in a faraway foreign country fighting for foreign interests while their homes and way of living are under attack.
First of all, there is no "EU regime", only countries threatened by Russia daily, which decided they need to increase their defence spending to deter Russia. Europe collectively decided NOT to send people "to die in a faraway foreign country fighting for foreign interests" in spite of Trump's pressure to do so.
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.
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.
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.
Sure they can fight and kill.
But a country that loses its ability to make more people won't last longer than a generation.
Two things a country needs from which all other needs derive: people and a border that can be defended.
Men historically get sacrificed to protect the border. And women "sacrificed" to make more people.
Food, entertainment, religion, government, taxes, education, etc... it's all to serve those two fundamental requirements.
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.
I fully agree, now, larger society doesn't and if all of my schooling is proof of it, feminism is the dominant discourse in Western Europe. So we can'be having women be fully equal in all spheres of society when it benefits women, but then remove them from every obligation those rights come with.
The full consequence of your ideas is that men and women are different people meaning it affects every sphere of life, and leads you to ask some unsavory questions, which doesn't mean curtailing women's rights necessarily but it does mean that the the way we model society and genders is opposite to reality, because when reality, like war, asks hard questions we default to the old order of men in the front and women in the factories.
We have been repeatedly told that "equality" is primordial to our values. That men had to forego their privileges in the name of it.
The hypocrisy of the defenders of those ideas suddenly being so complacent when we look at the other side of the coin is revolting.
I still don't understand this in my 40s and after serving in military (conscription) - why would you defend any country?
I can't imagine scenario when I am defending any country just because some other management wanna take over, I mean, what's the point risking your life for having different politicians maybe speaking different language.
If you fight people are gonna get killed, so unless it is some evil taking over who wanna do genocide, if it's just about gaining area/resources whar's the point in fighting?
I'd sure protect my own family if it would be in danger, but if I don't fight other soldiers why would they care about my family?
Btw. while I agree the conscription should be equal, you need much more women to repopulate the country than you need the men, since men don't give a birth.
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/zahlen-daten-fakte...
I'll be scrolling HN from the trenches long before any army reaches Berlin.
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.
I am in no position to judge the procedure on a medical basis but know that it is (or was) near universal for potential recruits and has become a bit of a meme.
Your strong reaction to this procedure is something for you to dwell on.
Nobody should accept gender discrimination or being touched without consent.
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.
EDIT. I'm serious. Few girls are summoned (e.g. medical related education). They don't have to show their genitals.
But anyway:
"The Clash - The Call Up (Official Video)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ScaGjwkg2Y
The doctor would also grab your testicles and ask to cough, to diagnose varicocele. I wonder how many young men have undiagnosed issues since the military exam was abolished.
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.
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.
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.
In this case, there are none.