> "We don't want to spend half a year of our lives locked up in barracks, being trained in drill and obedience and learning to kill," the organisers of the protests wrote in a statement posted on social media.
"War offers no prospects for the future and destroys our livelihoods."
Is the idea that it’s better for your livelihood to just start learning how speak Russian now?
I think a lot of young people look at all of the wars waged post-WWII and are rightfully opposed to fighting for their governments. Would you want to die for nothing in Vietnam? Probably not, and a lot of other people didn't want to as well. Some of them did anyway, and it was all for nothing.
So please have some grace if today's kids have looked back at our miserable history and have decided that they'd rather not die for a country that doesn't seem to give a shit about them.
Exactly. Even after Vietnam, in this century. Iraq war 2 was all false pretenses. And the resulting power vacuum created ISIS. Afghanistan accomplished absolutely nothing, things are back to the way it was and all the deaths were for nothing.
The only fairly recent war that the west was involved in that was slightly justified was the first gulf war. But even that wasn't really any of America's business. It wasn't that they actually cared about the Kuwaiti people. Just the oil.
They were in Afghanistan and the U.S. would have no problems with setting up other EU countries as proxies against Russia in order to get Russia out of countries like Syria and Venezuela (as has now happened, courtesy of the Ukrainians).
The Venezuelan escalation happened after the Alaska Summit, and God knows what tradeoffs were made there verbally and with full deniability.
A strong army is only good if you have a strong, independent foreign policy. German chancellors used to be able to contradict the U.S., but that is no longer a given.
History shows that the best way to resist, in these circumstances, might be to let them in, and then blow them up in the streets and countryside until they leave. It's cheaper and (morbidly enough) probably has a lower human cost.
The German government will be the first ones to tell you that the German language and ancestry is totally unrelated to the idea of who gets to be German.
It’s absolutely insane and diabolically narcissistic and psychopathic! It’s so insane that a rational, sane, decent person cannot make sense of it; which would by all measures indicate that it is not only intentionally abusive and narcissistic gaslighting, but it’s even hostile, malicious, enemy action; an existential and mortal threat.
But it’s not just Germany, even in Italy, the “far right” Meloni has supported and undone the ability for even pure blood Italians in foreign countries to apply and get preferential status in applying to because an Italian citizen, while at the same time pushing for expedited citizenship for non-Europeans, i.e., declaring that a Nigerian, or a Vietnamese, or a Peruvian can be an Italian too. What is that even? What are we doing here? It seems like the whole 2+2=5 gaslighting sadism from 1984. Does anyone think that can go well, is not going to cause some form of implosion/explosion? How long do you think people will allow themselves to be so abused, so gaslit, so insulted, so betrayed… before the fuse blows? It’s sick and sadistic, this destruction of European cultures and people all around the world. By the UN’s own definition it is genocide, the destruction of the indigenous culture and people and their identity. What else do you call saying “no, no, the Nigerian/Chinese/Nicaraguan/etc is just as Italian as you, who are descended from the Romans, Etruscans, and Celts who have been there before the archeological record.”?
No matter what, I don’t think that can go well, no matter how you look at it. This fuse cannot take this level of abuse for this long. Why would we even want that sick, depraved, psychopathic, and narcissistic abuse that will invariably cause calamity and suffering?? We would not accept it being done to any other people of the world, why do some poor Europeans who just want to raise their children in their culture and keep the whole damn World running with their productivity, deserve such terror and abuse?
In my opinion pitting our youth against theirs man to man means we have already lost anyway. Lots of people that don't deserve it would have to die. We need to be able to destroy them at the push of a button so they don't even think about invading us. And then we don't need to order kids around to their deaths.
In other words we need a nuclear umbrella. Now that America is no longer our friend we need to build our own. It has worked very well to keep us safe since the 50s. And I don't think the French + English ones are sufficient deterrence anymore.
Between learning to speak russian and bleeding out in 10° weather in a ditch on the front lines of a foreign country fighting some rich politician's proxy war while the politician's family is out partying, drinking champagne, eating steak, and living comfortably, I'd choose speaking russian. Not sorry for valuing my own life more than the leaders of my nation-state do.
Because both sides are funded and armed by much larger players using their respective proxies to deplete the resources of the other side. NATO is using Ukraine like a bullet sponge to deplete Russian resources, China is using Russia as a bullet sponge to deplete NATO resources. NATO sends Ukraine equipment, happy to send hundreds of thousands of Ukranians who have no say in the matter to their deaths. China sends Russia raw materials and manufacturing equipment for weapon systems, happy to send hundreds of thousands of Russians who have no say in the matter to their deaths.
Western defense contractors and Chinese industrial suppliers profit. Russians and Ukranians alike die.
It sounds like you believe life in western democracy is exactly the same as life in modern imperial Russia, like if you could choose, you would have no preference whatsoever?
I would certainly choose the 13% flat income tax rate in Russia over the 40%+ I pay in the west, if given my choice of tax policy. I'd take the $0.50 bread over the $6.00 bread, and the $500 monthly rent over the $4000 monthly rent, too. I bet their HR departments aren't screeching at their tech workers to rename master to main either.
The UK locks up more people for speech crimes than Russia does.
Abortion is more legal and more accessible in Russia than in a large chunk of the United States.
The murder rate per capita is 3x higher in Chicago than it is in Moscow.
I'm 10x more likely to be a victim of property crime in Berlin, London, or Paris than in Moscow.
What makes you think you would need to speak Russian? You think Russias would actually want the absolutely insane basket case, looney bin, crazy eyes Europe even if they could take it? It’s like knocking up the crazy hot chick, a life of suffering, misery, gnashing teeth, and torment. It’s not worth it, not even once.
The Russians have all of Asia at their feet and with cooperative and energetic and optimistic and growing partners … but they want crazy eyes Europe? It’s like some gross obese American chick flaunting her fat claiming “yeah, I know you want this!” I don’t know Russian yet, how do you say “eeww. Disgusting. No way! Stay away from me please!” in Russian?
Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they rebuild an iron curtain just to keep Europe as far away from them as possible. There are already enough Chinese and Indians learning to speak Russian by the millions.
Wars are won on resolve, and mercenaries don't have any. The reason so many of these people fled to Europe in the first place was to avoid getting caught up in violence. They have zero reason to fight anything except the insistence that they fight.
Also, this is racist as hell, why isn't it flagged to death yet?
That's the traditional recipe for military coups. When the ones with the weapons, training, and combat experience have no particular loyalty to the regime, they often start thinking that they would be more qualified to rule.
To offer a bit of context, the same government just voted to raise current pensions at the expense of steep taxation hikes for current workers, made massive cuts to social services, and is now discussing military service.
This generation is rightfully feeling like they're getting a sore deal.
Classic move: make the kids struggle, then offer them a lifeline if they just put on a uniform. The GI bill is great, but you shouldn't have to step on an IED to go to college.
The article is using "voluntary" in a very questionable fashion.
> Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, has voted to introduce voluntary military service...
> The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
> The government says military service will be voluntary for as long as possible, but from July 2027, all 18-year-old men will have to take a medical exam to assess their fitness for possible military service.
> a form of compulsory military service could be considered by the Bundestag.
Well, that escalated quickly. There's nothing here that could be really described as "voluntary".
Military service was only recently abolished in Germany. And compared to the old system, this one would qualify as voluntary for now. This might not remain that way, but that's probably an issue to discuss if and when that happens. There's all kinds of other challenges at that point, and I think at that point challenges based on fairness could be valid (as only some people are drafted, not everyone).
One, I'm not sure what American founding ideals have to do with Germany.
Two, Germany, like most countries and frankly human populations, has a male surplus in its fighting-age population [1]. This is why, historically, large socities tended to wage war with men first. (Even those that e.g. held elite units in reserve, which undermines the usual biological argument.)
> make surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army
...why would you populate your army solely with the surplus? The point is you have a buffer that you can burn without immediately impacting your demographics for the long term.
> that is not the reason why men and not women go to war
It's a serious theory [1]. (It's more correct to say the surplus and it share a common cause.)
This got to be the final scream of a dying regime.
Not so long ago we were told a serious army has now to be a professional and highly trained army. Everything else was useless.
But they seem to plan to just draft young people and fight some sort WWI a bit like the nightmare in Ukraine.
But today Western Europe countries are not Ukraine. If they would engage in a war they would collapse into total chaos very quickly. Those are old, very divided and absolutely not resilient societies.
Just cutting the electricity for a week would collapse the cities. Starting with people putting the buildings on fire because they do not know how dangerous candles are.
"Training" young people for 6 months wouldn't change that.
This is a bit like what happened in WWII when Germany attacked country like Belgium or France. They went right through it because there were a dissymmetry between the German who had it really tough for 20 years and the Belgian or Frenchman at the time.
But the current head of NATO is a former HR at Unilever, so I guess he knows better.
“The change means that all 18-year-olds in Germany will be sent a questionnaire from January 2026 asking if they are interested and willing to join the armed forces. The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.“ - all men have to fill out and return a form, I suppose this will work to increase recruitment. Doesn’t seem very controversial.
Why do they have to fill it in and return it just to say no? Could this be used against them at some time in the future? And why women instead can just ignore it?
Usually HN is very wary of the consequences of the state collecting data about its citizens and restricting freedoms in small steps. Is it not the case now?
Actually you make a good point here. Women have better reaction times then men, so female drone operators, all else being equal, may be better at the job.
No, to a bunch of neoliberal elite politicians, women aren't equal. And those same politicians won't ever serve, nor compulsed to serve, and/or will shield their families from serving unless they really want to.
But let's call it what it is: compulsed military service is slavery for the elite.
Mandatory military service existed before in Germany, not all that long ago. So this is mostly returned to the same mechanisms as back then, though with the actual service being voluntary for now. And to include woman you'd have to change the constitution, as that part is specific to men.
The problem here that this probably is only part of a larger society militarization plan.
The guaranteed next step is to offer the volunteers a long term paid contract at the end of their term. This would probably be well above what they would be paid elsewhere (young men with no university degree, desperate enough to volunteer in the first place).
Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society.
> Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Thailand each have active conscription [1]. The slippery slop you describe is far from inevitable.
You probably have no idea what you're talking about. Mandatory conscription (which I have personally served) is for a fixed term, so your livelihood is not tied to the army paying your salary. It's more of a semi-unpleasant mandatory intermission in your life plans.
Also, if you have decades of mandatory conscription then there is no slope to slip. Germany on the other hand is now on a slope, since they regress from a fully professional army back to conscription. How much down they will slip, remains to be seen.
I don’t know the details… does the suspension make the current state in Germany similar to the Selective Service requirement in the US? Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
> does the suspension make the current state in Germany similar to the Selective Service requirement in the US?
I don't know how the Selective Service requirement in the US works, so I can't answer this question.
> Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
Such a (temporary) suspension can hypothetically terminated at any time by the government. The question is basically how the population will react. I guess if the suspension of the general conscription would be terminated by the government, there would be really furious public rallies (and I am rather certain that my boss would immediately attempt to approve a vacation request if I wanted to attend such a rally in Berlin if it happened during the work week - just as an "innocent" kind of support for this cause from behind the lines :-) ) because multiple generations got really radicalized against compulsory military service (I wrote about this topic at https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46177817 ).
This is why the German government currently attempts to approach the whole topic of quitting the suspension of compulsory military service so indirectly.
In the US, men have to register for potential draft within a few months of turning 18. Women still exempt. But instituting an active draft wound take an act of congress and be signed by president - very unlikely to pass for the same reason you mention in German - the population likely wouldn’t stand for it.
Eighteen year olds in the US have to fill out a “selective services” form. This was for the draft, and continues in case the draft is ever reinstated. So in peace time not problem, in wartime? Different story.
This may be too far of an obscure historical reference, but is there really nothing specific to German history and nothing within german civic education and contemporary national identity formation that might make this potentially more controversial?
Hint:some of these events involved spheres of influence and control over resources in eastern europe!
I think the much bigger issue is that the older generation (those who, say, turned 18 in the 70s) told the younger generation lots of really nasty stories about the cruel trials people had to endure who wanted to do alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of military service. These formed the value system of many people in at least two generations ("Soldaten sind Mörder" [soldiers are murders]).
EDIT: If you understand German, here is a song from 1972 about these brutal cross-examinations:
> Franz Josef Degenhardt - Befragung eines Kriegsdienstverweigerers
Additionally, the participation of Germany in the first aggressive wars in Yugoslavia in 1999 and then in Afghanistan from 2001 on (before citizens were told that the Bundeswehr is only a defense army, and would never participate in an aggressive war) lead to a radicalization of another generation against the Bundeswehr - and yes, this generation eagerly listened to the above-mentioned horror stories of the older generations. It is even rumored that this next generation's radicalization against the Bundeswehr indirectly lead to the suspension of the compulsory military service in Germany in 2011.
I was recently traveling through Nuremburg and saw that the military was advertising recruitment heavily. In billboards, at bus stations, and so forth.
What I didn't see were any young Germans. I'm dead serious about this. Literally everybody under the age of 50 seemed to be a Somali, a Turk, a Syrian, an Albanian, or some sort of tourist. (Looking at it now, German TFR has been well below replacement for nearly 60 years, so I suppose it makes sense.)
It was quite mind-boggling, really. The past 10 years have seen a tremendous decline in German institutions, demographics, faith in government, etc. Who would fight for such a regime? Is it not actually immoral to do so? The German government is one of the few on Earth that seems to actually hate its native populace.
Seems ~20% of the population are immigrants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg#Demographics), some of the people you saw are Germans and some of them are not, but I think the main confusing part is how you mix up how someone looks and what nationality they have. I think maybe you're trying to say "white" instead, but for some reason avoided using that word?
> I think maybe you're trying to say "white" instead
Not sure what you are babbling about but, It's about ethnicity and not race. Plenty of third generation Turks still don't consider themselves German, then someone with black skin adopted as a child might consider themself German, it's about culture not race, we're not in last century anymore. Proportion of young people with immigrant background is high in many Westeuropean countries, if they don't integrate into society they won't be willing to defend it.
84% of the German population is ethnically German, so the commenter above was probably spectacularly unlucky. They are right though in that it is an aging population with only around 13% under 16.
It is probable though that the younger generations are much more ethnically diverse than that 84% would suggest. That is, a lot more than 16% of the youth is from immigrant background.
Something tells me that the only people wandering the streets at 2:00 PM on a weekday are vacationing from other countries. Next you'll tell me that whi- I mean, "good, old-fashioned Americans" are disappearing because you went to Times Square and couldn't hear any English. Please don't do this here.
> Looking at it now, German TFR has been well below replacement for nearly 60 years, so I suppose it makes sense.
That's really dumb. It's not that hard to look up population statistics [1]. Without having to say anything on the validity of your last paragraph (I'd have to apply Hanlon's razor before I would be able to argue in good faith), it really has nothing to do with your random tourist observation. There are very much 'white' children (which you probably meant to say, but didn't for some reason) running around in Nuremberg (not "Nuremburg").
Yes, many parts of German cities have a majority of non-germans. This is not uncommon, it doesn't help that the minority of the German youth in those areas is integrating themselves into the immigrant culture.
>The German government is one of the few on Earth that seems to actually hate its native populace.
They certainly don't hate the pensioners or the people on welfare. Just the native youth, which will have to bear the burden for all of this, but does not get to decide.
Just build nukes if you are afraid of Russia then nuke them if they try to invade. Ukraine is not as smart and gave up its nukes in the early 90s, and is now in the middle of a war for the last couple years.
I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that the multipolar world we're in now makes a good case for nuclear weapons adoption. But Germany probably isn't the one Europe wants to arm itself. And even if it did, their Greens wouldn't allow it.
> "We don't want to spend half a year of our lives locked up in barracks, being trained in drill and obedience and learning to kill," the organisers of the protests wrote in a statement posted on social media. "War offers no prospects for the future and destroys our livelihoods."
Is the idea that it’s better for your livelihood to just start learning how speak Russian now?
I think a lot of young people look at all of the wars waged post-WWII and are rightfully opposed to fighting for their governments. Would you want to die for nothing in Vietnam? Probably not, and a lot of other people didn't want to as well. Some of them did anyway, and it was all for nothing.
So please have some grace if today's kids have looked back at our miserable history and have decided that they'd rather not die for a country that doesn't seem to give a shit about them.
Exactly. Even after Vietnam, in this century. Iraq war 2 was all false pretenses. And the resulting power vacuum created ISIS. Afghanistan accomplished absolutely nothing, things are back to the way it was and all the deaths were for nothing.
The only fairly recent war that the west was involved in that was slightly justified was the first gulf war. But even that wasn't really any of America's business. It wasn't that they actually cared about the Kuwaiti people. Just the oil.
But do people think American will translate to Germany?
Germany didn't fight in Vietnam.
They were in Afghanistan and the U.S. would have no problems with setting up other EU countries as proxies against Russia in order to get Russia out of countries like Syria and Venezuela (as has now happened, courtesy of the Ukrainians).
The Venezuelan escalation happened after the Alaska Summit, and God knows what tradeoffs were made there verbally and with full deniability.
A strong army is only good if you have a strong, independent foreign policy. German chancellors used to be able to contradict the U.S., but that is no longer a given.
Missing the point.
Putin will happily take over your home, even if you thought Viet Nam was a waste.
History shows that the best way to resist, in these circumstances, might be to let them in, and then blow them up in the streets and countryside until they leave. It's cheaper and (morbidly enough) probably has a lower human cost.
The German government will be the first ones to tell you that the German language and ancestry is totally unrelated to the idea of who gets to be German.
It’s absolutely insane and diabolically narcissistic and psychopathic! It’s so insane that a rational, sane, decent person cannot make sense of it; which would by all measures indicate that it is not only intentionally abusive and narcissistic gaslighting, but it’s even hostile, malicious, enemy action; an existential and mortal threat.
But it’s not just Germany, even in Italy, the “far right” Meloni has supported and undone the ability for even pure blood Italians in foreign countries to apply and get preferential status in applying to because an Italian citizen, while at the same time pushing for expedited citizenship for non-Europeans, i.e., declaring that a Nigerian, or a Vietnamese, or a Peruvian can be an Italian too. What is that even? What are we doing here? It seems like the whole 2+2=5 gaslighting sadism from 1984. Does anyone think that can go well, is not going to cause some form of implosion/explosion? How long do you think people will allow themselves to be so abused, so gaslit, so insulted, so betrayed… before the fuse blows? It’s sick and sadistic, this destruction of European cultures and people all around the world. By the UN’s own definition it is genocide, the destruction of the indigenous culture and people and their identity. What else do you call saying “no, no, the Nigerian/Chinese/Nicaraguan/etc is just as Italian as you, who are descended from the Romans, Etruscans, and Celts who have been there before the archeological record.”?
No matter what, I don’t think that can go well, no matter how you look at it. This fuse cannot take this level of abuse for this long. Why would we even want that sick, depraved, psychopathic, and narcissistic abuse that will invariably cause calamity and suffering?? We would not accept it being done to any other people of the world, why do some poor Europeans who just want to raise their children in their culture and keep the whole damn World running with their productivity, deserve such terror and abuse?
What the heck is this racist drivel
In my opinion pitting our youth against theirs man to man means we have already lost anyway. Lots of people that don't deserve it would have to die. We need to be able to destroy them at the push of a button so they don't even think about invading us. And then we don't need to order kids around to their deaths.
In other words we need a nuclear umbrella. Now that America is no longer our friend we need to build our own. It has worked very well to keep us safe since the 50s. And I don't think the French + English ones are sufficient deterrence anymore.
> Is the idea that it’s better for your livelihood to just start learning how [to] speak Russian now?
Да, конечно.
Between learning to speak russian and bleeding out in 10° weather in a ditch on the front lines of a foreign country fighting some rich politician's proxy war while the politician's family is out partying, drinking champagne, eating steak, and living comfortably, I'd choose speaking russian. Not sorry for valuing my own life more than the leaders of my nation-state do.
How is it a proxy war if Russia invades and you fight back?
Because both sides are funded and armed by much larger players using their respective proxies to deplete the resources of the other side. NATO is using Ukraine like a bullet sponge to deplete Russian resources, China is using Russia as a bullet sponge to deplete NATO resources. NATO sends Ukraine equipment, happy to send hundreds of thousands of Ukranians who have no say in the matter to their deaths. China sends Russia raw materials and manufacturing equipment for weapon systems, happy to send hundreds of thousands of Russians who have no say in the matter to their deaths.
Western defense contractors and Chinese industrial suppliers profit. Russians and Ukranians alike die.
The problem is, if Russian takes over they'll just conscript you and send you to die in a ditch anyway.
Great, I'll go sign up to die in a ditch for a war I oppose to avoid being forced to die in a ditch for a war I oppose.
It sounds like you believe life in western democracy is exactly the same as life in modern imperial Russia, like if you could choose, you would have no preference whatsoever?
I would certainly choose the 13% flat income tax rate in Russia over the 40%+ I pay in the west, if given my choice of tax policy. I'd take the $0.50 bread over the $6.00 bread, and the $500 monthly rent over the $4000 monthly rent, too. I bet their HR departments aren't screeching at their tech workers to rename master to main either.
The UK locks up more people for speech crimes than Russia does.
Abortion is more legal and more accessible in Russia than in a large chunk of the United States.
The murder rate per capita is 3x higher in Chicago than it is in Moscow.
I'm 10x more likely to be a victim of property crime in Berlin, London, or Paris than in Moscow.
Who's really got less freedom?
What makes you think you would need to speak Russian? You think Russias would actually want the absolutely insane basket case, looney bin, crazy eyes Europe even if they could take it? It’s like knocking up the crazy hot chick, a life of suffering, misery, gnashing teeth, and torment. It’s not worth it, not even once.
The Russians have all of Asia at their feet and with cooperative and energetic and optimistic and growing partners … but they want crazy eyes Europe? It’s like some gross obese American chick flaunting her fat claiming “yeah, I know you want this!” I don’t know Russian yet, how do you say “eeww. Disgusting. No way! Stay away from me please!” in Russian?
Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they rebuild an iron curtain just to keep Europe as far away from them as possible. There are already enough Chinese and Indians learning to speak Russian by the millions.
[dead]
[flagged]
Wars are won on resolve, and mercenaries don't have any. The reason so many of these people fled to Europe in the first place was to avoid getting caught up in violence. They have zero reason to fight anything except the insistence that they fight.
Also, this is racist as hell, why isn't it flagged to death yet?
That's the traditional recipe for military coups. When the ones with the weapons, training, and combat experience have no particular loyalty to the regime, they often start thinking that they would be more qualified to rule.
> If things are as the governments claim
Leaving aside your xenophobic ramblings, that's a VERY BIG "if".
Simply because all bets are off when they come back armed, trained, hardened and angry.
Who's to say the organizers and influencers behind these protests don't already speak Russian..
On the other hand, we know that a lot of those who want the Germans fighting the Russians speak English.
To offer a bit of context, the same government just voted to raise current pensions at the expense of steep taxation hikes for current workers, made massive cuts to social services, and is now discussing military service.
This generation is rightfully feeling like they're getting a sore deal.
Classic move: make the kids struggle, then offer them a lifeline if they just put on a uniform. The GI bill is great, but you shouldn't have to step on an IED to go to college.
The article is using "voluntary" in a very questionable fashion.
> Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, has voted to introduce voluntary military service...
> The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
> The government says military service will be voluntary for as long as possible, but from July 2027, all 18-year-old men will have to take a medical exam to assess their fitness for possible military service.
> a form of compulsory military service could be considered by the Bundestag.
Well, that escalated quickly. There's nothing here that could be really described as "voluntary".
Military service was only recently abolished in Germany. And compared to the old system, this one would qualify as voluntary for now. This might not remain that way, but that's probably an issue to discuss if and when that happens. There's all kinds of other challenges at that point, and I think at that point challenges based on fairness could be valid (as only some people are drafted, not everyone).
> Military service was only recently abolished in Germany.
Military service was never abolished in Germany. It was only suspended in 2011 (and lots of people were celebrating even this small improvement).
> The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
One, I'm not sure what American founding ideals have to do with Germany.
Two, Germany, like most countries and frankly human populations, has a male surplus in its fighting-age population [1]. This is why, historically, large socities tended to wage war with men first. (Even those that e.g. held elite units in reserve, which undermines the usual biological argument.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#/media...
The male surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army; and no, that is not the reason why men and not women go to war.
> make surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army
...why would you populate your army solely with the surplus? The point is you have a buffer that you can burn without immediately impacting your demographics for the long term.
> that is not the reason why men and not women go to war
It's a serious theory [1]. (It's more correct to say the surplus and it share a common cause.)
[1] https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_931
Registration is compulsory, but actual military service is voluntary (for now).
In other words, it's functionally the same as Selective Service forms in the US.
France is doing something similar now.
This got to be the final scream of a dying regime.
Not so long ago we were told a serious army has now to be a professional and highly trained army. Everything else was useless.
But they seem to plan to just draft young people and fight some sort WWI a bit like the nightmare in Ukraine.
But today Western Europe countries are not Ukraine. If they would engage in a war they would collapse into total chaos very quickly. Those are old, very divided and absolutely not resilient societies.
Just cutting the electricity for a week would collapse the cities. Starting with people putting the buildings on fire because they do not know how dangerous candles are.
"Training" young people for 6 months wouldn't change that.
This is a bit like what happened in WWII when Germany attacked country like Belgium or France. They went right through it because there were a dissymmetry between the German who had it really tough for 20 years and the Belgian or Frenchman at the time.
But the current head of NATO is a former HR at Unilever, so I guess he knows better.
“The change means that all 18-year-olds in Germany will be sent a questionnaire from January 2026 asking if they are interested and willing to join the armed forces. The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.“ - all men have to fill out and return a form, I suppose this will work to increase recruitment. Doesn’t seem very controversial.
Why do they have to fill it in and return it just to say no? Could this be used against them at some time in the future? And why women instead can just ignore it?
Usually HN is very wary of the consequences of the state collecting data about its citizens and restricting freedoms in small steps. Is it not the case now?
When push comes to shove, men and women aren't equal
When it comes to being drone operators or targets it’s probably a negligible difference
Actually you make a good point here. Women have better reaction times then men, so female drone operators, all else being equal, may be better at the job.
No, to a bunch of neoliberal elite politicians, women aren't equal. And those same politicians won't ever serve, nor compulsed to serve, and/or will shield their families from serving unless they really want to.
But let's call it what it is: compulsed military service is slavery for the elite.
Mandatory military service existed before in Germany, not all that long ago. So this is mostly returned to the same mechanisms as back then, though with the actual service being voluntary for now. And to include woman you'd have to change the constitution, as that part is specific to men.
The problem here that this probably is only part of a larger society militarization plan.
The guaranteed next step is to offer the volunteers a long term paid contract at the end of their term. This would probably be well above what they would be paid elsewhere (young men with no university degree, desperate enough to volunteer in the first place).
Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society.
What could possibly go wrong?
> Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Thailand each have active conscription [1]. The slippery slop you describe is far from inevitable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription
You probably have no idea what you're talking about. Mandatory conscription (which I have personally served) is for a fixed term, so your livelihood is not tied to the army paying your salary. It's more of a semi-unpleasant mandatory intermission in your life plans.
Also, if you have decades of mandatory conscription then there is no slope to slip. Germany on the other hand is now on a slope, since they regress from a fully professional army back to conscription. How much down they will slip, remains to be seen.
> Mandatory conscription
Active != mandatory.
> Mandatory conscription (which I have personally served) is for a fixed term, so your livelihood is not tied to the army paying your salary
You're seriously arguing that countries with mandatory conscription are less militarised than those with active (but not mandatory) conscription?
They only recently (2011?) ended mandatory conscription so this is a pretty big about-face.
Compulsory military service (or alternative national service) never ended in Germany; in 2011 it was only suspended.
I don’t know the details… does the suspension make the current state in Germany similar to the Selective Service requirement in the US? Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
> does the suspension make the current state in Germany similar to the Selective Service requirement in the US?
I don't know how the Selective Service requirement in the US works, so I can't answer this question.
> Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
Such a (temporary) suspension can hypothetically terminated at any time by the government. The question is basically how the population will react. I guess if the suspension of the general conscription would be terminated by the government, there would be really furious public rallies (and I am rather certain that my boss would immediately attempt to approve a vacation request if I wanted to attend such a rally in Berlin if it happened during the work week - just as an "innocent" kind of support for this cause from behind the lines :-) ) because multiple generations got really radicalized against compulsory military service (I wrote about this topic at https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46177817 ).
This is why the German government currently attempts to approach the whole topic of quitting the suspension of compulsory military service so indirectly.
In the US, men have to register for potential draft within a few months of turning 18. Women still exempt. But instituting an active draft wound take an act of congress and be signed by president - very unlikely to pass for the same reason you mention in German - the population likely wouldn’t stand for it.
Eighteen year olds in the US have to fill out a “selective services” form. This was for the draft, and continues in case the draft is ever reinstated. So in peace time not problem, in wartime? Different story.
This may be too far of an obscure historical reference, but is there really nothing specific to German history and nothing within german civic education and contemporary national identity formation that might make this potentially more controversial?
Hint:some of these events involved spheres of influence and control over resources in eastern europe!
I think the much bigger issue is that the older generation (those who, say, turned 18 in the 70s) told the younger generation lots of really nasty stories about the cruel trials people had to endure who wanted to do alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of military service. These formed the value system of many people in at least two generations ("Soldaten sind Mörder" [soldiers are murders]).
EDIT: If you understand German, here is a song from 1972 about these brutal cross-examinations:
> Franz Josef Degenhardt - Befragung eines Kriegsdienstverweigerers
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDTtMTcj8X0
Additionally, the participation of Germany in the first aggressive wars in Yugoslavia in 1999 and then in Afghanistan from 2001 on (before citizens were told that the Bundeswehr is only a defense army, and would never participate in an aggressive war) lead to a radicalization of another generation against the Bundeswehr - and yes, this generation eagerly listened to the above-mentioned horror stories of the older generations. It is even rumored that this next generation's radicalization against the Bundeswehr indirectly lead to the suspension of the compulsory military service in Germany in 2011.
Has a standing army of angry young men, resentful at their economic circumstances in Germany ever historically caused any problems?
Give it a decade and a German Vance like figure...
Slowly you arrive at the 4th Reich.
edit: nevermind, title changed?
I was recently traveling through Nuremburg and saw that the military was advertising recruitment heavily. In billboards, at bus stations, and so forth.
What I didn't see were any young Germans. I'm dead serious about this. Literally everybody under the age of 50 seemed to be a Somali, a Turk, a Syrian, an Albanian, or some sort of tourist. (Looking at it now, German TFR has been well below replacement for nearly 60 years, so I suppose it makes sense.)
It was quite mind-boggling, really. The past 10 years have seen a tremendous decline in German institutions, demographics, faith in government, etc. Who would fight for such a regime? Is it not actually immoral to do so? The German government is one of the few on Earth that seems to actually hate its native populace.
> What I didn't see were any young Germans
Seems ~20% of the population are immigrants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg#Demographics), some of the people you saw are Germans and some of them are not, but I think the main confusing part is how you mix up how someone looks and what nationality they have. I think maybe you're trying to say "white" instead, but for some reason avoided using that word?
> I think maybe you're trying to say "white" instead
Not sure what you are babbling about but, It's about ethnicity and not race. Plenty of third generation Turks still don't consider themselves German, then someone with black skin adopted as a child might consider themself German, it's about culture not race, we're not in last century anymore. Proportion of young people with immigrant background is high in many Westeuropean countries, if they don't integrate into society they won't be willing to defend it.
[dead]
For anyone wondering just over
84% of the German population is ethnically German, so the commenter above was probably spectacularly unlucky. They are right though in that it is an aging population with only around 13% under 16.
It is probable though that the younger generations are much more ethnically diverse than that 84% would suggest. That is, a lot more than 16% of the youth is from immigrant background.
Or it could have been like that time I was in Harlem in the 80s and concluded that America was almost entirely black
Something tells me that the only people wandering the streets at 2:00 PM on a weekday are vacationing from other countries. Next you'll tell me that whi- I mean, "good, old-fashioned Americans" are disappearing because you went to Times Square and couldn't hear any English. Please don't do this here.
> Looking at it now, German TFR has been well below replacement for nearly 60 years, so I suppose it makes sense.
That's really dumb. It's not that hard to look up population statistics [1]. Without having to say anything on the validity of your last paragraph (I'd have to apply Hanlon's razor before I would be able to argue in good faith), it really has nothing to do with your random tourist observation. There are very much 'white' children (which you probably meant to say, but didn't for some reason) running around in Nuremberg (not "Nuremburg").
[1] https://www.nuernberg.de/imperia/md/statistik/dokumente/vero...
Can Germans elaborate on this? I have heard some stories but I don’t know the truth of them.
Yes, many parts of German cities have a majority of non-germans. This is not uncommon, it doesn't help that the minority of the German youth in those areas is integrating themselves into the immigrant culture.
>The German government is one of the few on Earth that seems to actually hate its native populace.
They certainly don't hate the pensioners or the people on welfare. Just the native youth, which will have to bear the burden for all of this, but does not get to decide.
Just build nukes if you are afraid of Russia then nuke them if they try to invade. Ukraine is not as smart and gave up its nukes in the early 90s, and is now in the middle of a war for the last couple years.
> Just build nukes
I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that the multipolar world we're in now makes a good case for nuclear weapons adoption. But Germany probably isn't the one Europe wants to arm itself. And even if it did, their Greens wouldn't allow it.