upvote
Drafts seem like an outdated pre-globalist concept. Die for the borders nobody respects anyway. You need to be nationalistic when it’s useful to your leaders that hate you. Of course just the natives need to die, all the immigrants won’t be doing that.
reply
Fine you can make do in the Congo with everyone else who disrespects borders
reply
Are you proposing we send undocumented migrants to the Congo? That’s a terrible idea!
reply
Number of characters for the title is limited. And while I wouldn't necessarily call it draconian because after all somebody has to defend my country; it in deed comes as a shock. And it is also shocking that I just randomly stumbled over this news article when this law is in effect already for 3 months. How is it possible that our news talk about all sorts of nonsense but not about something as fundamentally relevant as this ... this is the real shock.
reply
> And while I wouldn't necessarily call it draconian because after all somebody has to defend my country

The ends don't justify the means. Conscription has no place in the free world. It's slavery, plain and simple. Going into the military should be an appealing career choice. Our soldiers are supposed to be highly skilled professionals, not cannon fodder in large quantities.

reply
So, if some other country with different value system attacks your homeland with intention to effectively colonize it then you'd be okay with just letting it happen?
reply
I believe it is up to the free individual to make that decision. I'm not saving the slave ship when I'm treated like one.

ps: There are 8 billion people on this planet, and I've never had any serious issues with any of them, much less a reason to start a war. Governments are always the cause of everyone's misery. Beware of yours!

reply
We now know for certain you don't live in Ukraine, nor any other country that has been invaded in your lifetime.
reply
My family is from Ramallah so my wish to die for someone's greater cause is somewhat constrained.
reply
If you can’t get volunteers for a defensive war then that says a lot about how much the people living in your country value its continued existence.
reply
The regime spent the past 50 years teaching everyone that their nation is just a source of shame and at best just a meaningless social construct, and that their culture and people's history is trash, that really nothing about it is worth saving.

And now the regime wants them to voluntarily sacrifice their lives for it.

reply
No. I support a strong, volunteer military force of highly trained professionals (AVF). For example, how the US Army works today.

It's not only moral and compatible with human rights in the free world, it's also far more effective.

reply
Any country that contains millionaires while using military slaves ("conscripts") is evil. If there is clear existential risk then the state should implement wealth taxes to pay volunteer troops instead of enslaving people. And if literally everybody outside the military has been taxed down to the poverty line, and there are still not enough volunteers, it's time to surrender.
reply
I am also surprised that I haven't read about this in German news before. I am following the news. If Trump would have signed an executive order with a similar content affecting US citizen, German media would probably report about this multiple days long with many articles.

I was looking in Google news for other reports about this, but only found an article from Berliner Zeitung published 5 hours after this article from Frankfurter Rundschau.

I am worried about what other information which could be important to me, the news did not report on.

As far as I understood the law the article from FR is correct: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/__3.html

reply
Really exposes the current state of journalism in Germany and more broadly Europe: just propaganda and gossip.

A functioning "fourth estate" would have reported on this *before* the law was passed.

reply
I agree in general. One reason we haven't heard anything about it might be that the administration already admitted that this legislation needs correction or at least clarification, as mentioned in the article.
reply
No, that is not mentioned in the article. The correction and clarification is regarding how exactly this is being implemented. The law is there ... don't think this is a mistake. And there should be serious discussions in a society before something like that is made a law.
reply
Fair, yes I agree. Didn't mean to excuse anything they introduced.
reply
Draconian law gets introduced, public outcry ensues. Oh okay we will make it six months then. This is how civil liberties get eroded.
reply
It’s also discriminatory on the basis of the gender, “weird” that nobody’s complaining about that.
reply
Men are biologically disposable. If a nation lost 90% or better of its adult male population, it could still bounce back within a generation or two.

Women have no incentive to change that, and the small fraction of men powerful enough to change it can already exempt themselves from the meat grinder. The remaining men's opinions don't matter.

reply
So this definitely works for hunter gatherers and that’s definitely how humans are architected, I agree.

However, if I think through what this process would look like under modern living arrangements, what would happen? Intensified serial polygamy with a massive increase in single motherhood? Full on polygamy?

Our social structures aren’t really set up to handle that. It seems like it would be so bad for society that I wouldn’t really say men are “disposable” under the current arrangement. More like they are the roof and women are the foundation, maybe.

It’s better to lose your roof than your foundation, sure, but losing your roof is still really bad. It does not really compare to, say, throwing out a paper coffee cup.

reply
deleted
reply
"Men are biologically disposable. If a nation lost 90% or better of its adult male population, it could still bounce back within a generation or two.", and who told you this? You expect the 10% remaining population who also do the dirty politics and are powerful by dirty means, will bounce back the country? Men's value comes from their ability for leadership, adventurous, innovative, fearless and rebel mindset. Does women have enough testosterone for these?
reply
> If a nation lost 90% or better of its adult male population, it could still bounce back within a generation or two.

Yes in theory, no in practice for Europe.

Europe population and society collapsed 2 generations after WWII. We are literally discussing the consequences of the collapse here and now.

People also forget European societies were already starting to collapse after WWI as the consequence of a large proportion of the men population being killed or wounded.

reply
And farewell gender equality I guess.
reply
German women as capable as men, btw. How about to stop this sexist bullshit
reply
It's not about capability, it's about value.

Women's lives are valuable, men's are not. This has been the case across basically all societies in human history. Losing a ton of men really doesn't matter too much - especially young, family-less men.

Losing a lot of women, though, is really really bad.

reply
I was informed that we are all equal. Plenty of wartime occupancies carry no risk of dying, like being a nurse
reply
> Plenty of wartime occupancies carry no risk of dying, like being a nurse

Isn't that reinforcing a gender stereotype? I was told we were against that kind of things around here.

reply
One woman can have one child a year. One man can have hundreds of children a year.

This isn't sexist, it's reality. It's the rationale for male conscription and male disposability.

reply
The law says all men aged 17 and older, not military-aged.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/__3.html

reply
From your link

(3) Die Wehrpflicht endet mit Ablauf des Jahres, in dem der Wehrpflichtige das 45. Lebensjahr vollendet.

reply