100
Germany Introduces New Travel Restrictions for Men Aged 17-45 Amid Military Reforms (united24media.com)
submitted 1 week ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/europe@feddit.org
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/61926294

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] plyth@feddit.org 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The headline would have been correct on 22th December 2025, when it was introduced.

Now it has already been introduced and the 3 month period is over. Since it's April, all expats have failed to apply for a permission. That includes all men, there is no 45 year limit for the permission requirement.

I am curious how many Germans will be worried that this topic wasn't discussed when the law was changed and how many wonder that nobody reminded them at the start of the year. The handling is suspiciously sneaky.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

Since it’s April, all expats have failed to apply for a permission.

This is incorrect from what I can tell, the law provides an exception for people who have already reported the abandonment of their permanent residence in Germany (which was already required by another law, Bundesmeldegesetz § 17 (2)).

[-] plyth@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

You could be right: People who don't live in Germany don't have the defence duty.

Die Wehrpflicht ruht, solange Wehrpflichtige ihren ständigen Aufenthalt und ihre Lebensgrundlage außerhalb der Bundesrepublik Deutschland haben,

However, the law states that men, not people with duty, have to ask for permission.

Männliche Personen haben nach Vollendung des 17. Lebensjahres eine Genehmigung des zuständigen Karrierecenters der Bundeswehr einzuholen

One person argued that a headline clarified that it is for people with duties. It's possible but I am not sure.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah the law is indeed quite complex, with a lot of caveats and cross-references. One important bit is the continuation of your second quote:

wenn sie die Bundesrepublik Deutschland länger als drei Monate verlassen wollen, ohne dass die Voraussetzungen des § 1 Absatz 2 bereits vorliegen.

And §1 (2) says:

(2) Die Wehrpflicht ruht, solange Wehrpflichtige ihren ständigen Aufenthalt und ihre Lebensgrundlage außerhalb der Bundesrepublik Deutschland haben, wenn Tatsachen die Annahme rechtfertigen, dass sie beabsichtigen, ihren ständigen Aufenthalt im Ausland beizubehalten.

If you have already lived outside of Germany more than three months than that is a "fact that justifies the assumption" that you will continue to do so.

One person argued that a headline clarified that it is for people with duties. It’s possible but I am not sure.

If by duties you mean being under "Wehrpflicht", that's just any male 17-45 (during peace) that hasn't been exempted. If you mean "Wehrdienst", then no, the paragraph is explicitly about Wehrpflicht. This is intended to keep track of anybody that could be recruited in case of war.

[-] stoicEuropean@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

It really is sneaky. I wonder If it was intentional, or if media coverage was simply overshadowed by everything else currently going on. Either way, I somewhat disagree.

[-] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A typical German solution for the underlying problem. It doesn't solve the problem at all, but introduces a shitload of bureaucracy that's about as useful as an ulcer on the arse instead.

[-] steel_for_humans@piefed.social 17 points 1 week ago

I thought Germany was a progressive country. Why only men?

[-] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Are we? In any case, it's a law from the 60s. They "only" modified a paragraph to make it apply in peace time.

But yeah, if we must have conscription laws again, they should definitely apply to all genders.

[-] jjpamsterdam@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

I believe the specific law is from 1977, but I agree with your point in general, that service shouldn't discriminate based on gender.

From my knowledge this rule was supposedly active for decades before Germany discontinued conscription and nobody really followed it then. Why there is a need to reactivate a law that will not be followed by the vast majority and that has no enforcement mechanisms associated with it really beats me. It's probably a mix of incompetence and "we've always been doing things like this".

[-] pulsey@feddit.org 13 points 1 week ago

It's also a problem with our Grundgesetz/ constitution. It has the old law in it, which only requires men to serve. To change this, it would require a two-third majority in the parlament, i.e. the government would need to help of the opposition. Also the current ruling government party is conservative and isnt really interested in changing it anyways.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Worth noting here that this article of the constitution already had to be changed once because the European human rights court ruled that treating men and women differently isn't allowed. The case wasn't about the stipulation that only men need to serve but about one explicitly preventing women from doing so, and thus Article 12a (1) remained intact; But it stands to reason that it would be struck down if somebody brings the case before the courts, especially since there is precedent now.

[-] mech@feddit.org 12 points 1 week ago

The progressive parties in Germany don't want conscription for all genders.
They want conscription for no one.
Also, Germany's government is lead by this guy right now.

[-] nope@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago

Sweden reactivated our conscription duty in 2017 and then, since the law should be gender neutral, women were then also required to muster and serve if they where deemed needed by the armed forces.

For those looking in horror at Sweden for forcing young men and women into the military: In reality if you really don't want to serve, then you will probably preform a lot worse than a person highly motivated to serve their country. Thus you will not be called upon by the armed forces to do conscription.

However with the troubling times we are in the Swedish armed forces require a lot more people to uphold the deterrence and that results in the bar for who gets called upon gets lowered.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I thought Germany was a progressive country.

Oh, sweet summer child...

Outright nazis, a supposed center-right (and highly corrupt) party copying every nazi talking point and a supposed center-left (and not caring about anything but gifts for pensioneers) party agreeing to every insanity as long as they get a position in government, too, combine to an easy 2/3 majority in polls (did I mention age bracket 55+ having a majority in elections?^^), which translates into an even bigger majority in seats.

We have stopped doing actual politics at all as it's completely drowned out by culture war 24/7.

They are so "progressive" that they advocate for burning more fossil fuels right now as renewables are obviosuly not working, Germany is -unlike the Nordics- much too cold for heat pumps, and also much too big for electric mobility with its limited range as everyone is obviously driving a few thousand kilometers daily...

No, that's barely more than a slight exaggeration of their regular talking points.

[-] Ibuthyr@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago

I don't give a shit. My daughter isn't going to serve this pos country. I'd rather piss off than risk anything for this garbage country full of Nazi cunts.

[-] cron@feddit.org 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Section 3 of the Compulsory Military Service Act (Wehrpflichtgesetz) provides that permits are to be granted as a matter of principle—rejection is therefore not intended. Nevertheless, filing an application remains mandatory.

Source: Berliner Zeitung

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

"Niemand hat die Absicht, einen Ausreiseantrag abzulehnen."

("Nobody intends to reject a travel permit!" - A reference to East-German leader Walter Ulbricht saying "Nobody intends to build a wall" before they built the Berlin wall)

[-] pwalker@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It does sound less problematic if you cite some "good" sources like this one: https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/neuerung-seit-1-januar-bundeswehr-maenner-bis-45-muessen-auslandsaufenthalt-melden/100214453.html

So basically it is not sanctioned (yet) if you don't do it and it is automatically granted as long as we are not in an active "war situation" (whatever that exactly means) or rather as long as our military service is still voluntary.

[-] kossa@feddit.org 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It sounds very problematic in any case, even if they promise (pinky swear) that it is granted automatically.

What kind of shit is that? Wasn't even necessary in the old conscription system.

[-] mech@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The active war situation has to be declared by the German government.
Declaring it changes a few aspects of how our government works, and how much it can limit individual rights.
The precursor to it is a declaration of a "state of tension".
Neither has ever happened in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, not even when Soviet tanks played a game of chicken with the Americans in Berlin.

[-] leriotdelac@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

This wording comes from Russian propaganda network, to plant panic and disagreement as instructed.

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
100 points (89.7% liked)

Europe

10957 readers
1094 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org