A reality show on the frontline of the German army's battle for public support(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
A reality show on the frontline of the German army's battle for public support
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/27/die-rekruten-the-reality-show-on-the-frontline-of-the-german-armys-battle-for-public-support
43 comments
Could it be that Germany's army is so unpopular as a job because of its good social security system?
It seems the US has so many soldiers not because of patriotism, but because of job security and good health coverage, which is already mostly a given in Germany.
No, it's so unpopular because with the last "great military" we started a war that killed 50 million people, and exterminated 13 million people (civilians) in concentration camps. Definitely nothing to do with welfare.
As a German-friendly Euro-enthusiast, I hope that we all get to build an awesome European military in the future. That will remove the stigma for German people maybe. Cause to be honest we need German forces, manufacturing and engineering if we want to be able to be a force that counts internationally.
[deleted]
Sorry to break it to you, but the idea of a European military is pure fantasy. The dream of a federalist Europe was dashed beyond repair in 2008 when the bizarre twilight zone of 1990-2008 ended and geopolitical realities shattered any illusion of the "end of history". Without a federal Europe, you have no chance of a federal military. We can perhaps have coalitions and military alliances like NATO, perhaps a European military forum, but nothing more. Even Germany wouldn't allow for it unless it was ultimately in line with German interests.
FWIW, while Germany should be meeting its NATO quota (it isn't), a Germany that is too militarily powerful could be a concern (same goes for Russia). Historically, it has been bad for Europe (and don't give me the "different times" spiel). It's bad enough that Germany is the economic and political hegemon of Europe, engaging in neocolonial activity to its east (territories Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries") and ordering the continent into an ersatz unity i.e. a unity of soft German domination. The Prussian unification of Germany was a mistake, a European unification under German rule is an even worse mistake. It won't happen because the rest of Europe isn't exactly keen on playing the role of de facto vassals.
It's high time that the stragglers finally noticed that while an EU based on free trade and sensible cooperation and discussion is useful, it will never approach anything resembling a federation. It is a silly, unproductive sentiment that is at worst a distraction.
FWIW, while Germany should be meeting its NATO quota (it isn't), a Germany that is too militarily powerful could be a concern (same goes for Russia). Historically, it has been bad for Europe (and don't give me the "different times" spiel). It's bad enough that Germany is the economic and political hegemon of Europe, engaging in neocolonial activity to its east (territories Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries") and ordering the continent into an ersatz unity i.e. a unity of soft German domination. The Prussian unification of Germany was a mistake, a European unification under German rule is an even worse mistake. It won't happen because the rest of Europe isn't exactly keen on playing the role of de facto vassals.
It's high time that the stragglers finally noticed that while an EU based on free trade and sensible cooperation and discussion is useful, it will never approach anything resembling a federation. It is a silly, unproductive sentiment that is at worst a distraction.
You had me at "sorry to break to you". You're a Euro-sceptic, good on you, but please spare me the condescension, it has no place in public discourse and I personally don't care for it.
> we
In line with the sibling comment, note that the word "we" is subject to a 70 year scope creep here.
In line with the sibling comment, note that the word "we" is subject to a 70 year scope creep here.
There's such a thing a state continuity though -- and oftentimes cultural continuity. It's not implausible to imagine a ruling AfD in the next 15-20 years.
I agree and I understand what the original comment means.
But "we" is first of all the plural of "I", so it means above all "people" and there is no "people continuity", at least not over 70 years.
In a sense he says that I (assuming he is German) started a war which is (AFAIK) not the case.
Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
But "we" is first of all the plural of "I", so it means above all "people" and there is no "people continuity", at least not over 70 years.
In a sense he says that I (assuming he is German) started a war which is (AFAIK) not the case.
Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
>Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
Well, people voting term after term pro-war politicians might allow one to say that too. Either that, or they should admit it's not a democracy, and leaders can do such important BS such as going to war without people consenting.
(Not American though).
Well, people voting term after term pro-war politicians might allow one to say that too. Either that, or they should admit it's not a democracy, and leaders can do such important BS such as going to war without people consenting.
(Not American though).
Don't be so quick with this "voting" part. It's not like people voting could
choose only a part of politician's program or take different parts from
different candidates. The pro-war attitude comes in a package with much more
things much more directly affecting the voters than raids for killing foreign
people somewhere far away.
>It's not like people voting could choose only a part of politician's program or take different parts from different candidates.
No, but "going to war and killing people/invading other countries" should matter more than other parts of their program.
>foreign people somewhere far away
That's the problem right there. So it's not that they can't: it's that they don't care.
No, but "going to war and killing people/invading other countries" should matter more than other parts of their program.
>foreign people somewhere far away
That's the problem right there. So it's not that they can't: it's that they don't care.
> Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
I think most Americans are comfortable with the sentence "we invaded Iraq" if that is what you mean. Also "we won our independence from the UK", even if their ancestors were English for generations after that war happened, in the sense that the individual is a member of the group "Americans", and "Americans" is the group that fought the war.
I think most Americans are comfortable with the sentence "we invaded Iraq" if that is what you mean. Also "we won our independence from the UK", even if their ancestors were English for generations after that war happened, in the sense that the individual is a member of the group "Americans", and "Americans" is the group that fought the war.
>started
Ah, if only everything else in this world was so simple.
Ah, if only everything else in this world was so simple.
I'm not sure if you dispute who started the war in Europe (I hope you don't) or if you imply that the causes of WWII are not one-sided (which is obvious and true). In case you dispute who started the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Course_of_the_war
[deleted]
1) Canada went through a similar series of scandals in the 90s. With public opinion of the military at an all time low, with some soldiers being attacked in public, the order went out to not wear uniforms in public. A generation of soldiers drove to work in civilian clothing to then don uniforms once out of public gaze. That time is over but many still feel uncomfortable in public.
2) Enough with the reality TV look at boot camps. Basic training is like 1% of the military. It's a bit of a joke, something that everyone has to do but nobody takes too seriously once over with. You have to pass, but much like highschool, once you graduate nobody really cares whether you did well or barely squeaked through. Trade training is what counts.
2) Enough with the reality TV look at boot camps. Basic training is like 1% of the military. It's a bit of a joke, something that everyone has to do but nobody takes too seriously once over with. You have to pass, but much like highschool, once you graduate nobody really cares whether you did well or barely squeaked through. Trade training is what counts.
Interestingly enough, Australian Defence Force personnel are not allowed to wear their uniform in public unless performing official duties. The reason for this though is terrorism concerns, as wearing the uniform could make them a target.
>> the uniform could make them a target.
In typical canadian fashion, with us it was non-violent attacking, mostly verbal insults. But a few years ago I heard an interesting perspective from a US base commander after a real terrorist attack at a recruiting center. He said in short: "bring it on". He would rather have his base, his people, attacked than a school or stadium full of civilians. His view was that it was the job of soldiers to stand between terrorists and civilians even on home soil. I think I agree with his point, but only if we assume that the terrorist attack was inevitable.
In typical canadian fashion, with us it was non-violent attacking, mostly verbal insults. But a few years ago I heard an interesting perspective from a US base commander after a real terrorist attack at a recruiting center. He said in short: "bring it on". He would rather have his base, his people, attacked than a school or stadium full of civilians. His view was that it was the job of soldiers to stand between terrorists and civilians even on home soil. I think I agree with his point, but only if we assume that the terrorist attack was inevitable.
> The reason for this though is terrorism concerns, as wearing the uniform could make them a target.
Curious, what is the background of that. Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? I can't think of as Australia as an overly aggressive military power. Does it have to do with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians somehow?
Curious, what is the background of that. Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? I can't think of as Australia as an overly aggressive military power. Does it have to do with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians somehow?
Fear of Islamic terrorism.
Here's one recent news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664
Here's one recent news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664
Australian armed forces have a presence in the Middle East and in Afghanistan etc. We have troops on the ground in firefights, and F/A-18s from our air force conducting missions dropping lethal munitions.
Our forces have fought alongside US and other allies in nearly every major conflict, so our flag and slouch hat regalia would be well known to most on the 'other side'.
Our forces have fought alongside US and other allies in nearly every major conflict, so our flag and slouch hat regalia would be well known to most on the 'other side'.
That applies to a fair few other countries with far more interfering governments, yet they don’t have laws like this that I am aware of.
Do the rules even apply on home turf?
Do the rules even apply on home turf?
It doesn't have to be a law - just a line in a dress manual, or 'advice' given to personnel. Next to the rules on haircuts and fingernail length.
[deleted]
Australia also banned building of a synagogue because of fear of islamic terrorism. I had been always under impression that things are a little upside-down there.
[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue...
[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue...
The bad guys might wear military clothes...
How does that stop terrorism? The bad guys could just say they're doing official duties.
How does that stop terrorism? The bad guys could just say they're doing official duties.
That's not why they're not allowed. It's because the bad guys might target people wearing military clothes.
WHAT?!
Then shoot those people, or, less hyperbolicly, throw them in prison.
If your cops or military have to live in fear of being murdered for merely wearing their clothes, then your/their country has incredibly serious problems and needs to start treating them directly instead of hiding the consequences.
I have zero frame of reference to understand that kind of environment. I literally can't imagine going out to the store and thinking, "Well, I better not wear that shirt, or I'll be murdered."
Then shoot those people, or, less hyperbolicly, throw them in prison.
If your cops or military have to live in fear of being murdered for merely wearing their clothes, then your/their country has incredibly serious problems and needs to start treating them directly instead of hiding the consequences.
I have zero frame of reference to understand that kind of environment. I literally can't imagine going out to the store and thinking, "Well, I better not wear that shirt, or I'll be murdered."
Bit late to shoot them or throw them in prison once they've stabbed someone to death.
It's not like soldiers carry guns around everywhere they go (unlike the police).
It's not like soldiers carry guns around everywhere they go (unlike the police).
Yes but basic training is often the most romanticised aspect of army training. A myriad of movies focusing on just this 1% (however inaccurately) attests to that.
The article kind of reminds me of that Bear Grylls 'Foreign Legionnaire' docudrama that he did some years ago. Once again turning the boot camp recruitment and training aspect of an oft fabled unit into a reality TV show.
I wonder if the show saw an uptick in recruitment for the FL as a result? (Even though none of the soldiers in the show were current FL servicemen).
The article kind of reminds me of that Bear Grylls 'Foreign Legionnaire' docudrama that he did some years ago. Once again turning the boot camp recruitment and training aspect of an oft fabled unit into a reality TV show.
I wonder if the show saw an uptick in recruitment for the FL as a result? (Even though none of the soldiers in the show were current FL servicemen).
They are also projections by the unit of how they want to be perceived. They never show the actual realities of daily life. My strongest memory is of sitting around waiting for things. Half of us started carrying game of thrones novels to read during all the down times. I only wish I had pictures of playing cards against humanity in the field while waiting for trucks. Canada also mixes male and female, both recruits and staff. So it is a very different atmosphere than any movie or show I've ever seen.
I can't speak for its overall veracity, but if nothing else Jarhead (the movie) did show the life of deployed Marines as endless, frustrating waiting.
Same experience when I did my military service in France.
A typical day : we had to hurry to be ready at 6 in the morning then wait till 10 that the trucks pick us up ...
A typical day : we had to hurry to be ready at 6 in the morning then wait till 10 that the trucks pick us up ...
As a side note, I'm often amazed at the presence US Army has in Germany with > 30,000 military personell and 36 military installations.
It's been on a steady decline in the past decades though.
For comparison, German Army has 178,304 soldiers.
It's been on a steady decline in the past decades though.
For comparison, German Army has 178,304 soldiers.
Does anyone know how to see them with English subtitles? YouTube's auto translate is producing gibberish.
There's a possible translation error: The documentary follows sailors through boot camp, not marines. (German Navy is called "Marine").
The more years pass, the closer to reality Snow Crash and Neuromancer and Rainbows End appear. In Snow Crash, the central intelligence agency has become a commercial entity that produces a aynducated reality show by putting cameras on their spies.
Perhaps you aren't aware that the CIA sponsored some authors of fiction and this was known, at least in part, well before these books were written.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/books/how-the-cia-played-d...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/books/how-the-cia-played-d...