Choose on the basis of documented conduct, not nationality. This page sets out voluntary purchasing options and their limits.
This is Pomnym's editorial assessment. Sources establish the facts cited; the judgments and questions that follow are ours.
What to do
Documented conduct can inform where we spend. When a company or institution excludes people by nationality, or has a documented military-industrial role you oppose, choosing an alternative is one voluntary response. Judge the identified decision or relationship, not the passport of the seller or its staff. Check whether a policy remains in force or has been reversed.
Identify the responsible company or institution and the decision you object to. Read the linked record, including its date, any disputed findings and later corrections, before choosing an alternative.
Use the automotive watchlist to distinguish direct military supply, group ownership and proposed changes. Volkswagen is one concrete boycott option; a conditional project is not completed production, and the same claim should not be made about every marque.
Apply the same standard in Germany, Britain, the Nordic and Baltic countries, and elsewhere. A business's country of origin does not establish its conduct. Choose an alternative where the evidence and your practical circumstances justify it.
Explain the specific reason respectfully, if you choose to do so. Address the company's decision, not the nationality of its staff or customers. Reconsider when the facts or the policy change.
A purchasing decision concerns your own spending. Nobody named here is to be harmed, harassed or threatened, and nationality alone is not a reason to target a person or business.
Company links, not collective guilt
A company's ownership, contracts and conduct can be checked. A government's policies provide context, but do not establish what every company or customer supports. The watchlist distinguishes direct military supply, group relationships and proposed changes; these are different grounds for a purchasing decision.
One historical company case is Siemens. On 15 December 2008 the US Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that Siemens had made at least 4,283 payments totalling about USD 1.4 billion in bribes to government officials between March 2001 and September 2007. Siemens agreed to settle the SEC case without admitting or denying those allegations. The announced US and German resolutions totalled more than USD 1.6 billion, including an earlier German settlement in 2007.
This is a dated case about Siemens, not a finding about today's German companies as a whole. It does not establish that present-day purchases finance bribery or that another business shares responsibility. Any current purchasing recommendation needs its own evidence.
Major German marques, their ownership and documented military links. A brand's origin is not evidence that it makes weapons. The distinction below lets a purchasing decision rest on an identified company relationship.
Review date:
A Volkswagen boycott is one option
If you want to withhold spending over defence-industrial involvement, declining a new Volkswagen purchase is one voluntary option. On September 7, 2026 VW announced outline terms for a possible Osnabrück sale and transition toward defence manufacturing. Completion remains conditional; the announcement does not establish operating defence production or deliveries to Ukraine. Existing MAN/RMMV military production is a separate, group-level connection.
The Osnabrück proposal involves a possible transfer to Aurelius Capital and Lower Saxony, with an initial Rafael air-defence project for Germany and Europe. It is subject to final agreements, approvals and regulatory checks. Do not confuse a planned sale with continuing VW ownership or with production already under way.
Separately, the Volkswagen group contains TRATON and MAN. MAN holds 49% of the Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles venture.
Both belong to the Volkswagen group. The group relationship is the reason to consider them alongside VW; this review does not establish that Audi or Porsche is converting a passenger-car factory to weapons production.
Rheinmetall's February 23, 2026 Caracal announcement explicitly names Mercedes-Benz AG as a partner. It reports production for Germany and the Netherlands and Ukrainian special-forces use since 2024. AMG and Maybach are included under the Mercedes-Benz marque, not alleged to have separate weapons programmes.
Mercedes-Benz Group and Daimler Truck are distinct companies. The Caracal relationship should not be confused with Daimler Truck's separate defence business.
Direct weapons production not established by this review
BMW ALPINA became a standalone BMW Group brand on January 1, 2026. This bounded review has not established current weapons production or a weapons-factory conversion by these passenger-car brands. Inclusion makes the review's coverage visible; it is not an allegation of an undiscovered military programme.
Direct weapons production not established by this review
Opel is headquartered in Germany and belongs to the multinational Stellantis group. This review has not established an Opel weapons-production or factory-conversion programme. Military use of adapted civilian fleet vehicles would not by itself establish one.
German-origin branding is not the same as current German headquarters. smart is a Mercedes-Benz/Geely 50/50 venture headquartered in Ningbo, with its European subsidiary in Germany. This ownership note is not evidence of smart weapons production.
Commercial and military vehicles, separate from the passenger-car rows. RMMV is 51% Rheinmetall and 49% MAN Truck & Bus and manufactures military logistics vehicles. The connection to Volkswagen runs through MAN and TRATON; it should be attributed to that actual venture.
Daimler Truck's June 15, 2026 announcement describes expansion of its defence business, investment and a EUR 1bn defence-revenue target for 2028. Mercedes-Benz Special Trucks is its defence unit. This is a separate corporate group from Mercedes-Benz Group.
The scope is major German passenger-car marques, with ownership notes and separate entries for commercial/military vehicles. Foreign marques owned by German groups are not comprehensively covered. 'Not established' describes this review's limits, not proof that no relationship exists. Choose products and companies; do not harass employees, owners or customers.
The obvious objection
A blanket boycott by nationality would repeat the mistake this archive documents: judging by origin rather than by conduct. This page therefore recommends examining identified decisions and company relationships, not treating a country's businesses as a single guilty party.
A voluntary purchasing decision is not a denial of someone's safety or access to an essential service. It does not establish that every exclusion in the archive was unlawful or that every complaint succeeded. The point is to choose where your own spending goes and to explain the identified company conduct behind that choice.
The same standard applies when choosing suppliers: neither a supplier's country nor any income it may provide is a substitute for examining its conduct. This is a choice about your own spending, not a reason to harass people or to disregard a correction or reversal.
Why this option, and where it stops
Purchasing is one practical choice, not the only way to challenge exclusion. Complaints, public scrutiny, regulators and courts also matter; the Records preserve corrections, reversals and unsuccessful complaints. They do not prove that financial pressure caused every change. A recommendation not to buy expresses an editorial position, not a finding of unlawfulness or a licence to interfere with anyone's safety or access to essential services.