NationStates Jolt Archive

The following are a few articles from Spiegel's German edition about the state of the compulsory service system in Germany today.

http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/leben/0,1518,503068,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/leben/0,1518,502752,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,502996,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,503343,00.html

The situation is basically this: back when it was decided that Germany needed an army again and was going to join NATO, there was a fear that it would once again develop into a state within the state with its own political aims.

To prevent this, they developed the idea of the "citizen in uniform" and a military based on "Innere Führung (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/Apr/mcgregorApr06.asp)". There was going to be mandatory military service followed by a period in the reserves. Not only would that allow Germany to stand a better chance should the Soviets attack, but it made sure that the military was made up of citizens and citizens (well, the male ones anyways) knew the military. So society and the Bundeswehr were connected and so, it was reasoned, it couldn't become its own political actor.

These days though there are no more Soviets, and the Bundeswehr had its peacetime strength reduced from somewhere around half a million or more to 250,000. They're intervening in crisis situations around the world rather than defending the country. So they don't need even as many as they have right now.

So every year some 440,000 men should be given the choice of either military or civil service. The procedure is such that you get a letter, turn up at a Bundeswehr medical facility for a check-up and then, if you're healthy, you have to choose between the two options.

Of that number, only 71,000 actually ended up with the military (another 81,000 went with civil service). The rest were rejected on health grounds.

The stories are getting pretty grotesque. Perfectly healthy people are rejected either because they pretend something hurts, because they have caries or because they flirted with the female psychologist.

So in short military service is no longer compulsory. The military doesn't need all those recruits and the recruits usually have better uses for their time. The ones who do get drafted can rightfully complain about how unfair the whole thing is.

The SPD is now putting forward a plan to give everyone the option to join for their year if they want to, but no longer have anyone go against their will (unless a certain minimum quota isn't met). It sounds like a long overdue improvement to me, but there's a lot of resistance because it would mean giving up the idea of the citizen in uniform. It would be an army of volunteers. And then there are some people who say that we can't predict the way the security situation will turn out (I'm trying really hard to not think of a fascist Russia here...) and that the compulsory service system allows the flexibility to rapidly call up huge manpower for everything from dealing with a major catastrophe or terrorist attack to defending the country from invasion (though to be honest, I doubt they'd have enough guns or uniforms, let alone vehicles or ammunition to supply them all).

Either way, it looks there won't be compulsory service in a decade's time. What do you think?

Service gurantees citizenship.

Abolish it and just have a professional army made out of volunteers, like the dutch. Chances are small nowadays that the army will become it's own political actor.

But what does 'better uses of time' mean nowadays to most of the youth? Most of the youth I know just throw away their time doing nothing or working low wage jobs. A year of public/civil/military service would help kids growing up. Since nowadays both parents and teachers fail at that :(

*Note: This is not the case for everybody, and maybe it's totally different in Germany than here, but I can see some benefits for most of the population.

It needs to stay, mainly because IIRC essentially the whole German health service is propped up by the Zivis. Take away "do Zivildienst or have a fun time in the Bundeswehr" and people won't be working in hospitals practically for free any more.

Abolish it and just have a professional army made out of volunteers, like the dutch. Chances are small nowadays that the army will become it's own political actor.

But what does 'better uses of time' mean nowadays to most of the youth? Most of the youth I know just throw away their time doing nothing or working low wage jobs. A year of public/civil/military service would help kids growing up. Since nowadays both parents and teachers fail at that :(

*Note: This is not the case for everybody, and maybe it's totally different in Germany than here, but I can see some benefits for most of the population.

I agree.

It would also give the younger people a chance to get a year of work experience that would be good for the resume so they don't enter the working world with little or no experience.

It should also provide the young people with a chance to pursue a post-secondary education before doing any service. Then reward that education.

I don't like the idea of compulsory military service, but I do accept it as a necessary evil for some countries, such as my own. What I choose not to accept is the sexism inherent to the whole thing. Somehow I find it hard to get worked up for the somewhat lower wages of women, when men are required to do 6-12 months (in Finland) of detention in the armed forces and remain in reserve for the next 40 or so years.

I have this additional duty to my country because I had the fortune of being born with a penis? For me it's hard to understand that a thing like this is taken as granted in the day and age men and women are supposed to be treated equal in all respects.

OBJECTIVE FACT: Conscripts generally make poor soldiers
OBJECTIVE FACT: The individual is an end in himself, and has no inherent obligation to serve "society" or his "country" or "the state"
OBJECTIVE FACT: The most powerful military in the history of the world is an all-volunteer force
OBJECTIVE FACT: The country protected by that military has never once even been remotely threatened by the possibility of a military coup, or the military otherwise acting independently of civilian control

But what does 'better uses of time' mean nowadays to most of the youth?

Doing whatever they'd do after military or civil service, but doing it earlier.

"I'm gonna go do Zivildienst, then go to Uni"
"No more Zivildienst!"
"Huh. I guess I'm just gonna go to Uni"

Doing whatever they'd do after military or civil service, but doing it earlier.

"I'm gonna go do Zivildienst, then go to Uni"
"No more Zivildienst!"
"Huh. I guess I'm just gonna go to Uni"

Uni is not for most youth :p

Think of the people who are too stupid to go to uni, that's the majority of the youth I'm talking about :) The few who go to uni, bless them, indeed youth taking post-secondary education should be exempt from this (or at least do it after uni).

Embracing the Dutch model would seem to be the most well advised course of action.

Uni is not for most youth :p

Think of the people who are too stupid to go to uni, that's the majority of the youth I'm talking about :) The few who go to uni, bless them, indeed youth taking post-secondary education should be exempt from this (or at least do it after uni).

Well Uni was just an example.

OBJECTIVE FACT: The individual is an end in himself, and has no inherent obligation to serve "society" or his "country" or "the state"

That would be an opinion. An opinion is not the same thing as a fact.

OBJECTIVE FACT: Conscripts generally make poor soldiers
Not actually true.

Conscripts make perfectly excellent soldiers, and due to their own personal backgrounds, they make for a much more rounded force than the average somewhat poor, somewhat stupid soldier which is usually the mainstay of a volunteer force.

What makes conscripts into poor soldiers is that due to the leadership of most volunteer armies already assuming they'll be a write-off, they give them poor training and substandard equipment, which is what makes them from a perfectly serviceable force to one with little in the way of either skill or morale.

World Wars one and two showed that conscripts can make fine soldiers if given the correct training and equipment, and the right kind of leadership.
OBJECTIVE FACT: The individual is an end in himself, and has no inherent obligation to serve "society" or his "country" or "the state"
That's not an objective fact, that's your opinion.
OBJECTIVE FACT: The most powerful military in the history of the world is an all-volunteer force
So what?

The most powerful military in the history of the world wasn't all-volunteer in Roman times, nor was it in the British Empire, certainly wasn't in Napoleon's military and was far from it with the Red Army, which was absolutely the most powerful military in the world up until the 1970s.

The US military isn't the most powerful simply because it's an all-volunteer force, more realistically, it's because it's stupendously over-equipped.
OBJECTIVE FACT: The country protected by that military has never once even been remotely threatened by the possibility of a military coup, or the military otherwise acting independently of civilian control
*coughs*

Read up on the early history of the Weimar Republic.




OBJECTIVE FACT: Universal Healthcare in Germany wouldn't exist were it not for the Zivis, mainly because it'd be unsustainably expensive without their work.

This is why conscription has to stay in Germany.

That would be an opinion. An opinion is not the same thing as a fact.

No, it's not. Nothing is ever a matter of opinion. Every statement is either objectively true or objectively false.

No, it's not. Nothing is ever a matter of opinion. Every statement is either objectively true or objectively false.
No, I'm afraid that you're speaking pure bollocks there.

Abolish it and just have a professional army made out of volunteers, like the dutch. Chances are small nowadays that the army will become it's own political actor.

But what does 'better uses of time' mean nowadays to most of the youth? Most of the youth I know just throw away their time doing nothing or working low wage jobs. A year of public/civil/military service would help kids growing up. Since nowadays both parents and teachers fail at that :(

*Note: This is not the case for everybody, and maybe it's totally different in Germany than here, but I can see some benefits for most of the population.

I agree 100%. But it is not an answer, is it?

the reasoning behind the decision to keep compulsory military service (CMS) in Germany are nonsense, both from a social (a nation within a nation? in modern day Germany? I'm not German but seems to me very hard to believe) and from a military point of view (as it has already been said, conscripts - I was one - are terrible soldiers and manpower is not an issue anymore, unless you want to invade Iraq...).
Nevertheless, I was against CMS but, now that in my country (Italy) we opted for what's been called here "the Dutch system", I must admit that we lost something, along with CMS and its civil service alternative.

I would rather give any 18-19 year old boy and girl the choice to spend 6 months (not 1 year) at the service of the community. They may choose any basic service, either civil or military or para-military (e.g. clerks in military facilities or in fire brigades unit) in order to help the professionals to better fulfil their duties, without wasting too much time in not-core activities.

Conscripts make perfectly excellent soldiers, and due to their own personal backgrounds, they make for a much more rounded force than the average somewhat poor, somewhat stupid soldier which is usually the mainstay of a volunteer force.
People who have to be dragged off kicking and screaming are never effective, regardless of what fabricated evidence you may manufacture to the contrary.

What makes conscripts into poor soldiers is that due to the leadership of most volunteer armies already assuming they'll be a write-off, they give them poor training and substandard equipment, which is what makes them from a perfectly serviceable force to one with little in the way of either skill or morale.
So US conscripts in Vietnam had shoddier equipment and poorer leadership than the volunteers in the military at that time? That's ludicrous, considering that conscripts and volunteers SERVED IN THE SAME UNITS!

That's not an objective fact, that's your opinion.
Wrong. See above.

It is a common misconception that questions of political philosophy are mere matters of opinion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is one objectively correct political philosophy, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

The most powerful military in the history of the world wasn't all-volunteer in Roman times, nor was it in the British Empire, certainly wasn't in Napoleon's military and was far from it with the Red Army, which was absolutely the most powerful military in the world up until the 1970s.
None of those armies are the most powerful in the history of the world, since, like, "history of the world" is all-inclusive and all.

The US military isn't the most powerful simply because it's an all-volunteer force, more realistically, it's because it's stupendously over-equipped.
Did I say it was? The point is that conscription is not necessary for a strong military.

*coughs*

Read up on the early history of the Weimar Republic.
Its military does not hold the title "the most powerful military in the history of the world". That appellation belongs to the present-day US military.




OBJECTIVE FACT: Universal Healthcare in Germany wouldn't exist were it not for the Zivis, mainly because it'd be unsustainably expensive without their work.

This is why conscription has to stay in Germany.

OBJECTIVE FACT: Universal health care is pure evil and has no moral right to exist.

No, it's not. Nothing is ever a matter of opinion. Every statement is either objectively true or objectively false.

That statement is objectively false :p

But to come to the point: Why is an individual an end of itself?

No, I'm afraid that you're speaking pure bollocks there.

Incorrect. Every question has one objectively correct answer and an infinite numbers of objectively incorrect answers. Every statement--even those commonly (but erroneously) believed to be "mere opinions" is in fact either objectively true or objectively false, and provably so.

this was supposed to be a serious thread. dear Linus and Lucy, everything you say can be true (or false), but I can definitely spot a terrible need to study some history a little more

That statement is objectively false :p
Incorrect.
But to come to the point: Why is an individual an end of itself?

Because A is A.

Because A is A.

I don't see the logic here :confused:

People who have to be dragged off kicking and screaming are never effective, regardless of what fabricated evidence you may manufacture to the contrary.
...

Right... so I can't prove my own argument. Fine then. I won't bother.
So US conscripts in Vietnam had shoddier equipment and poorer leadership than the volunteers in the military at that time? That's ludicrous, considering that conscripts and volunteers SERVED IN THE SAME UNITS!
US conscripts in Vietnam weren't from a broad section of society. They were from people who couldn't go to university.

Also, they absolutely did have worse training, and a style of leadership that absolutely did view them as poorer soldiers.
Wrong. See above.
OBJECTIVE FACT: No, you are wrong.
It is a common misconception that questions of political philosophy are mere matters of opinion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is one objectively correct political philosophy, provable from the first principles of the Universe.
For crying out loud, stop trying to be intellectual. You fail at it. Hard.
None of those armies are the most powerful in the history of the world, since, like, "history of the world" is all-inclusive and all.
They were at their own time, which was my point.

If China becomes the strongest military in the whole world, ever, in 20 years' time, does the fact that it will doubtless be a conscripted force stop that from being the case somehow?
Did I say it was? The point is that conscription is not necessary for a strong military.
Yeah, and mine is that conscription doesn't preclude a strong military.
Its military does not hold the title "the most powerful military in the history of the world". That appellation belongs to the present-day US military.
Which isn't at all to do with the fact that it supported a coup by ex-soldiers and made some efforts of its own in that direction.
OBJECTIVE FACT: Universal health care is pure evil and has no moral right to exist.
OK, you're a pisstake troll. Fair enough.

Incorrect. Every question has one objectively correct answer and an infinite numbers of objectively incorrect answers. Every statement--even those commonly (but erroneously) believed to be "mere opinions" is in fact either objectively true or objectively false, and provably so.
Incorrect entirely.

"This is a good film" - in the view of the beholder this may or may not be true.

Because A is A.

Non sequitor. The capital letter A is indeed the capital letter A, but how is an individual an end of itself?

Think of the people who are too stupid to go to uni, that's the majority of the youth I'm talking about :)
Wouldn't many of them join the army anyway, then? Or maybe they'd end up in a job almost as shitty, but I doubt that many of them would be much worse off for the choice.
The few who go to uni, bless them, indeed youth taking post-secondary education should be exempt from this (or at least do it after uni).
I don't know. Sometimes I wonder if I might not have been better off had the US had some sort of coming of age related labor program. It would have at least given me a to think about whether I really wanted to go straight into debt and higher education.
It goes without saying, of course, that should such a program have existed, I'd have been angrily against it and fought the whole damn way. Damn hypothetical teen-aged selves, never know what might have been good for them.

Also, they absolutely did have worse training, and a style of leadership that absolutely did view them as poorer soldiers.


Probably irrelevent, but my dad told me that the US soldiers in Vietnam had shithouse training, at least compared to the Australians.

Probably irrelevent, but my dad told me that the US soldier in Vietnam had shithouse training, at least compared to the Australians.
True even today compared to British and Commonwealth (including the Aussies) forces.

Incorrect entirely.

"This is a good film" - in the view of the beholder this may or may not be true.

Wrong.

There are in fact objective criteria as to what makes a good film. That you or others are not aware of them does not make it any less so.

Those who disagree with the objective assessment of a film's quality are simply wrong.

...

Right... so I can't prove my own argument. Fine then. I won't bother.
Yes, it is entirely impossible to prove to be true that which is false.

US conscripts in Vietnam weren't from a broad section of society. They were from people who couldn't go to university.
Not relevant.

Also, they absolutely did have worse training,
No, they didn't, since they were trained alongside volunteers--so the training they received was the same received by volunteers.

and a style of leadership that absolutely did view them as poorer soldiers.
To the extent that that did happen (very minimally), it was because it had already been established that they were indeed poor soldiers.

For crying out loud, stop trying to be intellectual. You fail at it. Hard.
Show me a flaw in my argument.

They were at their own time, which was my point.
I'm talking about "the most powerful military in the history of the world", not "the most powerful military through classical times".

If China becomes the strongest military in the whole world, ever, in 20 years' time, does the fact that it will doubtless be a conscripted force stop that from being the case somehow?
If that turns out to be the case, yes.

Yeah, and mine is that conscription doesn't preclude a strong military.
Did I say otherwise?

Which isn't at all to do with the fact that it supported a coup by ex-soldiers and made some efforts of its own in that direction.
But since the Weimar military is not the most powerful military in the history of the world, and I was talking about the most powerful military in the history of the world, it's not what I was referring to.

OK, you're a pisstake troll. Fair enough.
How so?

Wrong.

There are in fact objective criteria as to what makes a good film. That you or others are not aware of them does not make it any less so.

Those who disagree with the objective assessment of a film's quality are simply wrong.
There is no objective criteria as to what makes a good film whatsoever, and even if there were, no journalist would stick by them, there'd be a level of discrepancy at all times..

I like the idea of either joining the military or a type of civil service. You would only get the volunteers in the military and a whole bunch of basically cheap labor for government programs. Also as someone already suggested it would help the young people develop some type of skill as a civil service worker. I am not sure if a civil service program could be effectively launched in a nation the size of the US.

There is no objective criteria as to what makes a good film whatsoever,
Incorrect.

Abolish it and just have a professional army made out of volunteers, like the dutch. Chances are small nowadays that the army will become it's own political actor.

But what does 'better uses of time' mean nowadays to most of the youth? Most of the youth I know just throw away their time doing nothing or working low wage jobs. A year of public/civil/military service would help kids growing up. Since nowadays both parents and teachers fail at that :(

*Note: This is not the case for everybody, and maybe it's totally different in Germany than here, but I can see some benefits for most of the population.

Yeah, the teens need something better then laying around like sloths tippy tapping away on a cell phone.

Incorrect.

Oh, go away.

Yeah, the teens need something better then laying around like sloths tippy tapping away on a cell phone.

Some teens need something else but that doesn't mean compulsory service is the only answer

Incorrect.
How's about feck orf.

There are in fact objective criteria as to what makes a good film. That you or others are not aware of them does not make it any less so.

Those who disagree with the objective assessment of a film's quality are simply wrong.

This is just plain horse shit and will alienate most of those who are sympathetic to your political inclinations because they are weaned on the subjective theory of value . A film is neither good nor bad objectively in and of itself. However, how much it meets subjective preferences of an individual defines whether its a good film or not to that individual.

You argue that that one can define objective reality from first principles, but there are many possible internally consistent first principles and no way to empirically test which ones are true. Axioms can't be tested, they're axiomatic.

Give it a rest Tech-gnosis. Trying to debate rationally with people who have found the Absolute Truth of Everything is generally about as productive as trying to explain quantum mechanics to a brick.

Give it a rest Tech-gnosis. Trying to debate rationally with people who have found the Absolute Truth of Everything is generally about as productive as trying to explain quantum mechanics to a brick.

True, but occasionally it can be amusing.

Here in Canada, we do not have any sort of compulsory service (We did during the World Wars, but it really angered a lot of people, especially in French Canada)

From my somewhat uninformed view, taken mostly from German friends of mine and a short trip there a few years ago where I was hosted by a family in Kassel. I am not totally opposed to the idea. I am not a fan of big militaries, or using them to solve most international problems, but I do come from a family with a lot of people voluntarily in the military (My Father and Brother included).

I think that the Zivildienst is great. It seems like a very good way to build ideas of social conscience into folks without all the trappings of military service that get so many people uptight. Having a year of mandatory civil service between grade school and university (Or college, or working, or whatever) strikes me as a good way to give people hands-on understanding in the issues facing their country, and in learning about their fellow citizens in a way they might not otherwise experience. It does not solve the problem of the citizen in uniform, but I think it is a good foundation for the citizen in general.

I'd have to get a lot out of it in order to support it. Otherwise, it's a significant amount of time thrown away for little or no personal benefit, and, of course, it's personal benefit that motivates most of my positions on things like this.

Service gurantees citizenship.

I owe my country nothing.

Yeah, the teens need something better then laying around like sloths tippy tapping away on a cell phone.

Anything is a better use of one's time than learning to dehumanize people and to kill.

I owe my country nothing.

Did you forget taxes? Nothing is free.....

Anything is a better use of one's time than learning to dehumanize people and to kill.

That is why you give the option that most would take which is civil service.

Anything is a better use of one's time than learning to dehumanize people and to kill.
Yes. This thing that is better is called 'Zivildienst'.

Yes. This thing that is better is called 'Zivildienst'.

This is better, but it still operates under the assumption that people owe a crap to their communities.

This is better, but it still operates under the assumption that people owe a crap to their communities.
Yeah, well the sensible governments of Europe, which provide a lot to their people, ask for something in return. This is how it is.

Did you forget taxes? Nothing is free.....

There is no obligation to pay taxes.

A government that collects taxes is morally indistinguishable from a protection racket.

The only legitimate means of funding government is through seizure of the assets of criminals duly convicted of legitimate crimes, and reparations paid by the aggressor in wartime. After all, if it weren't for them we wouldn't need a government in the first place.

And if that's insufficient, tough. The end does not justify the means.

Yeah, well the sensible governments of Europe, which provide a lot to their people, ask for something in return. This is how it is.

I fail to see how enslaving the individual to his fellow man can be considered "sensible".

Yeah, well the sensible governments of Europe, which provide a lot to their people, ask for something in return. This is how it is.

As long as they DO provide... But even then, aren't taxes for this purpose?

There is no obligation to pay taxes.

A government that collects taxes is morally indistinguishable from a protection racket.

The only legitimate means of funding government is through seizure of the assets of criminals duly convicted of legitimate crimes, and reparations paid by the aggressor in wartime. After all, if it weren't for them we wouldn't need a government in the first place.

And if that's insufficient, tough. The end does not justify the means.

I'd say there is an obligation to pay taxes, as part of one's citizenship. Techinically, yes, there is no obligation to pay taxes to a government which you have no intention of being part of, but if you intend to live within the laws of a particualr government, then you accept reponsibility to follow those laws.

Taxes, like death, are inevitable. Also, taxes, like death, is necessary for a particular institution to function. Taxes support a government's works provided by agreement to the people. Death ensures that there is a motivation on the biological scale to compete and reproduce, or at least leave enough of a legacy to satisfy yourself.

If you don't want to pay the taxes that your goevernment levies, then simply find another government that levies taxes in a manner more acceptable to you.