Summary
Highlights
The discussion opens by posing the question of whether individuals would fight for Germany, risk their lives, or shoot others in uniform. The panel introduces Ole Nymon, an author and pacifist, who argues young people shouldn't fight for national interests, and Wolf Gregis, a Bundeswehr veteran, who views his service in Afghanistan as meaningful and advocates for conscription. Wiebke Winter, CDU board member, supports reintroducing compulsory military service, including for women, as part of a mandatory social year. Boris Pistorius's recent statement that 'Germany must become capable of war' sets the stage for the debate.
Ole Nymon states he would not fight for Germany and would rather flee or serve in a civilian capacity if forced. Wolf Gregis explains that soldiers make peace with the idea of potentially shooting others by focusing on defending the rights and freedom of the German people, emphasizing camaraderie as a core value. Wiebke Winter hopes Germany never faces war, but stresses the need to be able to defend itself to avoid having to fight. Nymon challenges the notion of the state's care for its citizens, questioning why he should value its existence over his own life if it doesn't prioritize its people.
Gregis asserts that the decision to fight is not made by an external state but by the Bundestag, representing the will of the people, to defend their way of life. Nymon rejects this, stating he won't let despots or democrats dictate when he lives or dies, emphasizing his skepticism towards national solidarity and his preference for a world without borders. Winter counters, highlighting the state's benefits like education and social services, arguing that these privileges come with the duty to defend the democratic and constitutional state. Nymon criticizes the education system as a means to produce 'human capital' rather than foster genuine personal development.
Nymon argues the German education system serves as a means to produce 'human capital' for economic success, sending some to a 'loser's path' and others to a 'winner's path,' and that it is not designed to nurture comprehensively educated individuals. Winter expresses gratitude for the educational opportunities provided by the country, highlighting how it enabled her to contribute to society, and expresses a different understanding of educational permeability. Gregis, a history teacher, notes that his students are aware that freedom and self-determination are not given but must sometimes be fought for, contrasting this with Nymon's individualistic stance.
Wiebke Winter affirms her patriotism, gratitude for Germany and the EU, and belief in their defense. She expresses shock at Nymon's lack of trust in the state, emphasizing Germany's social safety net and the community spirit of volunteers. Nymon critiques the healthcare system as an example of solidarity that primarily benefits the working class while exempting the wealthy. Winter argues that the democratic process allows citizens to choose their representatives and that the German healthcare system is a model compared to others. The debate then shifts to the values of comradeship and loyalty in the military, with Gregis explaining them as solidarity and faithfulness to the people and their way of life.
Nymon disputes the slogan 'we fight so you can be against us,' arguing that in an emergency, the state would compel him to serve, making conscientious objection difficult. Gregis insists on the constitutional right to conscientious objection and outlines two realistic scenarios: professional soldiers fighting in the Baltics, or conscripts being deployed closer to home, where even then civilian service options would exist. Nymon maintains that in a real emergency, the state would not uphold the right to conscientious objection. Winter reassures that the Basic Law protects individuals even in such extreme situations, citing its role as a defense right.
Nymon argues that legal rights regarding conscientious objection can change quickly, citing Ukraine as an example where objection leads to imprisonment or forced deployment. He criticizes Germany's focus on territorial defense, pointing out that military buildup might serve broader purposes, such as securing trade routes, as suggested by political figures. Winter dismisses Nymon's concerns, emphasizing that the Basic Law already prohibits Germany from engaging in wars of aggression and that current discussions revolve around peaceful missions rather than offensive actions. She states she does not share his fear of Germany becoming an aggressor.
Felix Neureuther's quote on being willing to sacrifice his life for his children's future is presented. Winter agrees with this sentiment. Nymon expresses his opposition, arguing that the broad definition of 'security' or 'defense' often rationalizes wars between competing states, leading to cycles of violence he does not endorse. Gregis understands Nymon's ideal of a world without conflict but deems it naive based on historical human behavior. He stresses the need for pragmatism and preparedness in the face of existing realities, stating that while he wishes for peace, it's not a realistic expectation given human history.
Discussion turns to a new conscription model: a questionnaire for all 18-year-old men to gauge interest in military service, with actual armed service remaining voluntary. Gregis finds this model smart due to the Bundeswehr's reduced capacity, calling it a good entry point given the limited ability to train large numbers. Winter highlights the constitutional obstacle for mandatory service for women, requiring a two-thirds majority to amend, but strongly supports it as politically correct. She questions whether a purely voluntary model can address personnel shortages and advocates for a stronger, gender-neutral compulsory service, ideally combined with a social year.
Nymon opposes compulsory service for women, viewing it as not aligned with his feminist ideals, stating that his feminism doesn't compel women to die for the fatherland. He sees mandatory service as an absurd burden on young people, especially after recent challenges like the pandemic. He argues against using young people as cheap labor to fill gaps in underfunded social systems, such as healthcare, without offering proper compensation. Winter recounts her positive experiences volunteering in healthcare, stating that such service contributes to societal cohesion and personal growth, not just filling labor gaps. She notes that many former conscripts found their social service enriching, fostering mutual understanding in a fragmented society.
Gregis states that the Bundeswehr is not unattractive as an employer, but there's a problem with the idea of 'serving.' He suggests Germany has an identity problem, lacking a unifying vision for service. He observes that soldiers and veterans often aren't highly respected, being portrayed either as right-wing extremists or traumatized victims. He believes recognizing the broader values of community, comradeship, and bravery, embodied by a wide range of soldiers, would make service more appealing. He criticizes a generation that hasn't had much demanded of it, attributing it to a general lack of societal expectation.
Nymon challenges the notion that young people are 'soft' or 'lazy,' citing studies showing they work more due to economic pressures like high rents. He believes young people prioritizing their self-interest is a natural consequence of the state's actions. Gregis reiterates that young people, despite not being 'soft,' have had few demands placed on them, seduced by easy living and high salaries, suggesting a deficit in their performance. Winter agrees partially, acknowledging her generation grew up in relative security, but emphasizes new challenges like climate change, advocating that every generation must contribute to societal well-being and the defense of democratic values.
Nymon responds to John F. Kennedy's quote, stating he would fulfill his obligations in a civilian capacity if compelled, but prefers well-paid, organized work over forced service for 'peanuts.' He notes the Greens' political shift, from anti-military to advocating for defense, and speculates on their 'constitutional patriotism.' The discussion pivots to increased EU defense spending. Gregis believes Putin and Trump have jolted Europe and Germany into realizing the need for self-reliance and defense autonomy, drawing on his experience in Afghanistan where allies pressed Germany to take a larger military role. He emphasizes defending self-determination and values.
Nymon expresses fear about the massive rearmament, believing increased weaponry will eventually be used. He argues that the post-WWII 'peaceful order' was in fact sustained by US military power and violence, a 'violent order' from which Germany benefited. He suggests Germany's 'peace through trade' narrative was a delusion, as global trade was enforced by force. Winter acknowledges her discomfort with the large sums spent on defense but insists it's necessary given Russian threats and potential US disengagement, reiterating the need for self-defense to prevent war. She emphasizes that freedom and security are intertwined.
Nymon describes how pacifists are increasingly branded as 'rag-pacifists,' experiencing animosity online, particularly on platforms like Twitter. He notes this hostility is a newer phenomenon, as the question of defense hasn't been so prominent in recent decades. Despite the criticism, he has received significant support, indicating that many people share or understand his views. Gregis acknowledges the dilemma between military investment and social spending, admitting that weapons are 'dead money.' However, he prioritizes securing national freedom and values, drawing from his experience in war-torn countries to emphasize the importance of self-defense.