Unqualified Thoughts on a Military Service Discussion | Overwhelming complexity

AI translated using Gemini 3 Flash

A while ago at the ESN, I met two political science students (one French, one German), and somehow, while coloring our mandalas as part of a so-called “Sketch Roulette,” we got onto the topic of military service. Since both were very much in favor of military service, I argued quite vehemently against it, even though I don’t have a very settled opinion on it myself. After a short while, the German political science student opted out, in my perception because she considered my position so weak or extreme that the discussion wasn’t worth it, but I may be mistaken there.

My Argumentation

My basic reasoning was roughly the following:

  • Before considering going into a military arms race, one should first implement truly painful (potentially also for one’s own prosperity1), and above all effective, sanctions. In the Ukraine war especially, it is an absolute tragedy for the effectiveness of sanctions that Russian missiles are apparently still flying with Western chips that are subject to sanctions2. This doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t also introduce military service, and new sanction packages are constantly being passed3, but how can it be that the focus is on military service instead of effectively implementing sanctions!
  • The Bundeswehr still possesses structures in which bullying, initiation rituals, and disgusting acts are sometimes part of everyday life45. Or just recently here in the region6.
  • Military service is a truly major restriction of freedom. Having ended it in Germany was a great victory for the individual freedom that “we” actually value very much. Reintroducing it now may be necessary, but it should be well-considered, and I don’t think it was a massive mistake to suspend it7.
  • I also vehemently disagreed with the often-used argument that it gives young people orientation after school and shows them “real work” for once. That may indeed be helpful for some, but this argument can only hold if it is voluntary, positively connoted, and promoted. Compulsion would (in my opinion) harm significantly more people, who would then suffer under military or civil service and potentially internalize more authority-related patterns of behavior. Instead, the opposite should be demanded for young adults, who are actually supposed to be expanding their freedom and becoming mature, critically reflective, independent citizens8. I would have suffered under a Bundeswehr even without the above-mentioned structures, because I knew specifically what I wanted to do and cannot stand this kind of authority, which may be necessary in the Bundeswehr.

There are certainly many other strong factors for or against it. This was also just a brief outline of my side of the argument. And a certainly not insignificant part of why I am so uncertain about military service is that I am perhaps being a bit too selfish here and cannot imagine going into military service myself, so I cannot demand it for anyone else either.

Reflection on the Opposing Side

I must admit that I don’t remember the exact arguments of the political science students perfectly, but the discussion was mainly based on a more or less abstract threat situation for Central Europe, which I by no means claim I can assess. However, I didn’t find the reasoning particularly convincing. In the long run, two things struck me very negatively, which I will expand upon here. In doing so, I want to make clear that the conversation is merely the starting point for me to talk about it, and the points cannot be attributed to my counterparts in the conversation to anywhere near that extent:

Patriotism

I’ve known for a long time that Germany, due to its history, is overall significantly less patriotic than many other countries, and I therefore always find it very odd when people claim their country is the best in XY and they are therefore so proud of their country. So it didn’t surprise me when the French woman also argued a lot with that.

Short interlude: My perception of what can be drawn from patriotism has changed in recent years, especially through the brilliant essay “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius” by George Orwell. In the essay, the convinced non-patriot discovers a certain patriotism and convictions for his country during the Second World War. I found the reasoning very plausible, even if I am probably too cowardly to derive actions from it. I can understand patriotism toward values, and from that also patriotism toward a society and its democracy.

But that is, at least in my perception, not what people mean when they talk about patriotism or are patriotic; that may be due to me, but I actually don’t think so: When politicians from certain German parties demand to strengthen patriotism in Germany9, when the French woman tells me that one must defend the country, when I experience a Greek elementary school class in the military museum or talk with my Greek family about Greece (who are very enlightened people). There is always something more resonating than the pure preservation of the values that (should) be fulfilled in this nation. Patriotism applies primarily to the nation, which then hopefully represents some values, instead of the values representing the nation.

I also almost always experience that claims are then drawn about how great the nation is, often combined with the joking devaluation of all other countries. I just wonder how much of a joke it really is. In the end, subconscious patterns are usually reproduced by it more often than not10.

Maybe that’s also my problem as a German, that I simply don’t get the joke, but there are also jokes I consider myself lucky not to understand.

The Arms Race

At the same time, rearmament is taking place (or existing equipment is being brought back up to standard), which sounds quite sensible and is also perceived as sensible by large parts of society in my perception. But precisely because a military conflict is again entering our imagination more, it is important to also give space to the many, many anti-war testimonies to show the risk of rearmament becoming an end in itself and to counteract it. I cannot estimate how high the risk actually is, but visualizing how much one loses through any kind of war is definitely not wrong11. Here are some books that immediately come to mind or have encountered me recently:

  • All Quiet on the Western Front (a school classic that portrays both the war hysteria and the horror of war)

  • MAUS (the special thing about this book is not the description of the familiar unspeakable atrocities, but instead the depiction of how infinitely many “lucky” twists were necessary to survive at all; and how quickly friendship and trust erode)

  • The complete works of George Orwell, but especially his essays written during the Second World War, e.g.: “The Lion and the Unicorn,” “Antisemitism in Britain,” or “Notes on Nationalism.”

  • The Spirit of Turin (not an anti-war book, but a book I read recently that shows well at the beginning how widespread the enthusiasm for war was in Italy before World War I)

Questions Raised

I would like to emphasize again that I have clearly taken the two political science students as a starting point here and have stretched the two points significantly further than they came out in the conversation. Since I am still rather uncertain about this entire complex of topics myself, I would be very happy to receive criticism and suggestions.

In particular, I would like clearer answers for myself to the following questions:

  • What are the criteria by which we decide that we need military service or not? Somehow “we” as a “society” have changed our minds here, but possible criteria or quantifications of the threat situation were very rarely part of it. While military service was received critically by society neither in its introduction in general nor in its specific form, the discussion of the pros and cons seemed, at least to me, rather diffuse and poorly connected to actual arguments about its effect or a quantified justification of the necessity.

  • What other levers do we have besides rearmament, and how can we strengthen them in the current environment, e.g., in the area of diplomacy, more effective and consistent sanctions, the strengthening of interdependence in the hope of making warlike actions more difficult, or perhaps more generally, the expansion and utilization of soft power.

Many thanks to Leo for proofreading this post.

  1. This must of course be well-considered, so that one is not only morally on the right side, but also harms “the others” significantly more than oneself. ↩

  2. According to this article. I am definitely traveling with dangerous half-knowledge here and would welcome contradiction. ↩

  3. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/eu-sanktionen-2250316 ↩

  4. A good friend told me, for example, that as an “initiation ritual” he had to drink a really disgusting broth and eat parts of a mortar propellant charge to “really belong”; he perceived that as very positive, though. That was the standard in that group. ↩

  5. The last article I read about it was this one in DIE ZEIT (Paywall: Jan 18, 2026). ↩

  6. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/fallschirmjaeger-skandale-bundeswehr-100.html ↩

  7. Not quite an argument against it, but still counter in the reasoning to what was said. ↩

  8. Although this clearly depends on the time frame, which was not set in the discussion. For a month, for example, one could talk about much more, but then, for example, civil service (as an alternative) wouldn’t be truly helpful socially. ↩

  9. Not just the AfD and smaller right-wing extremist parties. ↩

  10. I notice it partly in myself and friends in relation to the Saarland. ↩

  11. And it also always shows me in a completely different way how good I have it in my life. ↩