5 ms·

I was born in Germany and was informed by my mother about conscientious objection but don't fully understand how caring for disabled people equates to an altern

by ozfive 3y ago

I was born in Germany and was informed by my mother about conscientious objection but don't fully understand how caring for disabled people equates to an alternative to violence and war. Shouldn't we inherently care for elderly and disabled regardless of military service and a military industrial complex? How is this a 1-1 comparison. Genuinely trying to be informed here.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
Yes, we should. But I'm just fine with a portion of it being done in a non-military national service. It matters that it is done, even if it is part of national service. There are lots of small jobs that can be done, not just taking care of others directly.
Vecr 3y ago
The point of the training was so you couldn't just be a conscientious objector to get out of hard tasks in general. Probably the Wehrgerechtigkeit talked about. Being a conscientious objector won't get you out of service in a war anyway, you'd be required to do various tasks, maybe up to working in a field hospital near the front lines, or maybe just replacing the job of an essential worker that got drafted.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  "The point of the training was so you couldn't just be a conscientious objector to get out of hard tasks in general." I think the point was equal duties for everyone. I read the policy that applied to conscious objectors back then and it seemed they just did a search and replace on a couple of keywords. That is how in my opinion the Grundausbildung "basic training" for conscientious objectors came to be. It contained more things that did not make any sense outside of military. On thing was the right to receive a certain part of your pay as goods in kind - informally called Dienstbanane - banana for duty. Makes sense if you are on a battle ship for months, not so much in a hospital. Another, almost comical, thing was the lengthy and detailed regulations about reaching the highest level of unfitness for duty (aka death), which made up a considerable part of the policy. In practice there was not much justice though, because specific regulations implementation of the laws and regulation were clearly discourage people from going this route and involved lots of harassment.
  - Hnrobert42 3y ago
    > Dienstbanane - banana for duty My god. German! What a language.
jvmboi 3y ago
I don't understand the word "we" in your comment. Obviously, some specific people do the actual work of caring for disabled people. Most people don't do that work. The point of "Zivildienst" which translates to "civil service" as opposed to "Wehrdienst" "military service" was to make conscientious objectors contribute to society in-lieu of serving with a weapon. So, once you came of age you had to do one or the other. I think within this previous paradigm of a citizen army, as opposed to the volunteer army of professional soldiers we have now, this was a good way to make sure you'd still have recruits while not forcing anyone into the military that really didn't want to be there.

by ozfive 3y ago

Broken_Hippo 3y ago

Yes, we should. But I'm just fine with a portion of it being done in a non-military national service. It matters that it is done, even if it is part of national service. There are lots of small jobs that can be done, not just taking care of others directly.

Vecr 3y ago

The point of the training was so you couldn't just be a conscientious objector to get out of hard tasks in general. Probably the Wehrgerechtigkeit talked about. Being a conscientious objector won't get you out of service in a war anyway, you'd be required to do various tasks, maybe up to working in a field hospital near the front lines, or maybe just replacing the job of an essential worker that got drafted.

weinzierl 3y ago
"The point of the training was so you couldn't just be a conscientious objector to get out of hard tasks in general." I think the point was equal duties for everyone. I read the policy that applied to conscious objectors back then and it seemed they just did a search and replace on a couple of keywords. That is how in my opinion the Grundausbildung "basic training" for conscientious objectors came to be. It contained more things that did not make any sense outside of military. On thing was the right to receive a certain part of your pay as goods in kind - informally called Dienstbanane - banana for duty. Makes sense if you are on a battle ship for months, not so much in a hospital. Another, almost comical, thing was the lengthy and detailed regulations about reaching the highest level of unfitness for duty (aka death), which made up a considerable part of the policy. In practice there was not much justice though, because specific regulations implementation of the laws and regulation were clearly discourage people from going this route and involved lots of harassment.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  > Dienstbanane - banana for duty My god. German! What a language.

jvmboi 3y ago

I don't understand the word "we" in your comment. Obviously, some specific people do the actual work of caring for disabled people. Most people don't do that work. The point of "Zivildienst" which translates to "civil service" as opposed to "Wehrdienst" "military service" was to make conscientious objectors contribute to society in-lieu of serving with a weapon. So, once you came of age you had to do one or the other. I think within this previous paradigm of a citizen army, as opposed to the volunteer army of professional soldiers we have now, this was a good way to make sure you'd still have recruits while not forcing anyone into the military that really didn't want to be there.