This is the first referendum in Austria after 1994, so it's not too common. I usually follow conscription and defence debates, so looking at the prospect of this decided in a referendum is pretty interesting. As far as I know, Switzerland will be getting a similar referendum soon.
(a) should the current system be retained, or (b) should it be replaced by an all-professional army and a government-funded voluntary Social Service Year for anyone under 30.
That is the same as in Germany, I think it's rather amusing that the civilian service has become so important for hospitals and NGOs that they try to establish some voluntary service to replace it.
I suppose since Germany abolished conscription in 2011 that it also has some effect on Austrian opinions. But according to the German Wikipedia article, in latest polls around 52 % support retaining it and 41 % are against it. I'm pretty sure people who are for conscription will be more active at voting, while young people could be against conscription and perhaps women more indifferent.
If I was Austrian, I'd support abolishing conscription and joining the NATO. But I can understand both options, although Austrian defence situation is a bit different in Central Europe than that of Finland for example. Still, a genocide happened not too far from them in the 1990s so never be too careless with military capabilities.
Conscription doesn't make a lot of sense for states like Germany or Austria. In Germany it amounts to teaching young men for a few months how to get really drunk and follow orders by someone who didn't make it very far in life. A waste of money for the state and a waste of time for the men. It also happens to be sexist as women are freed of such service. We only kept it as long as we did because a big part of our social infrastructure (food services for old people, some medical services, lots of religious and youth organisations etc.) relied on cheap unqualified labour provided by civilian service. And when we got rid of it we mostly did so because it was the only reasonable option left to further reducing the defence budget.
I was lucky with my civilian service placement as it offered a relatively good wage, lots of other perks and happened to be interesting. But I also knew a few guys who got horrible jobs, which probably really hurts your motivation when you're fresh out of school.
As for Austria, I don't think conscription makes any more sense for them. Nowadays western European states only need armies as intervention forces. For that purpose a small, well trained and mobile force is much better suited than the Cold War scenario armies whose structures were continued in smaller form in most cases.
A country that has to rely on conscription to survive doesn't deserve to. That's my outlook on the matter.
I also think that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put someone through a shit experience for a few months and then pretend they're going to be worth something in a modern war. In an era of highly mechanised warfare, by the time you're calling up conscripts you've already lost. It makes more sense to train a small group of troops to a really high level, for the increasingly niche applications of infantry.
If I was Austrian, I'd support abolishing conscription and joining the NATO. But I can understand both options, although Austrian defence situation is a bit different in Central Europe than that of Finland for example. Still, a genocide happened not too far from them in the 1990s so never be too careless with military capabilities.
Join NATO? Why? NATO's current mission is little more than act as the world's second-tier police force (second to the United States of course). NATO was created to show a united front against the Soviet Union, it has been twenty years since the wall came down and communism fell! What the hell does NATO really do anymore but intervene in things that can be been done outside the umbrella of NATO, and piss off Russia.
As for conscription, I can see the benefits in terms of providing a 'cheap' labour force for public service as some have already mentioned, but there are really few other reasons to having it around anymore. I think others have already mentioned the relative ineffectiveness of conscripts as a military force, so I'm not going to rehash that, but there is some usefulness to having that kind of knowledge/training in certain situations, but very few I would think.
Last edited by Octovon; January 18th, 2013 at 11:32 AM.
Join NATO? Why? NATO's current mission is little more than act as the world's second-tier police force (second to the United States of course). NATO was created to show a united front against the Soviet Union, it has been twenty years since the wall came down and communism fell! What the hell does NATO really do anymore but intervene in things that can be been done outside the umbrella of NATO, and piss off Russia.
With the decreasing amount of money the European states are willing to spend on defense NATO is a good tool to pool resources and enact influence in areas of interest.
In the long term NATO also is a deterrent for potentially aggressive states. Remember that in the 1920s and 1930s many Europeans thought they wouldn't have to worry about another big war. It was the multilateral alliances between European states that managed, barely, to defeat the Axis and ensure the survival of weaker states that would otherwise have been absorbed. Just because we live in peaceful times now doesn't mean that things won't look much worse in 10, 20 or 30 years.
I agree with Nem. I find it ridiculous and, frankly, reprehensible that any country that considers itself to be, ahem, free and democratic, could continue with such an outdated and infringing policy as conscription. And that applies to civil service conscripts as much as military conscripts.
And again, as Nem said more eloquently than I ever could, when you've started to call up conscripts, you're already doomed.
As an aside, I do believe that professional soldiers actually dislike the concept of conscription too. And if we're going to listen to anybody's opinion on the matter, it should be the people who make it their business to wage war.
Last edited by Mr. Matt; January 18th, 2013 at 01:57 PM.
Remember that in the 1920s and 1930s many Europeans thought they wouldn't have to worry about another big war. It was the multilateral alliances between European states that managed, barely, to defeat the Axis and ensure the survival of weaker states that would otherwise have been absorbed. Just because we live in peaceful times now doesn't mean that things won't look much worse in 10, 20 or 30 years.
Finland had a libertarian prime and defence minister just before World War II who cut down defence budget as useless spending. Then attacked by the USSR in 1939, oops. And what about Chamberlain's peace for our time?
Such estimations are hard. I would say a war is quite impossible now, but it's hard to forecast the future. Let's remember the little war Russia and Georgia had in 2008. Georgia could have been a NATO and EU member if it had been more progressive earlier. As long as Europe is threatened with nuclear missile launchers on borders, NATO is needed. Austria has less threats than Eastern European countries, but that's another reason for NATO cooperation. Why have fully independent armed forces when you could do cooperation?
I don't think conscription is too ethical, but it's acceptable if a large majority of the population supports it. The gender issue becomes even more relevant with countries like Austria where the civilian service option is popular - why women couldn't just as well have to work in hospitals or aid organisations? That kind of "free labour" is involuntary servitude, and it's unhealthy that public organisations have got dependent on such work.
I wonder how much Germany's decision to abolish conscription in 2011 affects this - is Austria a little brother in the cultural sense that such moves would affect popular opinions?
I don't know much about conscription so I can't comment much there. Either way it's up to the people- was there something that spurred this on in the first place?
As for NATO, I wonder what Austria would receive out of it. While it is not in the organization, most of Europe's continental security is handled well enough for it not to get involved. I'm sure it knows that even as far as collective security is concerned, an invasion of Austria would have to happen from one of its neighbors- all NATO nations anyways except for Switzerland, which is in a similar mindset.
Such estimations are hard. I would say a war is quite impossible now, but it's hard to forecast the future. Let's remember the little war Russia and Georgia had in 2008. Georgia could have been a NATO and EU member if it had been more progressive earlier. As long as Europe is threatened with nuclear missile launchers on borders, NATO is needed. Austria has less threats than Eastern European countries, but that's another reason for NATO cooperation. Why have fully independent armed forces when you could do cooperation?
That would have been just dandy... The whole of NATO drawn into a conflict with a nuclear power because Saakashvili picked a fight with Russia...
Unless I am mistaken, Austria is neutral. Joining NATO means they could cut some of their military budget and shoulder some of the defensive burden on the rest of the alliance, but they'd be picking a side, which wouldn't be all that neutral of them. Austria is surrounded on it's borders by NATO countries and Switzerland, they pretty much get the benefits of being a NATO member by just being where they are geographically.
Last edited by Octovon; January 18th, 2013 at 07:07 PM.
I also agree that conscription is a pretty ridiculous idea. When the U.S. left Vietnam, what did we actually accomplish besides wasting a whole lot of people who shouldn't have had to go there? Not to mention the Vietnamese (soldiers and civilians) we killed and those who were left with the after effects of Agent Orange.
A while ago, I was looking around the internet for opinions on whether or not the U.S. would ever reinstate the draft, and I found a comment on an answer board by a Vietnam veteran who also said, "A country that has to force people to save itself, isn't worth saving."
But that aside, knowing at least a bit of what being treated like shit feels like, I'm definitely not in favor of any law that requires you to spend any amount of time in an organization that you wouldn't otherwise join if it were your decision. I don't care for the alternative either; forcing people to perform civil service is equally disingenuous.
By that same measure, I also don't weep for U.S. veterans who willingly sign up to fight in the kind of proxy wars we've been fighting in the past few decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Matt
As an aside, I do believe that professional soldiers actually dislike the concept of conscription too. And if we're going to listen to anybody's opinion on the matter, it should be the people who make it their business to wage war.
I think that probably is true. I remember when I was first trying out for the army, the one sergeant said that what active duty does is what separates it from the national guard. In other words, since they do a job day in and day out, they also get better training and are generally more prepared. Then again, I suppose you could also make the argument that combat is what really makes you a better soldier. Meh...I'm glad I didn't find out for myself.
You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you.
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger,
You'll learn things you never knew, you never knew.
Last edited by Adrian Ţepeş; January 18th, 2013 at 07:26 PM.
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
2Likes
Austrian conscription referendum, Jan 20 
Linear Mode
