Conscientious objection in Germany

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Press conference by " total refusers of military service " from East and West Germany, January 1990.

Conscientious objection ( KDV ) was in the history of Germany almost only to 1945 in case of war desertion possible. There were regional and temporary exceptions only for members of some peace churches . Conscientious objection was punished in the First World War as desertion or treason with severe penal sentences , in the time of National Socialism it was punished with the death penalty as a destruction of military strength .

There was no right to conscientious objection in the GDR . There, only unarmed construction soldiers were legally possible within the National People's Army . Using it could lead to professional disadvantages.

In the Federal Republic of Germany has been conscientious objection after two world wars as a fundamental right in the constitution enshrined. Its legal regulation has often changed between 1949 and the current recognition procedure at the Federal Office for Family and Civil Society Tasks . Since the general conscription was suspended in Germany in 2011, the complete waiver of a statutory recognition procedure is required. Conscientious objection to military service is possible regardless of the conversion of the Bundeswehr to a professional army .

Early modern age

Conscientious objection remained a rare exception in Germany, as in all European regions, up until modern times. In the Middle Ages it was only practiced by the Cathars and Waldensians against the respective sovereigns when they demanded compulsory service and had an army set up for their campaigns. In return, these Christian minorities took on state and large church persecution as heretics .

During the Reformation , new Christian groups also emerged in German-speaking countries, striving for a lifestyle based on the Bible and early Christianity . To do this, they often withdrew from the outside world, such as the Bohemian Brothers and the Hutterites . Other groups that emerged from the Anabaptist movement tried to enforce their faith in some areas with political reforms, but failed because of the power relations at the time. The Mennonites , Quakers and Tunkers could not exercise their principle of nonviolence in German areas and therefore had to emigrate many times in the 20th century. Only the Danish Duchy of Schleswig released them from the arms service ordered at the time when they settled in Friedrichstadt in 1623 .

In 1647, towards the end of the Thirty Years War , the Agreement of the People declared for the first time that any compulsion to do military service violated natural human rights . But very few German princes recognized this right. Frederick the Great guaranteed the Prussian Mennonites on March 27, 1780 for an annual fee of 5,000 thalers the "perpetual" exemption from cantonal obligations, but limited their rights of settlement and land acquisition.

Even in the 19th century, Christian groups, including Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, continued to practice conscientious objection almost only politically and numerically insignificant .

The German Imperium

The peace societies that emerged in some national states of Europe and the USA since 1815 also put conscientious objection as a possible means of enforcing international law on the political agenda for the first time. The German Peace Society (DFG), founded in 1892, strictly rejected conscientious objection until 1918.

Conscientious objection to military service linked to political goals was first considered in connection with the growing European labor movement . The early social democracy was theoretically determined to prevent a war between the European hegemonic powers or at least not to support it. The Socialist International made corresponding resolutions repeatedly, especially in 1907, 1912 and 1913. In the second Balkan crisis , the SPD organized mass rallies as a protest against the now foreseeable pan-European war. At such a demonstration, Rosa Luxemburg called on hundreds of thousands of listeners on September 24, 1913 in Frankfurt am Main to refuse military service, resistance to preparation for war and to refuse to give orders in the event of war: “If we are expected to use the murder weapon against our French or other brothers, then we shout: 'We're not doing that!' ”Thereupon she was charged with“ inciting disobedience to the authorities ”. On February 20, 1914, she was sentenced to one year in prison. With an interruption of a few weeks, she remained in custody until the November Revolution of 1918.

The DFG, like the SPD, viewed the First World War as a German defensive war and therefore continued to reject conscientious objection. Along with other German pacifist groups, it suffered heavy membership losses and was banned in 1915, despite its government-oriented demands. Unlike in Great Britain, for example, there was no organized and politically effective resistance movement in Germany. Only a few intellectuals, a few anarchists and around 50 Adventists who organized themselves as reform adventists after the war , refused to be drafted into the German military from August 1914. As a result, they were imprisoned as deranged or, more often, sentenced to severe penal terms, some of which did not survive.

Weimar Republic

After the conclusion of the Versailles Treaty , the Weimar constitution did not provide for compulsory military service, so that the German peace movement that had now emerged initially focused on issues other than conscientious objection. Only those groups that affirmed German war guilt called for preventive conscientious objection as a means of preventing future wars: among them the Bund der Military Service Opponents (BdK), the group of young Jewish pacifists , the Greater German National Community , left-wing anti-militarists such as the revolutionary group founded by Kurt Hiller in 1926 Pacifists (GRP) and the Peace Association of War Participants (FdK), who also advocated general strikes in the event of war .

After Germany joined the League of Nations, the question of how conscientious objection was related to the military enforcement of international law, if necessary, split the peace movement. But even the moderate pacifists now recognized conscientious objection as a legitimate individual possibility. In 1927/28, the DFG collected around 224,000 voluntary conscientious objection to military service in the event of a feared renewed conscription. Politically, however, this remained almost ineffective, as the Versailles Treaty forbade the reintroduction of German military service.

time of the nationalsocialism

Poster in memory of the victims of military justice (on the Hamburg war memorial on Dammtordamm )

In April 1933, the Nazi regime banned most of the democratic parties as well as pacifist organizations and imprisoned many of their leading figures in concentration camps . When the Wehrmacht was founded in 1935, conscription was reintroduced in the German Reich : Since then, conscientious objectors have faced severe penal sentences for degrading military strength - usually being sent to a concentration camp - and the death penalty if their refusal was held. Nevertheless, up to 1945 there were around 8,000 objectors, around 6,000 of whom were Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to war or take oaths. Around 1,200 of them died, 635 of them due to prison conditions or murder in custody without a court judgment, 203 or 250 as a result of a court judgment for their conscientious objection (see Jehovah's Witnesses under National Socialism ).

At least 13 Reform Adventists (the highest proportion of a Protestant denomination in the "Third Reich") were sentenced to death as religious-ethical conscientious objectors by Nazi special courts and military courts of the Wehrmacht and executed or died in concentration camp detention: Anton Brugger , Josef Blasi, Gottlieb Metzner, Franz Nakat, Viktor Pacha, Ludwig Pfältzer , Günter E. Pietz, Gustav Przyrembel, Julius Ranacher, Richard Schreiber, Karl F. Schreiber, Willi Thaumann and Leander J. Zrenner. Another conscientious objector was Pastor Alfred Münch as a slave laborer for the Todt Organization on the Atlantic Wall on the Channel Island of Alderney . There his traces are lost. Karl Krahe, on the other hand, is one of the few Reform Adventists who survived his trial and the war.

On January 10, 1938, the German Mennonites decided not to obey the "principle of defenselessness" in the Third Reich. Of the roughly 200 German Quakers , only Gerhard Halle initially refused military service, but later decided - in order to avoid something worse - to be deployed, albeit only in the stage on the Eastern Front due to his serious war injuries in the First World War. However, a corresponding request on his part was rejected by the military district command Berlin VIII. Heinz Herbst refused from the Baptists and Alfred Herbst from another free church . Other German objectors belonged to the Mormons and Apostles congregations . Members of the Christadelphians' community, which in principle refuses to take oaths and refuse military service, such as the brothers Rudolf and Albert Merz , were also imprisoned. The latter was executed on April 3, 1941 in the Brandenburg penitentiary .

Only two conscientious objectors are known from the DEK . On March 2, 1939, Hermann Stöhr refused to be called up for a military exercise with reference to Mt 26.52  EU : “Christ says to me like my people: 'Whoever takes the sword shall perish by the sword' ... I don't hold the armor of my people like that for protection, but for danger. What is dangerous and pernicious for my people, I cannot participate in it. ”Stöhr was severely reprimanded for this by his regional church leadership, arrested by the German field police on August 31, 1939 and on October 10 for desertion to concentration camp imprisonment Sentenced to death in March 1940 for undermining military strength and beheaded on June 21, 1940. Martin Gauger evaded the threat of being called up by fleeing to the then unoccupied Netherlands , where the SS later arrested him and murdered him in Buchenwald concentration camp in July 1941 .

Both belonged to the Confessing Church . Its founding document, the Barmen Theological Declaration of 1934, obliged its members to obey Jesus Christ in faith in contradiction to totalitarian state demands. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in his catechism in 1936 : “The church can never bless war and arms. The Christian can never take part in an unjust war. ”With his peace speech at the ecumenical youth conference in Fanö on August 28, 1936, he called on the churches worldwide to unconditionally reject any war. He was determined to conscientious objection if he was drafted and knew that he would be sentenced to death for doing so. Karl Barth , author of the Barmer Declaration, called on the general secretary of the ecumenical movement Willem Adolf Visser 't Hooft on April 13, 1939, to ask all Christians in Germany in a radio message, in view of the imminent danger of war, “... whether it is not their cause was to do everything in their power to prevent this war or a victory of the usurpers on their part ... “, such as conscientious objection and sabotage. Visser't Hooft turned it down, as did Barth's German friends, to whom he proposed this appeal in July 1939. The BK supported the attack on Poland in September 1939 together with the German Christians .

About 20 Roman Catholic objectors are known by name. The pacifist priest Max Josef Metzger warned of a new world war as early as 1933. In 1942, he asked Hitler to resign in a letter that was not sent. He was therefore executed on April 27, 1944 as “a dishonorable traitor to the people for all time”. Seven members of the Christ the King Society founded by Metzger in 1935 refused to take the leadership oath and thus military service for reasons of faith after being called up . Michael Lerpscher , Richard Reitsamer , Joseph Ruf and Ernst Volkmann were executed by them between 1940 and 1944. Josef and Bernhard Fleischer barely survived. No bishop stood up for them, all of them refused every petition for clemency for those who were accused of “disrupting military strength”. The Austrian priest Franz Reinisch rejected the soldier's oath as a crime in 1938 and was executed on August 21, 1942. Other Catholic objectors were Wilhelm Paul Kempa , Josef Mayr-Nusser , Josef Scheurer , Alfred Andreas Heiss and Franz Jägerstätter .

German Democratic Republic

In the GDR there was no basic right to conscientious objection, but initially (until the Wall was built ) there was no conscription either. On September 7, 1964 the National Defense Council ordered the installation of so-called building units in the area of ​​the Ministry of National Defense (Journal of the GDR Part I No. 11 of September 16, 1964 [issue date], p. 129). These " construction soldiers " did not have to do arms service, but were used within the NVA as gardeners, nurses or in building projects. Especially in the last years of the GDR there were also aid missions in large industrial companies. Construction soldiers had to reckon with disadvantages after their service time: They were often restricted in their choice of profession and their training opportunities. A total objection moved, as in the Federal Republic, freedom penalties.

Between 1978 and 1989, military instruction as part of military education in the GDR was also a compulsory subject for all pupils in the 9th and 10th grades of the polytechnic and advanced secondary schools. The lessons consisted of a theoretical part in schools, a military or civil defense camp and the final so-called “days of military readiness”. The military education continued with the pre-military training during the vocational training and in the Abitur level of the extended high schools.

Nevertheless, there were numerous conscientious objectors throughout the GDR period, mainly for reasons of faith and conscience. These included Jehovah's Witnesses and other Christians. Many were arrested several times.

The Federation of Evangelical Churches in East Germany called for a social peace service as a legal alternative to the military and Bausoldatendienst in the National People's Army since the early 1980s. The GDR government refused to do so, but from 1985 no conscientious objectors were imprisoned. In 1988 a church initiative founded a Diaconal Peace Service as an unofficial alternative to military service.

Federal Republic of Germany

Fundamental right

Still under the impression of Nazi terror, after the Second World War the right to individual conscientious objection was enshrined in the state laws of Bavaria, Hesse (1947) and Baden-Württemberg (1948), as well as in the constitution of Berlin (1948). Other state constitutions provided for a general ban on war. Based on these models, the SPD applied to the Parliamentary Council in April 1948 for the inclusion of a sentence which, after a heated dispute, was included in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany passed in 1949 ( Article 4 (3) of the Basic Law):

“No one may be forced into military service with a weapon against their conscience. The details are governed by a federal law."

This is inferred from paragraph 1:

" Freedom of belief , conscience and freedom of religious and ideological creed are inviolable."

Conscientious objection is therefore a fundamental right within the framework of freedom of belief, conscience and freedom of belief. The Federal Republic was the first state in the world to give this right constitutional status. This was given legal, historical and logical priority over future military national defense, which was not yet considered at the time. Forced recruitment of Germans by the Allies , for example in the service groups they set up , should also be excluded or made more difficult.

Relationship to conscription

In the first years after the war , the slogan was never again war! widespread among the Germans, so that rearmament seemed unthinkable to most and was rejected. A typical expression of this attitude was Wolfgang Borchert's prose text Then there is only one! Say no! of November 20, 1947, which called on all professional groups to refuse any kind of participation in the war.

From August 1950 changed Konrad Adenauer's course to integrate the Federal Republic into a military alliance West priorities. In the Bundestag debate on a West German military contribution on November 8, 1950, MP Hans-Joachim von Merkatz of the German Party reinterpreted the KDV basic right as follows: “This provision can only make sense if one proceeds from the logical assumption that even the establishment of compulsory military service is possible and permissible according to the Basic Law. "

After the establishment of the Bundeswehr in 1955, the Conscription Act on July 21, 1956 laid down in Section 25 :

“Anyone who, for reasons of conscience, opposes participation in any use of weapons between the states and therefore refuses military service with weapons, has to perform alternative civilian service outside the Bundeswehr instead of military service. On his application he can be used for unarmed service in the Bundeswehr. "

The civil service, which is analogous to military service, thus became the rule, the use of state-recognized conscientious objectors for unarmed service in the Bundeswehr, which the wording of Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law had allowed, the exception. But it was not until 1961 that civil service was introduced nationwide.

The Conscription Act stipulated an official review of conscientious objectors' decisions through an application process. The Federal Administrative Court decided what is to be understood by “military service” and “weapon” in the sense of Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law only after years of disputes over interpretation. Accordingly, all direct use of weapons can be refused: not only in wars defined under international law, but also in other armed conflicts such as civil wars , fighting partisans , etc., but also indirect participation in wars, for example when observing the enemy, replenishing ammunition, operating direction finding and control devices, radar detection of hostile conditions Missiles, etc. Unarmed services that are permitted for objectors, on the other hand, are purely administrative, support, catering and medical activities for the armed forces.

The Federal Constitutional Court introduced in 1960 realized that under Article 4 of the Basic Law, the training may be refused paragraph 3 for military service on the weapon, so the military service:

“It has been doubted whether, in view of this wording, the service with the weapon in peace, the training with the weapon, should be refused. The answer to the question is in the affirmative.
However, Article 12 (2) of the Basic Law clarifies Article 4 of the Basic Law to the effect that it is now in any case - i. H. after the introduction of compulsory military service - includes the right to refuse service with a weapon in peacetime. This also makes sense - not only because the state cannot have any interest in training conscripts with weapons, who will refuse to use weapons in the event of war, but also from the standpoint of the individual, who cannot be forced to receive training, the only one The purpose is to prepare him for an activity which he refuses for reasons of conscience. "

-

KDV application

Recognition as a conscientious objector can be applied for in writing at any time to the competent career center of the Bundeswehr , formerly the district military replacement office . The KDV application is then forwarded to the Federal Office for Family and Civil Society Tasks (BAFzA), which decides on it. The application can also be submitted for recording; there are mostly ready-made forms that only need to be signed. However , samples offered on the Internet may not be taken literally, as the individual conscience decision must be made credible in each case.

There are no rules for the form and content of the justification; in any case it must refer to Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. A curriculum vitae in tabular form and a written statement of the reasons for conscience must be attached or submitted later. Until 2004, a police clearance certificate was also included. Today the Federal Office only obtains this if there are justified doubts. Even an oral hearing is only held today if there are justified doubts about the truth of the reasons for conscience.

A KDV application can be submitted as soon as it is entered; it only has suspensive effect before the convocation, for example if it is submitted before the draft at the latest. Anyone who refuses after receiving the sample result can be drafted into the armed forces until a final decision has been made on the application. However, the applicant is then usually not given any military training and is released from service until his application is recognized. In the event of a defense, an application does not prevent the drafting from being called up , but the service with the weapon.

An approved KDV application can be withdrawn at any time by the applicant by sending an informal letter to the BAFzA, from which it can be seen that the aforementioned reasons of conscience are no longer present. This is necessary, for example, if you decide to do professional military service in the armed forces, for example as a career changer and a higher rank . Participation in an information defense exercise also requires the withdrawal of a conscientious objection, if any.

KDV examination procedure

From 1956 to 1983 every West German refuser had to prove the seriousness of his decision of conscience both in written justification and in an oral hearing and questioning first before an "examination board", in the case of rejection before an examination chamber (2nd instance). The examination board was assigned to one or more district military replacement offices, while the examination chamber was incorporated into the military administration. Both bodies were organizationally the responsibility of the Bundeswehr, but were made up of civilians. In the event of rejection by the Examination Chamber, the applicant only had the right to appeal to the administrative court , in basic cases the (rare) appeal to the Federal Administrative Court.

In 1977, an act of amendment to conscription by the social-liberal coalition generally abolished the review of conscientious objection applications and made their recognition only dependent on the conclusion of a civilian service contract. After an abstract norm review application by the CDU / CSU parliamentary group and three CDU-led state governments, the Federal Constitutional Court declared this "postcard amendment" to be unconstitutional on April 13, 1978, so that the previous proceedings continued.

On June 30, 1983, the Bundestag passed the law to reorganize the law of conscientious objection and community service . After that, an examination of conscience was only permitted for soldiers who applied for conscientious objection during military service or afterwards. In the case of unserved employees, a written application with detailed personal reasons was sufficient; this was to be sent to the District Armed Forces Replacement Office, but the application was examined solely by the Federal Office for Community Service . The service has now been extended from 16 to 20 months in accordance with Section 24 of the Civilian Service Act and thus lasted a quarter longer than military service. This should underline the seriousness of a conscientious decision to conscientiously object to military service. The BVerfG rejected a complaint according to which this violated the equal duration of both services as stipulated in Art. 12a, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, with reference to additional military exercises to be completed by the served.

According to the current version of the Conscientious Objection Act (KDVG) of August 9, 2003, the civil service office decides on a written KDV application without a regular hearing. The application does not remove the obligation to register for the detection and screening imagine, but pushes the draft for military service in the incontestable refusal to grant or revoke if he is legally valid recognition altogether. While in the past soldiers who refused to do military service were immediately released from any service with a weapon, today this only happens if the ability of a unit to work is not restricted as a result.

criticism

The formulation of Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law met with strong criticism even before its inclusion in the Basic Law, as it made the legally indeterminate and, according to frequent opinion, indefinable concept of conscience a criterion for the exercise of a basic right. Church representatives in particular objected early on: This would raise an individual ethical and moral authority to a legal norm with supposedly generally valid verifiable criteria. The existence of a decision of conscience can neither be proven nor refuted because of the individual character of the conscience. This is why the later first Federal President Theodor Heuss strictly rejected this sentence and its inclusion in the Basic Law. Two parliamentary motions to delete the “conscience clause” without replacement in 1949 did not find a majority.

Since the introduction of the examination procedure, church representatives have also opposed the requirement that the applicant “prove” the existence of a “real” conscience problem, or at least make it credible. A fundamental right should actually only be restricted in the event of state counter-evidence. The reversal of the burden of proof suggests that political, not ethical motives prevailed here: Otherwise, the KDV basic right would practically abolish the constitutionally subordinate conscription. Also § 25 conscription law that a decision of conscience within the meaning of Art. 4 para. 3 GG only present where any lethal force is rejected between states, was as a limitation of Art. 4 criticized para. 3 GG and virtually untestable. A concrete decision of conscience in individual cases is extended to a general decision against any use of force that is impossible for the individual, so that conscience and reason are placed in opposition.

Particularly in the 1970s, with the sharp increase in KDV applications, proven and obvious deficiencies in the examination procedure at that time were criticized: including various notices of recognition with the same KDV justifications and unlawful recognitions in which the applicant made no reference to Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. Many examples were taken as an indication of biased examiners and the impossible objective verifiability of a decision of conscience. Committees and chambers are biased. It was also called for the complete abandonment of a legal review of the decision of conscience.

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

The nature of the conscience checkers' interaction with applicants has also been heavily criticized. Applicants entering the negotiations unaided reported bias, abuse and provocation .

The scenarios constructed in the oral negotiations were a constant point of contention. Highly interpretable scenarios were preferred, some of which were beyond any probability. One example scenario , known as the Board of Carnead , was that after a ship went down, a piece of driftwood would keep you afloat. Another shipwrecked man swims up, but there is not enough driftwood to carry both of them. What is the applicant doing? If he rejects the other, he could obviously accept the killing of another person. If he said he would sacrifice himself and leave the driftwood to the other, the answer was obviously implausible. If he said that a fight would ensue, the applicant was either assumed to be trying to evade an answer, or else he should take a position as to whether he accepted the killing of the other in the course of the fight. However, it was judicially determined that the willingness to provide personal self-defense and emergency aid must not be interpreted to the disadvantage of the applicant and does not reduce the credibility of a decision of conscience.

When, with the abolition of oral hearings, the duration of community service was increased from 16 to 20 months (military service lasted 15 months at the time), it was argued that the duration of military service, including later military exercises, could well be 20 months, which was only the case in exceptional cases. The same reasoning was also recently put forward for the shortening of community service to 9 months.

In parts of society, it was always considered alarming that a conscientious objector had to prove that he would suffer serious mental damage if he were to do military service with a weapon against his conscience (and on that occasion kill another person). On the other hand, it was postulated that a normal soldier would not have to suffer such damage, which, however, contradicted the reality of combat . In the 1970s and early 1980s, some groups therefore repeatedly suggested an analog test for soldiers, in which the prospective recruits were supposed to credibly demonstrate that they could kill people without any psychological problems, otherwise they would not be suitable for military service with weapons .

Reasons for recognition

In several fundamental judgments, the Federal Constitutional Court initially defined the concept of conscience, which is central to the KDV basic right, but is scientifically highly controversial . For example, judgment 12/54 stated that conscience is "... as always justifiable, but in any case really tangible psychological phenomenon [...] whose demands, admonitions and warnings are immediately evident imperatives of unconditional ought." September 1958 specified: Conscience is "... an internally originally existing conviction of right and wrong and the resulting obligation of the person concerned to act or refrain from certain actions."

According to BVerfGE 12, 45 , 55, “... every serious, moral, i.e. H. to consider a decision based on the categories of ' good ' and ' bad ', which the individual experiences in a certain situation as binding for himself and unconditionally binding, so that he could not act against it without serious conscience. "

In another landmark judgment on December 17, 1970, the Federal Administrative Court only recognized a decision of conscience based on an absolute prohibition of killing as covered by Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. Situation-related, political and historical reasons for a KDV application are also possible decisions of conscience, but are not sufficient if the applicant affirms the use of weapons against people at risk of death in other situations. Then the decision of conscience "is not determined by the moral demand for unconditional respect for human life."

A credible refusal of any military service that has matured in a certain situation and is justified by this, however, is permissible under Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. The KDV basic right applies not only to pacifists in principle, but also to people who cannot (no longer) reconcile military service in a current situation with their conscience and who cite historical-political reasons for doing so. However, it does not recognize the purely politically justified rejection of a certain war, a certain type of war or a war with certain types of weapons.

The mere assertion that one's own conscience prohibits military service is not enough. Religious reasons are also insufficient. For example, the belief and fear of going to hell for killing people in war were not recognized. On the other hand, religion can be very important for the conscience-building process that must be presented in the context of the application. At the time of the division of Germany , it was also not accepted that one could face one's own relatives and might have to kill them.

For recognition, the applicant must credibly demonstrate that he would suffer “irreparable mental damage” and “break his personality” if he had to kill a person “as a soldier”. In contrast, personal self-defense (which is differentiated from the collective self-defense that a soldier is forced into) is acceptable. Both in personal self-defense (attack on one's own life) and in personal emergency aid (e.g. attack on girlfriend / boyfriend) the killing of the attacker can be accepted without breaking one's own personality. The same applies if, as a civilian, one kills an enemy soldier who is behaving illegally in the event of war ( Geneva Conventions ). Ultimately, the actual conscience is irrelevant. The refusal of personal self-defense or the unwillingness to value the life of a perpetrator more highly than that of the victim was interpreted in individual cases in such a way that the applicant was not credible.

At the latest since the Bundeswehr major Florian Pfaff successfully refused to participate indirectly in the Iraq war, it has also been possible, for reasons of conscience, to refuse to participate in actions considered particularly reprehensible. This includes the appeal of active soldiers to Article 26 of the Basic Law, which expressly forbids the Federal Republic of any war of aggression and any participation in it. Here, too, the prerequisite is that the reasons for conscience - in this case: the change in conscience - are clearly explained.

Development of the KDV applications

From the introduction of compulsory military service (1956) to 1968, only a small minority of those born in conscription applied for KDV. This was consistently disapproved of by society as a questionable deviation from the norm. One of the first conscientious objectors in the post-war period, on April 10, 1957, was 19-year-old Werner Zrenner from Munich. Even his father, Leander Zrenner, as a member of the Reform Adventists, refused to do military service for biblical reasons in 1941 and was executed in Brandenburg-Görden in August of the same year. Community service was only introduced in 1961. The number of conscientious objectors rose slowly from 1967 onwards.

In 1968, 11,952, twice as many KDV applications were submitted as in the previous year with 5,963. At the same time, four times as many soldiers refused to do military service as in 1967; many publicly burned their military passes and refused to give orders. In 1969 the Federal Office of Administration tried to barrack the conscientious objectors in Schwarmstedt, among other places . At that time, those doing community service were still living with the offices. After a nationwide strike by community service workers at Easter , the office gave up its plan. Gradually, the number of people doing community service increased who slept at home and only traveled to work - like other people to work. In addition, those doing community service could choose the institution in which they wanted to do their service themselves.

In 1972 33,792 KDV applications were made: as many as in the first ten years of compulsory military service. Situation-related arguments, such as criticism of the Vietnam War , the Cold War and the North-South conflict , increased considerably. KDV was now often seen as a means of politicizing the younger generation. This had significant effects on the internal leadership of the Bundeswehr under the social-liberal coalition (1969–1982).

Only in 1974 and 1975 the number of applications fell slightly before it jumped again in 1977: After the government temporarily suspended the application process and allowed simple deregistration from military service by postcard, 69,969 postcard applications were submitted. After the reform was repealed by the Federal Constitutional Court ruling, the number of applications fell in 1978 to the level of 1976, only to increase from then on. Until 1983 they were around ten percent of a sample year. In 1983, 66,583 applications were submitted. After the civil service was extended, the number fell to 44,014 in 1984. For those born between 1957 and 1966, the KDV was now a socially recognized behavior.

In 1991 during the Second Gulf War and the associated protests, 151,212, almost twice as many KDV applications were submitted as in 1990. Since then, the KDV has finally been regarded as an ordinary "mass phenomenon" (Hans-Georgräder).

year Total applications
1956-1961 14,947
1962 04,489
1963 03,311
1964 02,777
1965 03,437
1966 04,431
1967 05,963
1968 11,952
1969 14,420
1977 69,969
1983 66,334
1989 77,400
1990 74,569
1991 151.2120

In the period from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2012, the responsible authorities received a total of 1,179,691 applications for recognition as KDV. Of these, 31,985 were applications from soldiers.

KDV advice

Advice for conscientious objectors is offered by several organizations, including the German Peace Society - United Conscientious Objectors , which also supports total conscientious objectors . The Central Office for Law and Protection of Conscientious Objectors e. V. (Central Office KDV) was dissolved at the end of 2014.

In the EKD , conscientious objectors have been advised and supported by the Evangelical Working Group on Conscientious Objection and Peace (EAK) since 1956 . The EAK is an amalgamation of regional and free church commissioners for questions of conscientious objection and peace building, which is represented in the church districts with a broad network of several hundred mostly volunteer advisors. Conscientious objection counseling is also offered by the Catholic group Pax Christi .

Attitude of the churches

For a long time the Roman Catholic Church faced conscientious objection to military service with strong reservations because, according to its theological tradition of a just defensive war, it assumed military service. Conscientious objection was therefore seen as an expression of an error that could nonetheless be morally permissible. The modern means of mass destruction , however, call into question the possibility of any proportionate war aimed at peace with the enemy. Under this impression, a more differentiated attitude has emerged since the 1950s. The pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes , published at the Second Vatican Council , spoke out in 1965 for the legal protection of those conscientious objectors who are "ready for another form of service for the human community."

Initially, the EKD largely rejected the rearmament of West Germany; In 1950, the EKD's Brotherhood Council called on all Protestant Christians in East and West to conscientious objection to military service. The Synods of Weißensee in 1950 and of Elbingerode in 1952 promised conscientious objectors conscientious objection to church help and intercession. In addition, since 1956 the EKD has refused to limit a recognized decision of conscience to an absolute ban on killing and has repeatedly called for the examination of conscience to be abolished. With the Heidelberg Theses in 1959, however, it recognized compulsory military service and the NATO concept of military deterrence in principle, as well as the renunciation of weapons, as compatible with the Christian faith. However, she underlined the provisional nature of this defense strategy, which is also based on nuclear weapons, legitimate only within the framework of a peace policy aimed at international disarmament agreements . After heated debates about the NATO double resolution , this position was renewed again in 1982.

In 1982 the churches of the Reformed Covenant rejected not only the use, but also the provision, production and trade in weapons of mass destruction and declared this position to be a non-negotiable Christian decision of faith (“No without any yes”). Since then, conscientious objection to military service has been considered the “clearer sign” of Christian peace service. Today the World Council of Churches largely shares this attitude . As early as 1975, this had called on its member churches to declare their willingness to renounce the protection of weapons to their governments.

After the Second World War, the Mennonites returned to their previous pacifist attitude, which they had given up under the pressure of persecution during the Nazi era. In the 1950s, they strongly criticized German rearmament and the nuclear arms race. The German Mennonite Peace Committee, founded in 1956 by the Working Group of Mennonite Congregations, has since advised conscientious objectors and supports peace projects.

Conscientious objection since the suspension of compulsory military service

Even with the suspension of general conscription, conscientious obsolescence did not become obsolete, since conscription was not abolished, but merely suspended.

The military service with the weapon can continue according to Art. 4 para. 3 GG refused and applied for at the District Armed Forces Replacement Office (since November 30, 2012 career center of the Bundeswehr ). The Federal Office for Family and Civil Society Tasks (BAFzA), formerly the Federal Office for Civilian Service, decides on the application .

Conscripts who have been recognized as conscientious objectors must, in the event of tension or defense , perform civilian service outside the Bundeswehr instead of military service as alternative service according to Article 12a, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law ( Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the KDVG). After § 53 ZDG is service escape prosecution.

In the decades before the suspension of compulsory military service, military justice was discussed in the Federal Republic of Germany, and civil service was called for as a peace service. The debate finally led to the suspension of compulsory military service in 2011. Since then, there has been voluntary military service , the civil service obligation for recognized conscientious objectors no longer applies in peacetime.

Against the suspension of compulsory military service, the dependency of many social institutions on community service providers as committed and cheap labor was emphasized. As an alternative to compulsory military service, a general social compulsory year (“compulsory service”) was considered, but not implemented, before the suspension of compulsory military service. In 2011, the Federal Volunteer Service took the place of civilian service and as a supplement to the already existing voluntary service . The recognized community service positions are continued as deployment sites for the federal voluntary service.

After 78,387 people had been called up for community service in 2010, the number of federal volunteers nationwide in February 2017 was 43,504.

Political and social aspects played a role in the debates, but hardly the moral and ethical examination of any use of armed force originally intended by Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. Foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr lead to more KDV applications for a short time, but not to a socially effective opposition to the redefinition of national defense , which was not originally covered by the Basic Law.

As long as conscription is suspended in Germany, conscientious objection is only of practical significance for active soldiers.

Conscientious objection by active soldiers

The application for conscientious objection can be made not only before military service, but also by anyone who is already in active military service as a soldier.

Anyone who is called upon to provide a service in accordance with Section 4 of the Soldiers Act (e.g. for a military exercise) must be dismissed if their application for conscientious objection is recognized. ( § 75 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 SG ) he loses his rank . ( § 76 Abs. 3 S. 1 SG ) This regulation applies accordingly to voluntary military service according to § 58b SG . ( Section 58h (1) SG ) In the event of tension and defense, a person doing military service according to Section 4 (1) WPflG with loss of rank ( Section 30 (2 ) sentence 1 WPflG ) is also to be dismissed, unless he is transferred to community service . ( Section 29 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 No. 6 WPflG )

Professional soldiers can request their release at any time. ( Section 46 (3 ) SG ) Therefore, conscientious objection is rather rare among this status group. The refusal of certain orders (e.g. participation in a special foreign assignment ) for reasons of conscience occurs very rarely .

A soldier on a temporary basis can only be dismissed on his application if remaining in service would mean particular hardship for him . ( Section 55 (3 ) SG ) Temporary soldiers are generally bound to the period of service to which they have voluntarily committed. It is therefore a common method used by temporary soldiers who still want to be released earlier to apply for conscientious objection. If this is successful, the soldier is to be dismissed for a period of time ( Section 55 (1) No. 1 in conjunction with Section 46 (3 ) SG ), whereby the reasoning for the application is increased due to the previous voluntary obligation to serve in the armed forces Requirements are made. A serious conscience must be credibly demonstrated. This can either be caused by a key experience or a longer intensive process of change. As a matter of principle, the temporary soldier loses all entitlements to professional advancement and service time provision under the Soldier Supply Act ; Costs for civilian usable training or studies are to be reimbursed. This is usually between 8,000 and 40,000 euros.

From July 2011 to June 2014, 115 soldiers applied for conscientious objection (13 of them were women).

literature

Imperial and Weimar periods

  • Claus Bernet: Conscientious Objection in the 19th Century. In: Military and Society in the Early Modern Era. 12, 2, 2008, pp. 204–222 ( online (PDF); PDF; 2.0 MB)
  • Helmut Kramer , Wolfram Wette : What is right is what helps the gun. Justice and Pacifism in the 20th Century. Structure, Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-351-02578-5 .

Nazi era

  • Karsten Bredemeier: Conscientious objection in the Third Reich. Selected examples. Nomos, 1991, ISBN 3-7890-2446-5 .
  • Peter Brock: Conscientious objectors in Nazi Germany. In: Peter Brock (Ed.): Challenge to Mars. Essays on pacifism from 1918 to 1945. Toronto 1999, pp. 370-379.
  • Detlef Garbe : "You shouldn't kill". Conscientious objector 1939–1945. In: Norbert Haase, Gerhard Paul (ed.): The other soldiers. Destruction of military strength, refusal to obey and desertion in World War II. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2002, ISBN 3-596-12769-6 .
  • Norbert Haase: conscientious objectors and deserters of Protestant faith as victims of the armed forces justice. In: Harald Schultze (Ed.): "Your end looks at ..." Evangelical martyrs of the 20th century. Leipzig 2006, pp. 115–125.
  • Daniel Heinz: Conscientious objector and religious pacifist: The Anton Brugger case and the attitude of the Seventh-day Adventists in the Third Reich. in: Yearbook Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance. 1996, pp. 41-56.
  • Arno Huth (Ed.): Lila Winkel, history of a remarkable resistance. During the Nazi era, Jehovah's Witnesses were believers, conscientious objectors, and concentration camp prisoners. Neckarelz 2003.
  • Horst Schmidt: Death always came on Mondays. Persecuted as a conscientious objector under National Socialism. Klartext, 2003, ISBN 3-89861-201-5 .
  • Dietrich von Raumer: Jehovah's Witnesses as conscientious objectors: A sad chapter in the armed forces justice. In: Hubert Roser (Ed.): Resistance as Confession. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Nazi regime in Baden-Württemberg. Konstanz 1999, pp. 181-220.

GDR

  • Torsten Diedrich (Hrsg.): Handbook of the armed organs of the GDR. Augsburg 2004.
  • Bernd Eisenfeld : Conscientious objection in the GDR. A peace service? Genesis, questioning, analysis, documents. Haag + Herchen, 1999, ISBN 3-88129-158-X .
  • Uwe Koch, Stefan Eschler: Put your teeth up, grit your head. On the history of conscientious objection in the GDR. Barn, 1994, ISBN 3-929370-14-X .
  • Klemens Richter : The refusal of arms service in the GDR. ARB-WK 10/79. Ed .: Catholic Working Group on Development and Peace, Commission Justitia et Pax in the FRG. Self-published, Bonn 1979.

Federal Republic in general

Law

  • Patrick Bernhard: Conscientious objection by postcard. A failed reform project of the social-liberal coalition 1969–1978 . In: VfZ , 53, 2005, pp. 109-139; ifz-muenchen.de (PDF; 7.2 MB)
  • Hans-Theo Brecht: Conscientious objection and community service. Conscientious Objection Act, Civilian Service Act. Legal texts with explanations. 5th edition. Beck, 2004, ISBN 3-406-51674-2 .
  • Ulrich Daum, Werner Forkel: Basic judgments on conscientious objection. A representation of the right to conscientious objection as of January 1, 1984. Munich 1984, ISBN 3-923103-00-X .

Christian ethics

  • Josef Griesbeck: Military service, no thanks. A decision of conscience. Kösel, 1990, ISBN 3-466-36080-3 .
  • Wolfgang Krücken: Conscientious objection. Political-ethical-theological memories and considerations on an unresolved problem. Dissertations theological series Volume 23. EOS, Archabbey St. Ottilien 1987, ISBN 3-88096-823-3 .

Humanistic ethics (agnostics, atheists)

KDV advice

  • Christian Bartolf: My conscience says no. Selected reasons given by conscientious objectors. Wichern, 1996, ISBN 3-88981-090-X .
  • Dietrich Bäuerle: conscientious objector. Fears, help, perspectives. Fischer TB, 1982, ISBN 3-596-24237-1 .
  • Jan Brauns, Hans Decruppe, Stephan Eschler: Conscientious objection. A guide. Bund Verlag, 1996, ISBN 3-7663-2540-X .
  • Hans Bubenzer (translated by Irina Larionowa-Lange): How do I refuse military service: In Russian. German Peace Society-United War Service Opponents , 2000, ISBN 3-922319-26-2 .
  • Uwe Erdmann, Markus Ermert, Matthias Kittmann: Refuse military service. Klartext, 1995, ISBN 3-88474-244-2 .
  • Jo Krummacher, Hendrik Hefermehl: Advice for conscientious objectors. 6th edition. Radius, 1996, ISBN 3-87173-041-6 .
  • Bernd Oberschachtsiek: Active against olive. Conscientious Objectors' Guide. 2nd, revised edition. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Cologne 1998, ISBN 3-462-02535-X .
  • Klaus J. Puzicha, Adelheid Meißner: … among the soldiers? Young men between the armed forces and conscientious objection. VS, 1981, ISBN 3-8100-0316-6 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Günter Hahnenfeld: Conscientious objection. Rev Decker's Verlag, G. Schenck, 1966, p. 24
  2. ↑ Wolfgang Huber: War, military service, conscientious objection. In: Evangelisches Staatslexikon. Volume I. 3rd edition. Kreuz, Stuttgart 1987, ISBN 3-7831-0810-1
  3. ↑ Helmut Donat, Karl Holl: The Peace Movement: Organized Pacifism in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Econ, 1983, ISBN 3-612-10024-6 , p. 237
  4. ^ Gerhard Danzer: Rosa Luxemburg - by profession world improvers. In: Gerhard Danzer (Ed.): Europe, your women: Contributions to a female cultural history. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2014, p. 270
  5. ↑ Without us (magazine for total denial), issue 3–4 / July 1993: Justice and Pacifism
  6. ↑ International Mission Society of the SDA / Reformation Movement e. V. - Deutsche Union (Ed.): You collect my tears: Witnesses of faith in National Socialism . Edelsteinverlag, 2014, ISBN 3-933032-59-8 , excursus pp. 15–33
  7. ^ Karl Holl: Pacifism in Germany. edition suhrkamp 1333, Frankfurt am Main 1988, p. 146f.
  8. ↑ Eberhard Röhm: Dying for Peace. Calwer, Stuttgart 1985, p. 213
  9. ↑ G. Grünewald: Conscientious objection. In: Hermes Handlexikon (Ed .: Helmut Donat , Karl Holl ): The peace movement. Econ, Düsseldorf 1983, ISBN 3-612-10024-6 , pp. 236-239
  10. ↑ Harald Schultze, Andreas Kurschat, Claudia Bendick (eds.): "" Your end looks at - ": Protestant martyrs of the 20th century." Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006, ISBN 3-374-02370-3 , p. 92, fn. 11; follows Hans Fleschutz: And follow their faith! Memorial book for the martyrs of the Seventh-day Adventist Reformation Movement. Evidence of loyalty and steadfastness from Germany's dark days. 1967, pp. 12-18
  11. ↑ International Mission Society of the SDA / Reformation Movement e. V. - Deutsche Union (Ed.): You collect my tears: Witnesses of faith in National Socialism. Edelsteinverlag, 2014, ISBN 978-3-933032-59-1 , pp. 79–89 and 145–153
  12. ^ Karsten Bredemeier: Conscientious objection in the Third Reich. Nomos, Baden-Baden 1991, ISBN 3-7890-2446-5 , p. 200 f.
  13. ↑ Karsten Bredemeier: Conscientious Objection in the Third Reich , 1991, pp. 136–141.
  14. ↑ Gerd R. Ueberschär : For another Germany. The German resistance against the Nazi state 1933–1945. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2006, p. 108 ff.
  15. ↑ Eberhard Röhm: Dying for Peace. Calwer, Stuttgart 1985, ISBN 3-7668-0783-8 , p. 167.
  16. ↑ Hans Prolingheuer, Thomas Breuer: The leader obedient: Christians to the front. Publik Forum 2005, ISBN 3-88095-147-0 , pp. 121-140
  17. ↑ Eberhard Bethge: Dietrich Bonhoeffer. A biography. Christian Kaiser, Munich 1967, ISBN 3-459-01182-3 , pp. 130 and 451
  18. ^ Eberhard Busch: Karl Barth's curriculum vitae. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin 1979, p. 267 and p. 489, fn. 142
  19. ↑ Hans Prolingheuer, Thomas Breuer: The leader obedient: Christians to the front. 2005, pp. 257-260
  20. ^ Jürgen Kuhlmann, Ekkehard Lipper: Conscientious objection and community service in the Federal Republic of Germany. (PDF) In: SOWI working paper No. 49.1991 , accessed on September 13, 2019 .
  21. ↑ Wolfgang Borchert: Then there is only one! Say no!
  22. ↑ quoted from Ulrich Albrecht: The rearmament of the Federal Republic. Pahl-Rugenstein, Cologne 1980, ISBN 3-7609-0547-1 , p. 40
  23. ↑ BVerfGE 12, 45 , 56.
  24. ↑ Example of a sample refusal
  25. ↑ Source withdrawal at KarrCBw ( Memento from April 28, 2017 in the Internet Archive )
  26. ↑ Wolfgang Huber: War, military service, conscientious objection. Sp. 1879
  27. ^ Franz W. Seidler, Helmut Reindl: Conscription, conscientious objection, community service, military justice. "Controversial" series, Federal Agency for Civic Education, Bonn 1973
  28. ↑ Wolfgang Huber: War, military service, conscientious objection. Sp. 1881
  29. ↑ Example: Peter Schildt: Why refusal of military service? Die Zeit, November 6, 1970
  30. ↑ Article conscientious objector. In: Creifeld's legal dictionary. 18th edition. Beck, Munich 2004, p. 801
  31. ↑ Münchner Abendzeitung from April 11, 1957
  32. ↑ International Mission Society of the SDA / Reformation Movement e. V. - (Ed.): You collect my tears: Witnesses of faith in National Socialism. Edelsteinverlag, 2014, ISBN 978-3-933032-59-1 , p. 93
  33. ^ Bernhard Fleckenstein (BpB From Politics and Contemporary History 21/2005): 50 Years of the Bundeswehr
  34. ↑ Recognition practice of the Federal Office for Family and Civil Society Tasks with regard to applications for conscientious objection by soldiers (PDF) BT printed matter 17/12632 of March 6, 2013
  35. ↑ Bernd Oberschachtsiek (dfg-vk): Conscientious objection and community service. A literature review for advisors, multipliers and conscientious objectors ( memento from October 24, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  36. ↑ Central Office for Law and Protection of Conscientious Objectors
  37. ↑ Decade Against Violence ( Memento from July 29, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  38. ↑ Conscientious objection ( memento from March 25, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) For social life e. V., accessed on March 24, 2017
  39. ↑ Conscientious objection to military service website of the BAFzA, accessed on March 24, 2017
  40. ↑ Philipp Neumann: Federal Office for Community Service: An authority is looking for its raison d'etre Die Welt , January 19, 2011
  41. ^ Suspension of general conscription decided on text archive of the German Bundestag , 2011
  42. ↑ Voluntary military service and federal voluntary service. Overview and details (PDF) Hamburg Chamber of Crafts, 2011
  43. ↑ Malfunctions in the Federal Voluntary Service (PDF) BT-Drucksache 17/8668 from February 13, 2012
  44. ↑ Call- ups for civil service / number of call-ups 1961 - 2011 (PDF) Federal Office for Family and Civil Society Tasks, as of 2012
  45. ↑ BFD on duty in February 2017 ( memento from March 25, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Federal Office for Family and Civil Society Tasks, as of February 28, 2017
  46. ↑ a b Drucksache 18/2356: Answer of the Federal Government to the small question of the MPs Katrin Kunert, Jan Korte, Christine Buchholz, other MPs and the parliamentary group DIE LINKE - Drucksache 18/2247 - Recognition practice of the Federal Office for Family and civil society tasks in applications Conscientious objection by soldiers. (PDF) In: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/ . German Bundestag - 18th electoral term, August 15, 2014, accessed on August 29, 2019 .