Fighting for Germany?

This is a very personal text. To start right at the beginning of my family’s history: In my grandparents’ living room hung the certificate of the Königgrätz Order. The order itself is unfortunately lost.

The certificate proves that my ancestors have demonstrably served Prussia at least since 1866 and due to family knowledge it is proven that they served in all subsequent different Germanys in all wars. They were not noble, but petty bourgeois, served as simple soldiers to their respective emperor, king, or leader. Königgrätz, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and of course the First and Second World Wars. An unbroken line of German soldiers can be traced for over more than 150 years, even if only the external parameters are known and it is unfortunately no longer continuously verifiable in what function the respective ancestors served.

This German family history is nevertheless marked by familial conflicts. For example, while my great-uncle was a convinced Nazi and as a member of the Waffen-SS even served loyally to the Führer until the Battle of Berlin, and my maternal grandfather had already been deployed with the Luftwaffe and the so-called “Legion Condor” to Spain since 1933, my direct paternal grandfather was a convinced communist. He explicitly did not serve the Führer but found his loophole as a conscientious objector in the role of stoker at the Reichsbahn. A war-essential activity that spared him the oath to the Führer and killing and dying at the front.

All of this also made me what I am today. I am trapped in my time and its respective unshakeable convictions, serve my country loyally, and yet always have the spark of skepticism within me that constantly flares up questioning: Is what I am doing right? A soldier should always ask himself that. Killing and perhaps also dying are harsh consequences that one imposes on oneself and others. It is the ultima ratio of human existence. Am I killing meaningfully? Is this killing unavoidable and thus necessary and just? And if it comes to one’s own dying: Is it worth it? Am I giving my life for a goal that could not otherwise be achieved and that is worth my life?

As a German in the Federal Republic of Germany, it is superficially simple. This country struggles with the military and that is good. It does not demand of its soldiers lightly to kill – not for power or for an idiotic idea of the master race. I particularly find it relieving that a German soldier today fights alongside and for soldiers of nations against which my ancestors once waged war. My ancestors killed Austrians, Spaniards, Frenchmen. Today I feel deep satisfaction at the thought that I could stand up for the freedom of Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, by fighting there together with Englishmen, Americans, Frenchmen, and Italians against all those who deny the people there their right to self-determination. I am a true and convinced European.

Never before has it been easier for a German to fight. Seemingly…. Looking back at my family’s past, there has never been a better reason to fight for the German nation in history. Yet this time the doubt arises elsewhere. Standing up for Germany and thus for the freedom and self-determination of Europe against aggressors, occupiers, and indoctrinated soldiers is a matter of course. I, we, every soldier gladly defends that. And still a question arises that in the past only my paternal grandfather asked (and decided negatively): Is it worth for?

For a soldier, one can approach the question of the meaning of own actions from two sides: Is it worth fighting AGAINST something? And: Is it worth fighting FOR something? This is often seen undifferentiated. Generally said: One fights for the free democratic community of values against autocratic regimes when they attack us. That already sounds a bit complicated. Am I really ready to shoot a Russian in the head for the “free democratic basic order”? Or to have my legs blown off in a minefield? For an abstract idea?

Dictators and autocrats make it simpler for their soldiers. The slogans are congruent. With Mao it was: “The power of the people comes out of the gun barrels.” With the Nazis it was “People to the rifles.” Central terms are also undifferentiated. Hitler had himself called “Führer,” Mao was called “Great Leader,” and a Mr. Dzhugashvili had himself called “Stalin” – the Man of Steel – in Russia. Simple images, tangible terms, pride and honor. Attack and defense? No essential question in consistent thought systems. Even one who attacks and (like the Russians in Ukraine) conquers foreign land thus always sees himself defending own interests. The Rusians see themselves liberating oppressed Russian minorities. Or take Hitler, who told his people to create living space in the East. In the end, all aggressors tell their people that they are all defenders, even when they attack.

This our present-day Germany makes it very simple for its soldiers to explain what one fights against but not so simple in the question of what one fights for. Is our own country worth fighting for it? This Germany affords the luxury of complicating things. Out of the deep conviction that this is the best Germany we have ever had and that freedom is the highest good and democracy the best of all forms of government, it logically assumes that the willingness to defend of the Germans will somehow be there. If not for this Germany, then for what? Never have we had it so comfortable and never been so free as today. That is worth fighting for, right? This willingness to defend is thus assumed to be strong and unshakeable. At the same time, we see statistics in which many express that they are precisely not ready to fight for this Germany. Politicians are puzzled by this gap between this very good nation and the lack of will to fight for it.

For a soldier, that is not as self-evident as it seems.

But it is quite simple. Typical for this state is that there is really no single topic on which all Germans agree. There is no fact in this republic that is not criticized and despised by a vocal opposition. No construction project without resistance. No omitted construction project without the mockery of the progress believers. One can continue this endlessly, no matter which area of society one looks at. Up to national symbols. Is our flag still a symbol of our country or a campaign instrument of the Russophile “Alternative for Germany”? If it is an alternative for Germany, why do they then use the symbol whose content is the opposite of what this alternative wants? Or fundamentally: who owns our language? Those who attach a gender asterisk to everything or those who find that repugnant? Nothing in this country is unambiguous and clear anymore. Everything diffuse. Everything has a for and against.

The compromise is then stylized as the crown of democracy. I asked the AI: “Name a typical adjective fitting for compromise.” The answer: “A typical adjective for ‘compromise’ is ‘rotten’. (sic!) A compromise can also be ‘fair’ but it is always a deviation from a clear decision. Where a compromise is not possible because one can only either-or execute – there tolerance reigns. If a compromise solution is not possible, two solutions exist side by side and each side should accept the respective other. A good idea actually. Live and let live.

But a soldier is not there for that. He kills where tolerance and compromise are not possible, but violence reigns. But does this soldier then also have the will for it? Is a German soldier sure of his cause? Especially when one often senses that many people in our own country despise their own soldiers. Should one encourage children to serve this country even though they become hunted by drugged junkies at Frankfurt train station if they dare to travel in uniform by train?

And this absurdity is cultivated, is even an immanent part of our own military communication culture. “We also fight so that you can be against us” is such a glaring cognitive dissonance. The own military leadership demands of soldiers to be able to fight, so that they are booed for it. Because that is tolerant. Or: “Be able to fight to not have to fight!” Young conscripts should now do a backward flip in defense policy, become war-capable again, to precisely not do what they will soon be barracked for.

This demands a lot of German soldiers. They are not given a simple answer that strengthens their will to kill. How simple the Russians have it by contrast. For decades they have been drilled that the West is tightening the noose around the proud Russian people to finally crush it. Every Russian advance into western countries is not an illegal war of aggression, but a liberation strike against the subversive and decadent West. It is the same old nonsense as the GDR was trained to believe in a capitalistic attack. No one in the free west prepared for that. Today’s narrative: Slavic brothers and sisters must be liberated. As once to the indigenous peoples of America, “Uncle Sam” has given the original Slavic peoples in Europe the firewater of capitalism. Drunk on prosperity, many Slavs have forgotten who and what they are. These people the Russian soldier liberates when he marches through Ukraine and probably soon through Poland or Georgia. That is simple and easily understandable for a Russian soldier.

Germany, on the other hand, affords cultivating contradictions, defining criticism of its own state and own society as an expression of openness, tolerating moral opposites, paying homage to individualism, and at the same time demanding of its citizens to kill and die for this thicket of questions and shortcomings. Obviously it has never been harder to be a German soldier. None of my ancestors had to deal with such things. The enemy was hated, the soldier was loved. The fallen were commemorated. “Died for us.”

Like Jesus on the cross, the dying of German soldiers was understood as “service to the others.” It is another absurdity that the matter of dying and the life sacrifice itself seems all the simpler the more absurd the idea behind it is, for which one dies. It seems: The dumber the idea, the easier one dies for it.

Perhaps that is exactly why it is so hard to fight for this Germany – because the country does not make it easy and does not provide the simple answer. But why is it still worth it for German soldiers to fight in Lithuania for Lithuania, in Poland for Poland, or also in Germany and risk their lives? A few fundamental justifications for that.

1. A soldier does not fight to kill or to die. Soldiers are not murderers. It is not about shooting as many enemies as possible. Someone who thinks that way cannot coldly and calculatively fulfill a military mission. An artillery strike against an enemy tank column is not carried out because one enjoys that people burn in the tank wrecks. It is about these tanks not appearing in front of one’s own positions and killing comrades there. Not fighting is then also no alternative, because avoiding fight means certain death. And no soldier wants to die that way. And most do not anyhow. The survival rate in wars is overall 70-80 percent. So it is not that one inevitably dies and no soldier goes to war to die, but to survive and return home unscathed. The soldier’s goal is to get away unscathed and as quickly as possible. My ancestors, by the way, managed that. Participated in all Prussian and German wars for over hundred years and no death toll.
2. A soldier does not primarily fight for his country, but for his comrades. All the high theories and abstract terms disappear behind the urgent necessities in the small combat community. One helps and supports each other. One shoots so that the other has a free back. No shot will be fired in Lithuania during a Russian attack for the free democratic basic order. These lofty goals from the classrooms are far away for the one lying at the alarm post at night. The shot will be fired because otherwise the Russian penetrates into one’s own positions and kills the comrades there. It is inherent to the soldier, by the way, to sacrifice himself and his own life for others. Not for a state idea, but for his comrades. Comradeship is taking oneself less importantly and helping the other. For that the soldier dies and from this idea of comradeship the soldier draws his honor.
3. A soldier fights because defeat would be horrific. Every person is ready for the fight if the consequence otherwise is defeat and one’s circumstances then change for the worse. One already fights in everyday life for the first place at the store checkout, because the alternative would be to lose five minutes in the waiting line. One fights for a good school degree because only then one has the chance for a well-paid job. A soldier fights because the alternative would otherwise be death or captivity. The mischief of war consists in irresponsible aggressors talking their population that they are being threatened and therefore having to annihilate the enemy. That is why Russia boldly attacks other countries. And because the soldiers are talked into a threat from the West, these people hate us. The western countries will then have to fight if occupation by Russia threatens and thus brings poverty and oppression. Whoever believes that one’s personal circumstances improve if one is occupied by Russians again can gladly talk to those who then belonged to the Warsaw Pact.
4. Every person is a fighter. Often in the peace society people talk about conscience. Some claim they could not reconcile it with themselves to take up arms and kill. But that applies to the very fewest. The closer and more immediate one sees oneself or one’s loved ones threatened, the more ready one is to meet the danger and willing to kill. Every father and every mother would step in if a rampager threatens their child. They would fight for sure. Anything else would be cowardice and that would be unbearable for every individual. Fighting for a country – and even better: for another country – means seeing the connection between the society surrounding one and the personal responsibility for one’s own living environment. If the danger is no longer just abstract but immediately tangible, many more people will discover the fighter in themselves. One earlier, the other later – but in the end nearly all.
5. Standing up to oneself. Fight is a test. No one of sound mind voluntarily goes into a test that is connected with the greatest consequence – killing or dying. But if the inevitability of things is given, then everyone will want to stand up to himself. Then one fights for no country and no uniform, not even anymore for one’s comrades – but only for oneself. Fight is will to survive. Whoever fights for his life is a soldier. Many in the last decades this moment only overtook on the deathbed. It is probably more honorable for every individual to stand up to oneself and take this risk also for others and voluntarily – for oneself, for one’s family, one’s community, and even if this community is a nation.

I think that these values are universal. Every soldier shares them, regardless of the time in which he lived and fought and also regardless of the nation for which he fought. That is why sincere soldiers cannot hate infinitely. That is why reconciliation over the graves of fallen comrades is always possible. Death and eternal damnation shall befall those who send their people into battle without need because they construct a threat and teach people hate. That is no longer done by present-day Germany. That is why it is worth fighting for Germany.

Is this will to fight for Germany or any other respective nation unconditional? Certainly not as it is self-referring and this self-reference is understood as the obligation to fight for the nations security only as long as this nation itself provides security to the respective servicemen. That is a very native principle, too. As Thomas Hobbes 1651 already stated in Leviathan: “The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasts by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished. The sovereignty is the soul of the Commonwealth; which, once departed from the body, the members do no more receive their motion from it.”

About The Author

Thomas Franke

Thomas Franke has been working for more than 30 years in the field of security and defense. One of the main focuses of his recent activities is the “Forum Vernetzte Sicherheit gGmbH,” which he founded. This is a news portal and network dedicated to promoting interdisciplinary exchange on all essential aspects of security.

During his work as an advisor in the German Bundestag, Franke became familiar with the concept of synergistic security. It’s NATO affiliation is the “comprehensive approach”. He adopted this approach and consistently emphasized security aspects during his numerous roles as soldier, researcher, press officer and publisher. Through this, Franke gained expertise not only in the military domain but also in financial security, corporate risk management, political and societal risks.

Among other initiatives, Franke advocates for research projects that enable a new security architecture through collaboration between civilian, governmental, and scientific actors (Public-Private Partnerships/PPPs). Until March 2021, he led a bilateral research project on security in pharmaceutical logistics, funded by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and Austria’s Ministry for Innovation and Technology (BMVIT).

Most recently, Franke is mainly focused on cognitive warfare, Enterprise Architecture Management and human performance modification for the Federal Armed Forces of Germany.

See author's posts