[Review] Ole Nymoen - Why I would never Fight for my Country - On the Relationship between State and Population

Siehe auch:
[Rezension] Ole Nymoen - Warum ich niemals für mein Land kämpfen würde - Über das Verhältnis Staat-Bevölkerung

Ole Nymoen is a journalist and author. Nymoen publishes with Jacobin and Wohlstand für Alle (Prosperity for Everyone) among others. His book "Why I Would Never Fight for My Country - Against Warfare Capability" was published in 2025 following an article in Die Zeit. The book's starting point is the debate surrounding rearmament and the reintroduction of conscription in Germany.

Nymoen criticizes the promotion of warfare capability instead of merely defense capability. For him a state's security and defense interests do not necessarily align with the interests of its citizens. Consequently he questions the population's willingness to defend themselves and even their own country. The book is divided into three parts. In the second part Nymoen explains why war is pointless for individuals based on what they lose. And in the third part Nymoen addresses readers' letters and criticisms of his arguments.

Justifications

Nymoen neither rejects nor condemns loving ones own country. However he observes that it is irrelevant to a region who governs over its population. Furthermore the composition of a country is usually not determined by the consent of its population and does not necessarily suit its inhabitants but is the result of long historical development. Therefore the population of a region may have more in common with the population of a neighboring country than with the population of another region within the same country. Moreover the individual does not choose their nation at birth. Nymoen also rejects the idea of the nation as a community of shared destiny. In his view the population is divided into rich and poor, into losers and beneficiaries of the prevailing order. [1, p.77-82]

According to Nymoen a state's security needs are not the same as the security needs of its population. Government and the entire population, therefore do not exist in symbiosis. And Nymoen thus questions how far a government is from authoritarianism if it nevertheless assumes such a symbiosis. Accordingly the description of one country attacking another is incorrect. Instead it should be described that a country's government orders or forces its own soldiers to do things specifically to fight. [1, p.83-89]

Moral discrediting of the opposing side as well as proclaiming democracy and liberal values are common tools in the political debate. While Nymoen acknowledges the conflict between his position and a threat like National Socialism he insists on how exceptional such a situation is. And this comparison has been and continues to be used far too often especially when it is inappropriate. Nymoen therefore warns against comparisons with National Socialism and against justifying war by invoking the threat of it. Decisions in favor of democracy and liberal values or in favor of democracies or liberal states are in Nymoen's view just as contrived and not to be taken seriously. This becomes particularly clear when a government sides with democracies in conflicts while simultaneously supporting and even supplying weapons to dictatorships. For Nymoen this is a clear indication of deception. [1, p.90-96, 97-100]

Den Krieg ist nicht falsch, weil er verboten ist. Er ist falsch, weil er einige wenige Menschen über die Leichenberge anderer gehen können, um ihre Interessen durchzusetzen.

War is not wrong because it is forbidden. It is wrong because it allows a select few to trample over the corpses of others to advance their own interests. [1, p.110]

For Nymoen war is wrong as he explains several times in the book. But he rejects the justification of war against war that violates international law. Nymoen rejects politicians invoking international law as he sees it as a quasi-moral court of appeal. The crucial point is who violates international law so that the violation can be condemned. This is why states repeatedly violate international law by waging war yet only condemn others for doing so. [1, p.101-110]

Criticism

Nymoen describes criticism leveled against him according to which he should be grateful for the existing freedoms. This freedom allows Nymoen's criticism and therefore this criticism is simultaneously rendered unnecessary. [1, p.116-120]

Wäre dieser Artikel unter russischer Fremdherrschaft geschrieben worden, hätte er mindestens 15 Jahre Lagerhaft für den Autor zur Konsequenz. So gesehen, wäre sie vielleicht sogar erstrebenswert.

Had this article been written under Russian occupation it would have resulted in at least 15 years of imprisonment for the author. From that perspective this might even be desirable. [1, p.116]

Implicitly a government is being outlined in which the form of criticism Nymoen presents is not permitted. The question is how much worth defending such a government is in which such criticism is not allowed. And since both governments with and without this freedom of expression mobilize their populations in a crisis Nymoen refuses to fight for this freedom. [1, p.116-120]

[Review] Ole Nymoen - Why I would never Fight for my Country - On Manipulation for Mobilization

Src:
[1] Ole Nymoen - Warum ich niemals für mein Land kämpfen würde - Gegen die Kriegstüchtigkeit - ISBN 978-3-499-01755-1
[2] Jacobin - Ole Nymoen
https://www.jacobin.de/autoren/ole-nymoen
[3] Wohlstand für Alle
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRprqV4FxwrWQJbZ0VLFS_g
[4] Ich, für Deutschland kämpfen? Never!
https://www.zeit.de/2024/32/wehrpflicht-deutschland-kaempfen-junge-menschen-bundeswehr