freedomforever wrote:People who think that anything that isn't common sense is automatically invalid and that people who hold a view that isn't common sense should be locked up / sent to the loony bin / deported / [insert punishment or sanction here]. I got the sense from certain of the posts here of this kind of position being taken towards people who haven't done or don't support army 'service', and towards people (ostensibly foreigners, probably ethnic minorities) who don't do things in what they take to be 'our way'.
[...]
I get the sense that the public arrangements in Finland would be a lot more suitable than where I am now, but it's harder to establish what the informal climate is like. My worry from the tone of people like onkko was that there might be a widespread public perception that said: psychologically different, opposed to conscription, foreign -> should be locked up / sent "home". And that this could then give rise to, shall we say administrative harassment, which might be a problem in relation to services, or if I was on a course or in work locally. Remembering that I'm especially vulnerable to this kind of thing because I often need help figuring things out - it makes a huge difference whether there's a bit of leeway or not. You guys (Jukka / Rip) give me the impression there is quite a bit of leeway. But if there's a lot of Onkkas about, or they're in powerful positions, this might be less so ;-)
The Finnish Defence Forces, as an institution, and general conscription (compulsory national service) as means of getting the manpower for running that institution, is still highly regarded by Finns and enjoys a relatively large and uniform support among the populace. In this sense, Finland is
in a minority among the other European countries; many of which have either abolished conscription or switched to a highly selective form of it.
The reasons for this
lie in history. Finland sees itself as a nation who survived two different “masters” (
Swedish Empire and the
Russian Empire),
oppression and
counteracts,
independence and a
civil war (which tore the nation into two bitterly opposed factions),
World War II (where especially in the Winter War, the Finnish Defence Forces – comprised of conscripts – did seemingly the impossible and managed to thwart the Soviets, and during which some of the wounds of the previous civil war healed due to the common combined war effort of both factions, and where Finland was saved from
the fate of the Baltic States, while still having to endure serious blows such as
the territories ceded to the Soviet Union, and having to relocate and re-settle
more than 400,000 evacuees from the said territories, not to mention the other losses), then the war reparations and the ominous
Porkkala base episode,
Cold War (where Finland had
a rather curious and delicate position between the east and the west), and finally the present day; as a member of the EU in post-Cold War Europe, no longer under Soviet threat, but still the neighbor of the Great and Sometimes Erratic Unknown; Russia.
Without having some sense of how all this history fits together (and especially if not fully understanding the primary motivating factor and fear here: the dreaded “Soviet Finland” occupation scenario – possibly the worst nightmare of Finns which would have come true had our grandpas not fought tooth and nail to prevent that from happening, and which was
still deemed halfway possible throughout the Cold War era) it is probably difficult to appreciate the Finnish popular fondness for the conscription-based military. There are many other aspects to it as well, of course; the common public image of war (and men of war) as popularized – and, to some degree, idealized and stereotyped – by Linna’s
Unknown Soldier; the newfound open appreciation of the war veterans after the SU collapsed (and it was no longer a politically touchy subject), the number of
WW2 war graves you can find in every Finnish churchyard, etc. It all adds up.
But the things you’re referring to – the tough talk about “men” and “gays” and whatnot – are part of common folklore and pro-conscription “folk propaganda” from the Cold War decades, or even from the WW2 itself or earlier, when Finland was under constant political pressure from the Soviet Union. You see, chances were we might just get attacked again, for whatever freak reason, if we didn’t play our cards right. The entire nation saw the importance of keeping prepared for that possibility by maintaining whatever military “might” we could under the watchful eye of the big eastern neighbor, while at the same time trying to keep the said neighbor happy. One part of keeping them happy was the make-believe game of being “neutral” in the East-West relations, and not even dreaming of a military alliance with any western power. Since we could not rely on outside help, it was probably felt as necessary to try and maintain as big reserve of men as possible on our own, as the only possible military deterrent we could have. The only practical way of maintaining a big reserve in a not-that-rich country, was by means of conscription – which was of course just a natural continuation of the system that had already been in place before and during the war and proved to “work”, at least to the degree we didn’t get occupied, and maintained independence.
So, in that kind of an environment, it might not be that difficult to see how we got these folksy passage-rite ideas claiming that “a boy becomes a man” by doing his military service, and whatnot. Conversely, the idea of course went that he who should fail to do the service, will never reach that desired state of manly adulthood – the one which can only be attained during the military service – forever remaining an effete weakling (or a “gay”, or whatever), instead. How much this makes sense is left as an exercise for the reader, but I think it needs to be interpreted in the historical context where this kind of thinking was promoted. (Back in those days, the only way to get in the alternative, “civilian” line of service was stepping in front of a strict “examination commission” which thoroughly “examined” and questioned your religious or ethical beliefs and then decided whether you genuinely couldn’t do the armed service, because of your moral values and obligations, or were just faking,
possibly allowing you to do the civilian service instead.)
Today, there are still people who like to repeat the above-mentioned “passage rite” slogans and genuinely feel that those who don’t do the armed service are no-good slackers who are evading their responsibility. But the kind of very strict and fervently aggressive views about these things – that you seem to be concerned about – have been losing ground ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, Cold War ended, and Finland became an EU member state. At the same time, the civilian service has become a way more common and usual choice than it once was, no longer carrying remotely the kind of stigma it once had. (Although there’s still some, and it will probably remain that way for as long as the current conscription-based system will remain in use.)
As mentioned above, due to budget cuts and changes in the political and tactical climate, the FDF has been closing down a number of garrisons in the recent years, and they have also started being more selective about the conscripts: they’re now more easily “letting go” of people who don’t want to do the traditional armed service, for one reason or the other. It is all part of the general European trend: for instance, our neighbors to the west, Sweden, have decided to abolish conscription and they are moving on to a professional army beginning from 2014.
There has been regular debate in Finnish media about what the future will bring for Finnish conscription, and whether we, too, should look into the options of joining NATO or creating a professional military force on our own. As it stands, the traditionalist view prevails, especially among “the common folks”, who support conscription quite strongly. The FDF itself seems to hold the position that professional military would be far more costly than the current system, and therefore wouldn’t be an improvement. Generally, the experts suggest that manpower (which conscription-based military certainly gives) is no longer the “key” in future wars, like it perhaps was in the WW2, so preparing for the re-enacment of WW2 is not sensible. But there are also opposing views (usually having something to do with guerrilla tactics etc.)
When talking about this subject, it should be kept in mind that in Finnish experience, and Finnish public discussion, conscription is not “just a duty” but also a “shared experience” between most of your own generation, and also the generations before and after you. Since it has traditionally been an experience shared by a rather large percentage of men, there is lots of nostalgia about it in all generations... as well as “folk-pedagogical” ideas about it being “good for the boys so they learn to get along with different types of people and notice they can’t always get what they want in life”, and whatnot. And, of course, some people are genuinely enthusiastic about camping in the woods, being given a chance of handling and firing firearms, driving army vehicles, subjecting themselves to a physical and psychological endurance test etc., and maintain the view that all this is generally good for you, even if forced on you. (Or
especially if forced on you. >;)
So there you have it, in a nutshell. But in my experience, these extremely strict views about “doing your military service” are quite rare, overall, although civilian service is still viewed by most as “the easy way out” and not on any level equivalent in its “glory” to the armed service.
• • •
Should this matter to you, then, or affect your prospective life in Finland in some way? I don’t think so, as you would be entering the country as a foreigner, and you’re already over 30 years of age so you’re not really even part of the “conscription system”, anyway.
What might matter to you, on a philosophical level, is that those who object to any kind of service at all, and flat-out refuse to do it – the so-called
total objectors (see
here as well) – currently get a six month prison sentence in Finland. (Typically in an open institute, I believe, but still prison time.) Total objectors usually get little sympathy in Finland from anyone, except perhaps from the extreme left.
In practice, all this matters very little in so far as the daily life in Finland is concerned. Except, of course, when in a company of young Finnish men in their 20s who have recently finished their service. Then, from time to time, people will begin reminiscing about their service time, and how good or bad it was, and telling colorful (or colored) anecdotes about their weirdest experiences while “in the forces”. (It’s a Finnish thing.)
