Swedish Compulsory National Service Act
 | Template:Wikify is deprecated. Please use a more specific cleanup template as listed in the documentation. |
 |
The Compulsory National Service motion of 1940 was a controversial proposition put forward in the Swedish parliament by Minister of education Gösta Bagge, in order to improve national defence; it was finally passed in parliament in 1940, though in a much revised version. [1]
Two key actors in the political game surrounding the compulsory national service motion: to the right chancellor of the exchequers Ernst Wigforss, and Gösta Bagge, minister of education, below.
Background
The question of introducing a compulsory national service for the Swedish youth in the higher schools was raised in the winter of 1940, as a response to increased threat levels and a perceived regional insecurity as a result of the Second World War. [2]
The Motion
"De unga skola läras att förstå att de äro lämmar I fosterlandets stora organism och att individen måste lyda. Den naturliga auktoritetstron får icke undergrävas, och lydnadsplikten skall anammas som ett samhällets nödvändiga och självklara krav." "The young shall be taught to understand, that they are limbs in the fatherlands great organism and that the individual must obey … The natural authority belief can not be undermined, and the duty of obedience shall be adopted as a society’s necessary and obvious demand” [3]
The motion proposed that the military education would be carried out in grammar schools, girl’s schools, and certain other higher schools as well as primary schools. The education would consist of two parts; the first would be the outdoor recreation days during the terms, and the other youth camps during the summer vacation.
Some of the military exercises would be collective for both boys and girls (such as air-, gas- and fire protection, target spotting, reconnaissance and reporting as well as causality care), while some of them would be gender specific. It was recommended that grenade throwing exercises (with dummies) would start in class 6-7, while target practise with air or small-bore rifles would occur from class 8 in primary school.[4]
The stated aim of the motion was to prepare the Swedish population for the totalitarian nature of war, and give them knowledge about general security and safety measures, as well as a degree of familiarity with weapons and shooting. However, another secondary priority which was supposed to be achieved through the military exercises was the creation of a good public spirit through the military exercises. A certain amount of social integration between the social classes was also predicted. Lastly, the motion suggested that teachers for these camps would undergo an instructor training program, and having taken this program would become a criterion for a permanent teaching job. [5]
Opinion divergence in the Swedish Press
The proposition produced a heated debate with strongly polarised opinions in the media, from outright rejection to unreserved support. The division largely followed the political spectrum, with conservative newspapers such as Nya Dagligt Allehanda and Svenska Dagbladet praising the proposition as it would lead to “disciplining and a spiritual uplift” of the youth, while the left generally was very critical of the suggestion. Surprisingly enough[why?] the social democratic newspaper Socialdemokraten endorsed the proposition, on grounds of the potential effects of social integration that it might have. [6] However, further to the left the opinion was overwhelmingly negative, for instance the syndicalist newspaper Arbetaren criticized the proposition since it would lead to “the militarisation and barbarisation of the young souls”[7] and several other even went as far as drawing parallels to Hitler-Jugend: Göteborgs-Tidningen expressed the concern that the aim was to create a Swedish "Kraft Durch Freude” phalanx[8] ,while Eskilstuna-Kuriren claimed that the motion was dominated by “emotional thinking” and declared that Sweden doesn’t need a “Peter Albin-Jugend”.[9] The objective objections to the motion mainly concerned:
The military orientation of the program, especially concerning the younger students.
The state’s mandatory camps
The supposed Nazi German model
The proposed instructor training program [10]
Advisory opinion of the consultative bodies
When the government bill was presented to the Swedish parliament on 21st March 1941, it included a very selective range of statements from the consultative bodies. It contained comprehensive reports of the public and churchly authorities, but a very limited amount of the opinions of the about 20 voluntary organizations which had commented on the government bill. The selection of statements from the consultative bodies shows an obvious disregard for the opinions of the voluntary organizations, and an unwillingness to inform about the criticism of the motion on the part of the Ministry of Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs. Notably the national board of education endorsed most parts of the motion but rejected the compulsory instructor program for teachers. The response from the other consultative bodies was mixed, with certain organizations criticising the whole motion, others certain aspects while still others supported it without any objections. The official summary which was presented to parliament failed to reflect this diversity.[11]
Passing of the proposition
When the government was to revise the motion, Gösta Bagge proposed adjustments in accordance with the advisory opinion of the national board of education. However Ernst Wigforss, Chancellor of the Exchequer, opposed the resolution. Both threatened to resign to get their opinion through, endangering a government crisis in the middle of the war[12]. Despite this the proposition was passed on to parliament on 21st of March 1941. The first chamber ratified it while the second didn’t, leading to even more modifications in a compromise. Certain key issues was taken away in the final proposition, which was ratified on 23rd of June 1941. The final version was very different from the first motion:
No weapon training for the younger pupils
Shooting practice for Grammar-school students should be optional
No compulsory summer camps
No compulsory instructor program for teachers [13]
Notes and References
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 48.
- ^ Carlgren, W. ”Svensk Utrikespolitik 1939-45”, Stockholm, Stockholm Allmänna förl., 1973, p. 196.
- ^ 1940:38 “Reflection on the motion concerning compulsory national service for school youth”.
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 21
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 22-24.
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 27.
- ^ Arbetaren 30/12 1940.
- ^ Göteborgs-Tidningen 29/12 1940.
- ^ Eskilstuna-kuriren 9/01 1941.
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 27.
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 33-37.
- ^ Bagge, Gösta, “Minnesanteckningar 1941-42. RA.
- ^ Richardson, Gunnar. ”Hitler-Jugend i Svensk Skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003, p. 39-48.
Further reading
Englund, Tomas, ”Samhällsorientering och medborgarfostran i svensk skola under 1900-talet, Uppsala, 1986.
Fransson, Evald ”Uppfostran och upprustning”, Stockholm, Tiden, 1941.
Richardson, Gunnar. “Hitler-Jugend i svensk skol- och ungdomspolitik”, Beredskapspedagogik och demokratifostran under andra världskriget, Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag AB, 2003.
Bagge, Gösta, ”Minnesanteckningar 1941-42”
