28 ms·

Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country

167 points by wsc981 9y ago

moccachino 9y ago
The Finns will save us! Also, can't blame the Germans for being unsure which side to be on in the next great war..
- dtx1 9y ago
  > Also, can't blame the Germans for being unsure which side to be on in the next great war.. Nah that's easy, we just look which side is losing and take that.
- Maken 9y ago
  The Finns are always ready to fight the Russians again...
ddnb 9y ago
Belgian here, as a resident of one of the bottom 3 countries I have to say I thought about this question myself a few times in the past. Even though I would never join the army to fight wars, should an occupation come I would do everything in my power to resist and sabotage. So to this question I would have to answer 'no' even though that doesn't mean I'd give up on my country.
- hjrnunes 9y ago
  So you wouldn't risk your life but you would risk your family's, friend's and colleagues instead?
  - hjrnunes 9y ago
    To clarify - sabotage implies real risks to everyone around you, because it's hard to find the saboteur and it normally entices collective punishment. I find it difficult to understand why one wouldn't want to join a fighting force to "fight wars", but would be happy in operating clandestinely.
- INTPenis 9y ago
  Yes exactly. And also the question "Would you fight for your Country" is silly to me because I wouldn't fight for a country or nation. I would happily fight for my family or my people but the country is just an authority to me. For example if the roman empire would invade and bring roads, a type of democracy and bureaucracy I maybe would not pick up arms to depose them.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Belgian too, but would personally never join the army. I would however, find a way to relocate myself + loved ones to a more safer place. I would totally give up on this country. Home is where you hang your hat, and being with the people you care about (and knowing that they are safe) matters a lot more than some border on a map.
  - lorenzfx 9y ago
    I am very glad that your and a lot of other people's ancestors didn't think like that or we would probably all live under a fascist regime. edit: a word
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      Definitely grateful for the sacrifices that have been made in the past, but I'm looking at things based on how the world is set up today. It has become a much smaller place -- people and capital can move around more easily. I've personally never had a very strong national identity (others do seem to have that), and I think in part it's because it has become so easy to move around. And if you travel a bit, you realise people are actually not all that different. A lot of them have similar priorities: build out a good life, raise children, care for their friends and loved ones, have fun, etc.
      - lorenzfx 9y ago
        I'm not saying that you are wrong (and I really hope you are right), but the European elites had exactly the same perception before the outbreak of World War I. Google "first globalization".
    - markvdb 9y ago
      Somewhat related, I have noticed there seems to be an abstraction that is often easier for Belgians to make. One can at the same time make a stand for $GOOD_THING/against $BAD_THING ánd have zero country loyalty/patriotism. It's easier and more efficient even, because unbound by country loyalty, one is less limited in how to make a stand. Do you have difficulties imagining this? Imagine yourself in the era that shall not be named for fear of Godwin's law. Think of ways to make a difference back then.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  > Even though I would never join the army to fight wars, should an occupation come I would do everything in my power to resist and sabotage When under foreign attack, you don't join the army - the army "joins" (conscripts) you. It's not voluntary.
  - gasof 9y ago
    Unless you're female.
- ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
  >> Even though I would never join the army to fight wars... ok, so obv a hypothetical scenario - some other country invades Belgium, your country starts drafting ppl into the army to defend itself - you saying you're going to evade the draft? Why?
  - rjprins 9y ago
    Depends on the invader? What if it's the USA "liberating" Belgium from it's evil government? Who says the current government is better than the one taking over? What are countries anyway, most of them don't align with cultural or language barriers. Fuck patriotism, fuck flags, fuck any tribalism that powerful people are using to get others to do what they want.
    - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
      HN is probably not the best place/format to have an in-depth "ideological" discussion but I'll just throw this out there - the aggressive invading side doesn't care about your feelings or affiliations. There are situations where you'll either have to flee or fight or surrender (which basically means giving up your way of life, becoming a 2nd class citizen at best etc).
sattoshi 9y ago
Extra discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_of_europeans_who_are_willing_to_fight https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_... I am really curious about a more thourough breakdown of these numbers. I doubt immigrants would have the same interest in war as the natives.
- JPLeRouzic 9y ago
  > I doubt immigrants would have the same interest in war as the natives. Often (a bad qualifier) immigrants (an ill-defined word) want to prove their willingness to integrate their hosting society much more than native that take things for granted (a very variable behavior depending on cultures).
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
  Counterpoint: during the occupation of France by the Nazis, a disproportionate amount of the French resistance were immigrants[1]. In fact the second (after Jean Moulin) most famous group that was caught was the "Manouchian network", whose members were almost all immigrants. Likewise the Free French Forces (i.e. French military who refused to surrender in 1940) operating under British command were at least two-third colonials and/or immigrants. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-story-of-the-french-resistance http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-story-of-the-french-re...
  - barking 9y ago
    Controversially and OT but it was in a documentary I saw recently. It's been suggested that the colonial troops were responsible for the the vast majority of the large numbers of rapes of women in the French occupied part of Germany
    - Hasknewbie 9y ago
      Unless that documentary is backed up with hard data, I would dispute that "vast majority" claim based on the following: * About two-third of the FFF were West African, so if that was true there would have been at least a very noticeable small 'epidemic' of black babies in West Germany. (EDIT: apparently that ratio fell to 2/5th in mid-1944, after Vichy fell and the 'new' French government was able to draft a lot more people.) * The FFF were non-segregated, it would seem odd that only 2 out of 3 dudes in any random squad would take part in this, but not the third guy? In any case it would make it much more complicated to keep those events under wrap , which matters because... * ...More importantly: ALL officers/cadres were white, and I do not think they would have allowed non-whites to have a go at white women, that would have crossed a line. The racial world-view was still very much a thing. * The FFF were in much lower numbers than the US and Commonwealth armies (after all France had just come out of complete occupation), so I doubt they would have been able to do disproportionate damage on that front. * Also, the "French occupied part of Germany" did not in fact exist until sometime in 1946, when the US & UK (sort of retroactively) created the "French Zone" to have 3 Western powers in Germany and counter the USSR influence. By that time I believe a large number of colonial troops had been sent back home (where, in fact, many of them took part in local independentist movements to end their occupation -- troubles in the French colonies started brewing as soon as mid-1945). That being said, the scale of the rapes committed by the Allies has been a big taboo until a few years ago (except, famously, for the Russian army, since they were very quickly moved into a different category, "not-so-much-Allies-any-more", so it was OK to report that they raped their way to Berlin), and current evidences indicate that the allies also took part in war-rapes, a lot, and not just in Germany. So if the statement was "FFF did commit a large number of rapes", I would say: yes they probably did, all armies did it.
darklajid 9y ago
That's one of the rare moments where I feel that I can relate to my fellow countrymen - I'm German. Why would you 'fight a war for your country'? Given the way this is phrased that doesn't seem to talk about fighting in defense of one's country (I'd like to see the stats for that as well) unless my English as a foreign language skills fail me?
- blowski 9y ago
  Exactly. Would I be willing to fight a war because a fascist superpower was killing millions of human beings in my country? Probably, yes. Would I risk my life to protect the Conservative Party and banking institutions? Less likely.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    The second war (to protect the party and banking institutions) would be promoted like the first. Propaganda is a rather effective thing in wars.
    - usrusr 9y ago
      That's why most people over here in Germany are so wary of the "fight for your country" premise: the first thing that comes to mind is "that's usually bullshit", not a mental image of pillaging hordes. In an actual resist or run situation, I think that those three "unwilling" nations would not fare too badly. People are quite invested in their countries, they just don't buy into the heroic narrative.
  - derefr 9y ago
    Would you be willing to be part of a pre-emptive attack against a much more prosperous neighbouring country with empire-building aspirations? How about a pre-emptive attack against a country where populist polls show overwhelming support for invading your country, even if its current administration is against the idea? How about joining in to defend one neighbour against another, aggressor neighbour—one which you have no personal hatred of, and share much history with—because of treaty obligations? Would you be willing to fight to defend your country (and your countrymen) if it was being invaded by a country that the UN said was in the right to attack you, because your nation was considered a dictatorship needing to be put down? Would you support defending yourself in a civil war, to protect your own countrymen from your own countrymen, on political lines you don't care about? There are a lot more shades of grey than just "a just war against absolute evil" and "a banal war against meaningless change of leadership." This distinction isn't doing its job until it makes you upset to think about it. :)
gabipurcaru 9y ago
the red and blue colors suggest that less is worse. Why would that be the case? It seems like it should ideally be the opposite, if anything
- executesorder66 9y ago
  Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some assholes conquer your home?
  - fsloth 9y ago
    Historically the large powers have instigated conflicts as much as defended against incursion. So, I think it's highly context sensitive what sort of war people are thinking about depending on the country.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    If the question was "would you fight a war to stop some assholes conquer your home?" then I would answer "yes". However, given that there has to be two side to any conflict somebody presumably has to be the "assholes" and that's not something I'd be too happy doing.
    - executesorder66 9y ago
      A completely agree. I was just pointing out that going to war doesn't automatically = bad.
    - rjsw 9y ago
      The "assholes" may not have come from elsewhere.
  - darklajid 9y ago
    If the question is 'Are you willing to fight for your country' then a 'Sure, count me in. Huzzah!' seems to be a bit more than the commitment to defend your home. Defending your country is - as far as I'm concerned - a very specific case of fighting for your country. Also - defending a country (a more or less random historical entity with potentially largely different political and ethical views even among residents) shouldn't be conflated with defending your home. For me the former is abstract and quite artificial. The latter is literally the place where I live.
lwansbrough 9y ago
I'd like to see North America, anyone know if this information is available?
- macavaney 9y ago
  Linked from the article: http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-Gallup-International%E2%80%99s-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-...
  - lwansbrough 9y ago
    I'm having trouble accessing that. Press release from 2014 also available here: http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_release_2014_The_Americas_-_FINAL.pdf http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_r...
- pavement 9y ago
  In North America, you would need to resolve responses down to state/province to see anything meaningful. Between the three countries, it would be difficult to understand how percentages translate to the overall population.
- nhebb 9y ago
  Below are links to the two other images from this poll (only images are provided, no raw data or polling questions). All 64 countries polled: http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/2.jpg http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/2.jpg Variations by regions and religions: http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg
wideem 9y ago
Well this survey shouldn't be trusted. Why wasn't Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and even Norway included?
othello 9y ago
The surprising fact here is that this can mostly be explained pretty well as the lessons of WW2 still being vivid in the memory of many countries...except that Russia suffered by far the most of any countries on the Western front, and still a majority there would fight a war for their own country. The persistent glorification of Russia's role in WW2 (although historically justified) might have something to do with it. The amputation of a quarter of Russia's territory right after the end of the Cold War is also used to great effect by nationalists (just like Germany's territory was reduced, by the same proportion, in 1919 - with the same effects).
- taway_1212 9y ago
  > The amputation of a quarter of Russia's territory Soviet Union is (was) not Russia, it was a multinational empire, similar to Roman or Mongol Empries. AFAIK, Russia itself did not loose much (any?) territory after 1989.
  - othello 9y ago
    I agree, but that measure compares Russia in 1917, before the Soviet Union, with Russia in 1991, which was 25% smaller. The Soviet Union was indeed considerably larger than Russia had been since the 17th century.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Unfortunately, many Russians don't seem to feel that way. They are not alone with that however: all former empires occasionally inspire the idea that their demise is an ongoing historical injustice that needs to be rectified. And in the echo chamber of a former-empire nation this train of thought rarely gets questioned.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    Russians largely saw the Soviet Union as an extension of Russian power. Hence all the russification that occured in non-Russian majority republics
- Normal_gaussian 9y ago
simo7 9y ago
I think a strong pattern here is: the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. See Italy, Spain, Belgium for instance: people from different area of those countries really feel belonging to different cultures. Contrari to the Nordic & Easter European ones. In Germany is more of a historical thing instead.
- retox 9y ago
  You've touched on one theory of why European governments are seemingly so in favour of mass immigration; a people with no common identity are much less willing to go to war for it. The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because it lets them hold on to their wealth.
  - StreamBright 9y ago
    Unfortunately it is never the people who start wars. Politicians do. If you want to decrease the chance of your country going into war it would be an easy fix to introduce laws that mandates pro-war politicians to submit their family members to service to fight at the front in case of a war.
    - EugeneAZ 9y ago
      SMS Direct Democracy with the right of citizens to secede. And professional military, of course, like in the USA. You make war much rarer thereby.
      - arethuza 9y ago
        Does having a professional military leads to fewer wars - the UK has had a preference for professional military for centuries and it didn't stop us invading a significant proportion of the world!
        EugeneAZ 9y ago
        Professional military (by definition) force politicians to spend money on them. So, every conflict becomes measurable in terms of money. Thus, citizens become aware of the true cost of it. When you have conscription, you cannot measure how much each of the soldiers loses in terms of money - they don't ask them such a question deliberately. Also, when all citizens (women and "disabled") are forced to pay for the military equally, they will tend less to be provoked into a war - it may cost too much for them. Get it? By the way, I would support new British Empire, if its authorities would be decent people (as it usually happened). I'm from Ukraine : )
kartan 9y ago
It looks like the closer you are to a thread, the most willing are you to fight. Being close to Russian is a good indicator on how much you are willing to go to war. So I agree with other comments, probably people that feels threatened read the question as "I'm willing to protect my country from an outside attacker". While people in "safer" places read it as "I'm willing to go to war with another country for some strategic/economic interest". (Judging by my own ethics, I guess)
- dom0 9y ago
  > It looks like the closer you are to a thread, the most willing are you to fight. I don't think its that simple. The question is "willing to fight a war". German people have learned that when Germany goes to war it is usually not for the best of the country. On the other hand, Germany had "the threat" next door for 40+ years and the willingness to defend was very high. So I think when you ask Germans this question, they will consider the question as if it were "Are you willing to fight an attack war?", not "... to defend your country". Finland is probably exactly the other way around. It should also be considered that central Europe has been a very stable place for some time, so somewhat similar reasons will probably apply to other countries as well; wars are not fought in the home countries of central Europeans any more; wars are in the east or south, so when a European country today starts a war, it's difficult to not consider it an attack war along at least one dimension. Needless to say, "the aggressor in an attack war is practically always the bad guy" has pretty much become kind of a European core tenet.
  - kochthesecond 9y ago
    I also think they interpret it this way in Finland (can anyone more familiar comment?). Finland has conscription service in their armed forces, where they focus on a defensive war to protect their country. This might pull them towards the defensive interpretation of 'willing to fight a war'.
  - toxik 9y ago
    Right, these percentages show essentially the marginalized likelihood of the question's interpretation and its response. That is to say, it is the weighted sum of the probability of wanting to fight an aggressive/defensive war, weighted by the probability of that interpretation. What I found interesting is that Sweden, which has had peace for over 200 years, has a really high percentage.
djhworld 9y ago
Countries like Greece, Finland, Ukraine and Turkey have military conscription. Additionally there are underlying tensions between a lot of these nations, e.g. Ukraine/Russia, Greece/Turkey etc I wonder if that skews these figures somewhat
- Yizahi 9y ago
  > underlying tensions More like - active war
capex 9y ago
Having spent 9 years in the military, I can say with some confidence that even soldiers are not willing to fight a war. War is evil. No one looks forward to it (except the generals). But when its thrust upon you, you rise up to the occasion and defend your motherland.
- draugadrotten 9y ago
  Some European countries, like Sweden, now have 25% of residents with a motherland which is not the country they live in. Would an Afhan boy living in Sweden fight for Sweden, or would he just take a flight back home to his real motherland? Would an American living in Germany fight for Germany, or take the next flight home? I think we all know the answer, and therefore large parts of the people living on European soil will not fight anymore. They would just leave.
  - mnm1 9y ago
    Yup, I totally agree. As an immigrant, I sure as hell wouldn't fight for either of the countries I'm a citizen of or any other for that matter. The whole idea of fighting for your country is stupid, idiotic, and frankly insane, especially if there is an alternative. It seems to me even natives, especially in Western Europe, are now realizing this. That's great to see. There truly is nothing more disgusting than war, regardless of the motive (even defense). Nothing can bring people lower than war. Nothing is more insane.
    - biggerbistro 9y ago
      So what happens when you run out of places to run to? Do you just wave goodbye to your Jewish neighbors? Put a headscarf on your wife and tell her not to go outside without a male relative? Head down to the gulags for your shift? The reason we have nice countries like in Western Europe for you to live in is because they have deterrence against invasion by those who wish to take it from us. You can't just leave and expect to wind up in a similar country with Western values that will be unthreatened by the same threats.
    - justin66 9y ago
boyce 9y ago
Is there a map of percentages of people who responded with "what's the pay like"
draugadrotten 9y ago
Is the question "Will you fight a war for your Country?" even valid in today's Europe, with open borders and mass immigration of millions of non-citizens. Why would a German fight for the social construct "Germany", when his neighbour was given asylum on grounds of escaping military duty in his homeland?
- rmetzler 9y ago
  As a German pacifist I feel like Germany is partly responsible for refugees fleeing wars as long as German companies sell weapons and whole plants for weapon fabrication.
  - contingencies 9y ago
    Seconded by another German (though I've never lived there).
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
  >> his neighbour was given asylum on grounds of escaping military duty in his homeland Ha, yes, those people refusing to enlist for either a dictator gassing his own people, or a crazed islamist death cult. The nerve! Beside the absurdity of your comment (I'll go on a limb and make the guess that you are, in fact, not German?), regarding the "millions of non-citizens/immigrants" thing, I'll just point out that the most Gung-Ho country in the West, the USA, is also the one with the largest number of immigrants.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vacri 9y ago
This seems like one of those questions that definitely can't be studied with a survey. The context of 'fighting for your country' differs quite a lot; there's a major difference between fighting a defensive war against a brutal opponent and fighting an irrelevant war on the other side of the world. Look at the US, and how many soldiers signed up to "fight for their country" in the invasion of Iraq, a country that never threatened the US. Compare that against how many would sign up if the US mainland was actually attacked. Likewise, if Russia threw caution to the wind and started marching through Europe again, I'd be surprised if only 18% of Germans would fight to defend their country. But if Germany were to invade an Iraq-a-like, I'd be surprised if as many as 18% would.
- democracy 9y ago
  You realize that not only Russia marched through Europe but also UK/USA but unless fighting Hitler was a bad idea I hardly see a problem with this fact, now do you?
  - vacri 9y ago
    In what tortured version of modern-day politics can you possibly see the UK or the US invading Germany, even in a pipe dream?
    - democracy 9y ago
      Not sure about a pipe dream but there are 30k strong US group in Germany as we speak. Some people might have different views on this fact.
0xbear 9y ago
Understandable. Germany has experienced crushing, humiliating defeat not once, but twice in a hundred years, and the second time it was abundandtly clear that they were on the wrong side of history. No wonder the fightin' spirit hasn't recovered. That said, when certain substances start hitting the fan, no one will ask you whether you want to fight. Read some WW2 memoirs: the shit was so horrific that even hardened patriots had serious second thoughts from time to time. I mean, imagine living in a trench for five years and watching your buddies die one by one. People get PTSD in as little as 6 months in conditions far less gruesome. Now imagine 10 times as much time in conditions that are easily 10x worse. It sometimes worries me that kids these days know nothing whatsoever about this. Those who don't know history are liable to repeat it.
- lorenzfx 9y ago
  Unfortunately, the first time wasn't as crushing as the second time, at least it wasn't perceived as such.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Actually I think the opposite is true. The winning side chose to rub Germany's nose in it the first time around, both economically and politically. The result was the rise of national-socialist party, with "national" bit addressing political humiliation, and "socialist" promising to deal with poverty and economic recovery. Note that this did not happen the second time around, and allies occupied Germany for quite a while and helped it rebuild and become a democracy.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  The allies kinda spent the last ~70 years pacifying Germany so thoroughly that they're not interested in war. All of the German militarism and military adventurism within the armed forces is largely gone
mirekrusin 9y ago
Looking at my country I'd say - depending on who's coming you'll get different numbers. Countries with more clearly defined (by history etc) enemy have higher rates. Other factors account as well of course.
zng 9y ago
I think it should also be tied to when each country was last in a war and/or involved in a major international conflict. I see France and Germany being more present in war and conflicts much more so than (for example) Sweden, Finland in the past 100 years. Interesting in any case! :)
- democracy 9y ago
  Not sure about Sweden but Finland had 4 military conflicts with USSR before end of WW2. They also oficially took part in Nazi operations. So let's be honest about it. And before "100 years ago" they were part of Russian empire. History is never black and white.
lwansbrough 9y ago
I think this question may leave too much too interpretation. I'm Canadian. You probably couldn't see me fighting a war on foreign soil except under extreme circumstances. As for a war inside on our land? Much more likely.
SyneRyder 9y ago
Only slightly related, but if this topic interests you, you might like a (fictional) series on Netflix called "Occupied". It's about a future where a peaceful Norway tries to deal with a Russian occupation, after Norway's green energy technology poses an economic threat to Russia's international gas pipeline. Part of the dynamic of the show is whether fighting for your country is the right thing.
oerpli 9y ago
Diverging colormaps should only be used when some value in between should be highlighted (sea level height, median). Also, I find 21% surprisingly large for Austria.
dcw303 9y ago
I'm not surprised that Japan had the lowest world wide with 11%, but it does poke holes in a couple of theories listed in these comments, namely proximity to a threat and cultural homogeneity.
- ascorbic 9y ago
  It's likely there are several overlapping reasons. Japan is, like Germany, a special case. War evokes national shame, not pride, and pacifism has been deeply embedded in the national consciousness through 70 years of education.
democracy 9y ago
There will never be a total WW2-like conflict so for the majority of people it is just a nice mind exercise. But how many people are prepared to fight a war against propoganda? To defend freedom of speech? To defend opposite political views and opinions? It is scary but in the 1st and 2nd world you can still lose friends and even your job if you openly express your political views. People are afraid to express their views and it bothers me more than anything else.
- lorenzfx 9y ago
  Before WW1 people also believed that large scale European conflict couldn't happen any more because of the economic entanglement. In hindsight, that notion looks pretty stupid.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Currently we believe it's impossible due to nuclear weapons - there wouldn't be anything left to fight over or with.
    - NoGravitas 9y ago
      I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein
koonsolo 9y ago
I think the question is too generic, and therefore not much conclusion can be derived from it. Is it defending or attacking, on European territory or outside, for your countries gain or Europe's gain, etc.? It would be interesting to ask: Are you willing to fight a war to defend European countries against an outside threat, such as Russia.
- dddw 9y ago
  indeed a followup question could be: would you fight for the EU?
danmaz74 9y ago
I would expect very different results if the question was "willing to defend your country in war if attacked". For most West Europeans, "fighting a war" brings to mind more going to Iraq or something similar.
- keganunderwood 9y ago
  I don't know how this is possible outside of science fiction but I wonder how popular military service would be on a historical timeline, all else being equal but the variables being we turn on or off a livable basic income and free of cost health care (like medicare) for all. Would people still be eager to join the US military?
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    The military as a refuge for those who would otherwise have a hard time finding work/education/healthcare etc is probably a US phenomenon - and the US military probably would be less attractive if more progressive politics meant better conditions for all. In countries with pro armies outside the US I believe it's more like any other job such as a policeman. In countries with conscription it's not even a job, it's more like a part of mandatory schooling (I have lived through both kinds - I did it with conscription and now it's a professional career like any other). Trouble with the law, dropping out of school etc here now means you can't become a soldier, just like you can't be a cop.
    - Inconel 9y ago
      I don't have a citation or link handy at the moment, and I don't have the ability to find one right now, and I'm going by memory so I will preface this by saying it's entirely possible that I am wrong here, but I believe in the case of the US the military, both the officer and enlisted ranks, have been increasingly coming from fewer families and increasingly wealthier families. This isn't to say they have been coming from the top income brackets, although this may be true for the officer ranks, but instead solidly middle class backgrounds.
    - arethuza 9y ago
vim_wannabe 9y ago
Or maybe its as simple as conscription, current or recent. Without it defense, or knowledge of what it takes, is essentially outsourced to a small group of people or NATO. Out of sight, out of mind.
esteves_ 9y ago
I am European and I would not fight for my country, because it isn't my country anymore. It is a multi-something peace of land.
apexalpha 9y ago
Is the question asked "Fight for your country" as in defend it from foreign invaders, like my country (NL) was during World War 2, or like Ukraine is now by Russia? Or is this "Fight for your country" as in join team America in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and <Insert next country here>? Because the first one: probably, yes. The second? No thank you.
- thedevil 9y ago
  I'm an American and I used to say that I'm antiwar but what I really meant is that I'm anti-iraq-war, anti-Afghanistan-war, etc. I do think there are wars we should fight. We just haven't had any of those in my lifetime.
- batushka 9y ago
  >Or is this "Fight for your country" as in join team America in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and <Insert next country here>? >Because the first one: probably, yes. The second? No thank you. Typical NATO free rider. Do you have the word ALLY in your culture?
  - Belphemur 9y ago
    An ally come to help when in needs. America wedged war for financial gain not for helping anybody. Why its ally would need to help when there is a no real need for the war in the first place.
    - batushka 9y ago
      Never heard of war that wasn't smeared by other side. When rooskies bombed Finland, Molotov told they're delivering bread baskets to starving Finns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_bread_basket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_bread_basket
      - oblio 9y ago
        Nice trolling, I guess? When there's a conflict, I generally look at the "weight" of the opponents. Can you, with a straight face, call Iraq a real opponent or even threat for the US? More than that, do you think the US really needed allies to invade Iraq? (except for trying to use them to legitimize the war).
metafunctor 9y ago
In Finland, the army exists for the purpose of defending Finland against attack. Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces. Finnish males serve a mandatory 6-12 months in the Finnish Defence Forces. It's a citizen's duty here; some people opt for a civil service duty. Thus, when asked a question like this, most Finns will automatically assume defending Finland against a military attack.
- ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
  >>Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces. "Wehrmacht" means something along the lines of the "defense force" too. Not saying the rest of your reasoning is wrong, just pointing out that calling your army a "defense force" doesn't necessarily mean that it's used for defense only...
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Does it? I thought "Wehr" translated to "War". (Disclaimer: I don't actually speak German.)
    - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
      It does. "War" would be "Krieg".
- moogly 9y ago
  Many countries' military have gone through that name change to make it sound more palatable. It's basic PR. I live in Finland's neighbour country Sweden where as late as 1974, the Swedish Armed Forces were still named "Krigsmakten" as opposed to post-1975 "Försvarsmakten" ("krig" = "war", "försvar" = "defence").
- Belphemur 9y ago
  A little of geographical context could help other understand, Finland situation. Finland has a border with Russia and a big history with them. Lots of Finn I met think Russia could come any day hence the need for a military force ready to fight.
youngtaff 9y ago
Poor choice of colours in that map… Red generally == bad, and in this map lower percentage == red, there for a lower percentage willing to fight is bad?
- vilmosi 9y ago
  This. I was super confused for a second because Germany was dark red.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  I don't know that "fight for your country" is "bad" or "good". Defending your country against outside aggression seems "good." Fighting in a war of convenience is "bad". I think an interesting qualifier is if the person answering assumed "fighting for your country" meant defense or offense.
  - zild3d 9y ago
    True, still the color choice is poor. Strong red color brings to mind, personally, a high value. I thought it would mean 90-100, except it actually meant 0-9. If red isn't clearly good or bad, then don't use it. Use light to dark shades of the same color or white to color, etc.
- ForRealsies 9y ago
  Germany's self-identity has been an exercise in self-shame for 70 years now. Their culture would do well to take some pride in itself, otherwise they'll submissively embrace Sharia.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
This is a dumb info-graphic. It basically all depends on the war in question. Another round of playing world police? Not my thing. California seceding from the union? I'll help you pack. Canada annexing Vermont? Depends on how Vermont feels about it. Actual foreign invasion? Where's the nearest recruiter.
logfromblammo 9y ago
I would assume that the question was posed in the subject's native tongue. I would further assume that different languages impose different meanings on the word or phrase used for "your country". For instance, in US English, there is a clear distinction between "country", "nation", "state", and "government", and those words have slightly different meanings to different people. Thus, the question--with the same wording--could be interpreted by one as "Would you take up arms to defend the people in your neighborhood from military attack?" and by another as "Would you murder strangers for the benefit of rich oligarchs that never actually put themselves at risk of harm?" I imagine if you asked those two different questions explicitly to the same person, you would see a large gap in responses. As such, without more specific information on how the survey was conducted, I'd be cautious about comparing results across language groups and cultures. I imagine the answers are heavily influenced by the sense "Would you re-fight your country's previous wars?"
inops 9y ago
The article doesn't say how this was apportioned between men and women in each country, and if it was the same across the countries. I would imagine you would see higher percentages all round if you asked just men. Men do the actual "fighting" in most every case.
5_minutes 9y ago
Soldiers often are the suckers in wars. But I guess there's a big difference in defending or go invading
Spooky23 9y ago
Good for them. The reality of modern war is that there isn't a lot of room beyond modern imperial proxy warfare in places like Syria and Afghanistan. WW3 in Europe means that most of Europe will be a smoking hole.
- democracy 9y ago
  Most of the world, I would say.
wink 9y ago
German here as well. For one I (and probably many others as well) aren't expecting any war on German ground anytime soon (let's hope for the best). But maybe "fighting a war for your country" implies quite a bit of patriotism. If there's ever been a country where concept of patriotism.. let's say slightly differs from other countries - yes, it's Germany. Trying to write this as objective as possible: Big (compared other countries at least) parts of the population already wouldn't want to run around with a German flag. Some already see all the flags during football world cup season as "too patriotic". I'm torn. I think I'd describe myself as very much not a patriot. I like living in Germany, looking at some things I'm even glad. But I don't see anything inherently good in German. I surely wouldn't object to being a "European citizen" with such a passport.
sp332 9y ago
From http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg the exact question is "If there were a war which involved [country], would you be willing to fight for your country?" Not really any clearer than the headline makes it out to be.
andrewla 9y ago
I can't seem to find any more details on the survey other than basic methodology. The thing that I'm curious about is the language used in the survey. In a sense, you could argue that some of the disparity in results comes from what people would interpret as the meaning of "fight for your country", but I'm curious as to whether the ambiguity of this phrase (fight at the behest of my country, fight to defend my country, fight to defend my country's "honor"?) carries over into foreign translations and whether that affects the way the question is interpreted. Or it is possible that the underlying question was more specific to avoid these linguistic ambiguities, and we are seeing a "digestion" of the various more specific questions. If someone can dig up a link to more detailed survey results, I'd be interested in seeing it. All the link in the article leads to is a press release about the results.
- runeks 9y ago
  It would be interesting to focus on only e.g. English-speaking countries, and see how great the variance is within this group. It’s also interesting to see that the countries which are often invaded/occupied by Western nations are much more willing to fight, whereas the occupiers/invading nations seem less willing. Could it be that Westerners answer “no” because their idea of “fighting for your country” is starting a war somewhere else, whereas to the people of Vietnam (89% willingness) the same question conjures up an image of being invaded by a foreign nation, and defending themselves against that?
et2o 9y ago
Of course the Finns are at the top :) Interesting to see Turkey included as a European country. Not that it matters any more than semantically, but is it considered European now, by other Europeans? Different from what I was taught in school. Obviously a political issue.
- democracy 9y ago
  I remember an Israeli general when asked about European military might laughed and said the strongest army of Europe resides in.... Israel!
omnimus 9y ago
Some would not fight because they are leftist pacifist. Some would not fight because they are immigrants. Some would not fight because their country is full of immigrants.
barking 9y ago
I think Goering's famous quote just about sums it up: "..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

167 points by wsc981 9y ago

moccachino 9y ago

The Finns will save us! Also, can't blame the Germans for being unsure which side to be on in the next great war..

dtx1 9y ago
> Also, can't blame the Germans for being unsure which side to be on in the next great war.. Nah that's easy, we just look which side is losing and take that.
Maken 9y ago
The Finns are always ready to fight the Russians again...

ddnb 9y ago

Belgian here, as a resident of one of the bottom 3 countries I have to say I thought about this question myself a few times in the past. Even though I would never join the army to fight wars, should an occupation come I would do everything in my power to resist and sabotage. So to this question I would have to answer 'no' even though that doesn't mean I'd give up on my country.

hjrnunes 9y ago
So you wouldn't risk your life but you would risk your family's, friend's and colleagues instead?
- hjrnunes 9y ago
  To clarify - sabotage implies real risks to everyone around you, because it's hard to find the saboteur and it normally entices collective punishment. I find it difficult to understand why one wouldn't want to join a fighting force to "fight wars", but would be happy in operating clandestinely.
INTPenis 9y ago
Yes exactly. And also the question "Would you fight for your Country" is silly to me because I wouldn't fight for a country or nation. I would happily fight for my family or my people but the country is just an authority to me. For example if the roman empire would invade and bring roads, a type of democracy and bureaucracy I maybe would not pick up arms to depose them.
charlesdm 9y ago
Belgian too, but would personally never join the army. I would however, find a way to relocate myself + loved ones to a more safer place. I would totally give up on this country. Home is where you hang your hat, and being with the people you care about (and knowing that they are safe) matters a lot more than some border on a map.
- lorenzfx 9y ago
  I am very glad that your and a lot of other people's ancestors didn't think like that or we would probably all live under a fascist regime. edit: a word
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Definitely grateful for the sacrifices that have been made in the past, but I'm looking at things based on how the world is set up today. It has become a much smaller place -- people and capital can move around more easily. I've personally never had a very strong national identity (others do seem to have that), and I think in part it's because it has become so easy to move around. And if you travel a bit, you realise people are actually not all that different. A lot of them have similar priorities: build out a good life, raise children, care for their friends and loved ones, have fun, etc.
    - lorenzfx 9y ago
      I'm not saying that you are wrong (and I really hope you are right), but the European elites had exactly the same perception before the outbreak of World War I. Google "first globalization".
  - markvdb 9y ago
    Somewhat related, I have noticed there seems to be an abstraction that is often easier for Belgians to make. One can at the same time make a stand for $GOOD_THING/against $BAD_THING ánd have zero country loyalty/patriotism. It's easier and more efficient even, because unbound by country loyalty, one is less limited in how to make a stand. Do you have difficulties imagining this? Imagine yourself in the era that shall not be named for fear of Godwin's law. Think of ways to make a difference back then.
taway_1212 9y ago
> Even though I would never join the army to fight wars, should an occupation come I would do everything in my power to resist and sabotage When under foreign attack, you don't join the army - the army "joins" (conscripts) you. It's not voluntary.
- gasof 9y ago
  Unless you're female.
ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
>> Even though I would never join the army to fight wars... ok, so obv a hypothetical scenario - some other country invades Belgium, your country starts drafting ppl into the army to defend itself - you saying you're going to evade the draft? Why?
- rjprins 9y ago
  Depends on the invader? What if it's the USA "liberating" Belgium from it's evil government? Who says the current government is better than the one taking over? What are countries anyway, most of them don't align with cultural or language barriers. Fuck patriotism, fuck flags, fuck any tribalism that powerful people are using to get others to do what they want.
  - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
    HN is probably not the best place/format to have an in-depth "ideological" discussion but I'll just throw this out there - the aggressive invading side doesn't care about your feelings or affiliations. There are situations where you'll either have to flee or fight or surrender (which basically means giving up your way of life, becoming a 2nd class citizen at best etc).

sattoshi 9y ago

Extra discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_of_europeans_who_are_willing_to_fight https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_... I am really curious about a more thourough breakdown of these numbers. I doubt immigrants would have the same interest in war as the natives.

JPLeRouzic 9y ago
> I doubt immigrants would have the same interest in war as the natives. Often (a bad qualifier) immigrants (an ill-defined word) want to prove their willingness to integrate their hosting society much more than native that take things for granted (a very variable behavior depending on cultures).
Hasknewbie 9y ago
Counterpoint: during the occupation of France by the Nazis, a disproportionate amount of the French resistance were immigrants[1]. In fact the second (after Jean Moulin) most famous group that was caught was the "Manouchian network", whose members were almost all immigrants. Likewise the Free French Forces (i.e. French military who refused to surrender in 1940) operating under British command were at least two-third colonials and/or immigrants. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-story-of-the-french-resistance http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-story-of-the-french-re...
- barking 9y ago
  Controversially and OT but it was in a documentary I saw recently. It's been suggested that the colonial troops were responsible for the the vast majority of the large numbers of rapes of women in the French occupied part of Germany
  - Hasknewbie 9y ago
    Unless that documentary is backed up with hard data, I would dispute that "vast majority" claim based on the following: * About two-third of the FFF were West African, so if that was true there would have been at least a very noticeable small 'epidemic' of black babies in West Germany. (EDIT: apparently that ratio fell to 2/5th in mid-1944, after Vichy fell and the 'new' French government was able to draft a lot more people.) * The FFF were non-segregated, it would seem odd that only 2 out of 3 dudes in any random squad would take part in this, but not the third guy? In any case it would make it much more complicated to keep those events under wrap , which matters because... * ...More importantly: ALL officers/cadres were white, and I do not think they would have allowed non-whites to have a go at white women, that would have crossed a line. The racial world-view was still very much a thing. * The FFF were in much lower numbers than the US and Commonwealth armies (after all France had just come out of complete occupation), so I doubt they would have been able to do disproportionate damage on that front. * Also, the "French occupied part of Germany" did not in fact exist until sometime in 1946, when the US & UK (sort of retroactively) created the "French Zone" to have 3 Western powers in Germany and counter the USSR influence. By that time I believe a large number of colonial troops had been sent back home (where, in fact, many of them took part in local independentist movements to end their occupation -- troubles in the French colonies started brewing as soon as mid-1945). That being said, the scale of the rapes committed by the Allies has been a big taboo until a few years ago (except, famously, for the Russian army, since they were very quickly moved into a different category, "not-so-much-Allies-any-more", so it was OK to report that they raped their way to Berlin), and current evidences indicate that the allies also took part in war-rapes, a lot, and not just in Germany. So if the statement was "FFF did commit a large number of rapes", I would say: yes they probably did, all armies did it.

darklajid 9y ago

That's one of the rare moments where I feel that I can relate to my fellow countrymen - I'm German. Why would you 'fight a war for your country'? Given the way this is phrased that doesn't seem to talk about fighting in defense of one's country (I'd like to see the stats for that as well) unless my English as a foreign language skills fail me?

blowski 9y ago
Exactly. Would I be willing to fight a war because a fascist superpower was killing millions of human beings in my country? Probably, yes. Would I risk my life to protect the Conservative Party and banking institutions? Less likely.
- rocqua 9y ago
  The second war (to protect the party and banking institutions) would be promoted like the first. Propaganda is a rather effective thing in wars.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    That's why most people over here in Germany are so wary of the "fight for your country" premise: the first thing that comes to mind is "that's usually bullshit", not a mental image of pillaging hordes. In an actual resist or run situation, I think that those three "unwilling" nations would not fare too badly. People are quite invested in their countries, they just don't buy into the heroic narrative.
- derefr 9y ago
  Would you be willing to be part of a pre-emptive attack against a much more prosperous neighbouring country with empire-building aspirations? How about a pre-emptive attack against a country where populist polls show overwhelming support for invading your country, even if its current administration is against the idea? How about joining in to defend one neighbour against another, aggressor neighbour—one which you have no personal hatred of, and share much history with—because of treaty obligations? Would you be willing to fight to defend your country (and your countrymen) if it was being invaded by a country that the UN said was in the right to attack you, because your nation was considered a dictatorship needing to be put down? Would you support defending yourself in a civil war, to protect your own countrymen from your own countrymen, on political lines you don't care about? There are a lot more shades of grey than just "a just war against absolute evil" and "a banal war against meaningless change of leadership." This distinction isn't doing its job until it makes you upset to think about it. :)

gabipurcaru 9y ago

the red and blue colors suggest that less is worse. Why would that be the case? It seems like it should ideally be the opposite, if anything

executesorder66 9y ago
Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some assholes conquer your home?
- fsloth 9y ago
  Historically the large powers have instigated conflicts as much as defended against incursion. So, I think it's highly context sensitive what sort of war people are thinking about depending on the country.
- arethuza 9y ago
  If the question was "would you fight a war to stop some assholes conquer your home?" then I would answer "yes". However, given that there has to be two side to any conflict somebody presumably has to be the "assholes" and that's not something I'd be too happy doing.
  - executesorder66 9y ago
    A completely agree. I was just pointing out that going to war doesn't automatically = bad.
  - rjsw 9y ago
    The "assholes" may not have come from elsewhere.
- darklajid 9y ago
  If the question is 'Are you willing to fight for your country' then a 'Sure, count me in. Huzzah!' seems to be a bit more than the commitment to defend your home. Defending your country is - as far as I'm concerned - a very specific case of fighting for your country. Also - defending a country (a more or less random historical entity with potentially largely different political and ethical views even among residents) shouldn't be conflated with defending your home. For me the former is abstract and quite artificial. The latter is literally the place where I live.

lwansbrough 9y ago

I'd like to see North America, anyone know if this information is available?

macavaney 9y ago
Linked from the article: http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-Gallup-International%E2%80%99s-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-...
- lwansbrough 9y ago
  I'm having trouble accessing that. Press release from 2014 also available here: http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_release_2014_The_Americas_-_FINAL.pdf http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_r...
pavement 9y ago
In North America, you would need to resolve responses down to state/province to see anything meaningful. Between the three countries, it would be difficult to understand how percentages translate to the overall population.
nhebb 9y ago
Below are links to the two other images from this poll (only images are provided, no raw data or polling questions). All 64 countries polled: http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/2.jpg http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/2.jpg Variations by regions and religions: http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg

wideem 9y ago

Well this survey shouldn't be trusted. Why wasn't Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and even Norway included?

othello 9y ago

The surprising fact here is that this can mostly be explained pretty well as the lessons of WW2 still being vivid in the memory of many countries...except that Russia suffered by far the most of any countries on the Western front, and still a majority there would fight a war for their own country. The persistent glorification of Russia's role in WW2 (although historically justified) might have something to do with it. The amputation of a quarter of Russia's territory right after the end of the Cold War is also used to great effect by nationalists (just like Germany's territory was reduced, by the same proportion, in 1919 - with the same effects).

taway_1212 9y ago
> The amputation of a quarter of Russia's territory Soviet Union is (was) not Russia, it was a multinational empire, similar to Roman or Mongol Empries. AFAIK, Russia itself did not loose much (any?) territory after 1989.
- othello 9y ago
  I agree, but that measure compares Russia in 1917, before the Soviet Union, with Russia in 1991, which was 25% smaller. The Soviet Union was indeed considerably larger than Russia had been since the 17th century.
- usrusr 9y ago
  Unfortunately, many Russians don't seem to feel that way. They are not alone with that however: all former empires occasionally inspire the idea that their demise is an ongoing historical injustice that needs to be rectified. And in the echo chamber of a former-empire nation this train of thought rarely gets questioned.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  Russians largely saw the Soviet Union as an extension of Russian power. Hence all the russification that occured in non-Russian majority republics
Normal_gaussian 9y ago

simo7 9y ago

I think a strong pattern here is: the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. See Italy, Spain, Belgium for instance: people from different area of those countries really feel belonging to different cultures. Contrari to the Nordic & Easter European ones. In Germany is more of a historical thing instead.

retox 9y ago
You've touched on one theory of why European governments are seemingly so in favour of mass immigration; a people with no common identity are much less willing to go to war for it. The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because it lets them hold on to their wealth.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Unfortunately it is never the people who start wars. Politicians do. If you want to decrease the chance of your country going into war it would be an easy fix to introduce laws that mandates pro-war politicians to submit their family members to service to fight at the front in case of a war.
  - EugeneAZ 9y ago
    SMS Direct Democracy with the right of citizens to secede. And professional military, of course, like in the USA. You make war much rarer thereby.
    - arethuza 9y ago
      Does having a professional military leads to fewer wars - the UK has had a preference for professional military for centuries and it didn't stop us invading a significant proportion of the world!
      - EugeneAZ 9y ago
        Professional military (by definition) force politicians to spend money on them. So, every conflict becomes measurable in terms of money. Thus, citizens become aware of the true cost of it. When you have conscription, you cannot measure how much each of the soldiers loses in terms of money - they don't ask them such a question deliberately. Also, when all citizens (women and "disabled") are forced to pay for the military equally, they will tend less to be provoked into a war - it may cost too much for them. Get it? By the way, I would support new British Empire, if its authorities would be decent people (as it usually happened). I'm from Ukraine : )

kartan 9y ago

It looks like the closer you are to a thread, the most willing are you to fight. Being close to Russian is a good indicator on how much you are willing to go to war. So I agree with other comments, probably people that feels threatened read the question as "I'm willing to protect my country from an outside attacker". While people in "safer" places read it as "I'm willing to go to war with another country for some strategic/economic interest". (Judging by my own ethics, I guess)

dom0 9y ago
> It looks like the closer you are to a thread, the most willing are you to fight. I don't think its that simple. The question is "willing to fight a war". German people have learned that when Germany goes to war it is usually not for the best of the country. On the other hand, Germany had "the threat" next door for 40+ years and the willingness to defend was very high. So I think when you ask Germans this question, they will consider the question as if it were "Are you willing to fight an attack war?", not "... to defend your country". Finland is probably exactly the other way around. It should also be considered that central Europe has been a very stable place for some time, so somewhat similar reasons will probably apply to other countries as well; wars are not fought in the home countries of central Europeans any more; wars are in the east or south, so when a European country today starts a war, it's difficult to not consider it an attack war along at least one dimension. Needless to say, "the aggressor in an attack war is practically always the bad guy" has pretty much become kind of a European core tenet.
- kochthesecond 9y ago
  I also think they interpret it this way in Finland (can anyone more familiar comment?). Finland has conscription service in their armed forces, where they focus on a defensive war to protect their country. This might pull them towards the defensive interpretation of 'willing to fight a war'.
- toxik 9y ago
  Right, these percentages show essentially the marginalized likelihood of the question's interpretation and its response. That is to say, it is the weighted sum of the probability of wanting to fight an aggressive/defensive war, weighted by the probability of that interpretation. What I found interesting is that Sweden, which has had peace for over 200 years, has a really high percentage.

djhworld 9y ago

Countries like Greece, Finland, Ukraine and Turkey have military conscription. Additionally there are underlying tensions between a lot of these nations, e.g. Ukraine/Russia, Greece/Turkey etc I wonder if that skews these figures somewhat

Yizahi 9y ago
> underlying tensions More like - active war

capex 9y ago

Having spent 9 years in the military, I can say with some confidence that even soldiers are not willing to fight a war. War is evil. No one looks forward to it (except the generals). But when its thrust upon you, you rise up to the occasion and defend your motherland.

draugadrotten 9y ago
Some European countries, like Sweden, now have 25% of residents with a motherland which is not the country they live in. Would an Afhan boy living in Sweden fight for Sweden, or would he just take a flight back home to his real motherland? Would an American living in Germany fight for Germany, or take the next flight home? I think we all know the answer, and therefore large parts of the people living on European soil will not fight anymore. They would just leave.
- mnm1 9y ago
  Yup, I totally agree. As an immigrant, I sure as hell wouldn't fight for either of the countries I'm a citizen of or any other for that matter. The whole idea of fighting for your country is stupid, idiotic, and frankly insane, especially if there is an alternative. It seems to me even natives, especially in Western Europe, are now realizing this. That's great to see. There truly is nothing more disgusting than war, regardless of the motive (even defense). Nothing can bring people lower than war. Nothing is more insane.
  - biggerbistro 9y ago
    So what happens when you run out of places to run to? Do you just wave goodbye to your Jewish neighbors? Put a headscarf on your wife and tell her not to go outside without a male relative? Head down to the gulags for your shift? The reason we have nice countries like in Western Europe for you to live in is because they have deterrence against invasion by those who wish to take it from us. You can't just leave and expect to wind up in a similar country with Western values that will be unthreatened by the same threats.
  - justin66 9y ago

boyce 9y ago

Is there a map of percentages of people who responded with "what's the pay like"

draugadrotten 9y ago

Is the question "Will you fight a war for your Country?" even valid in today's Europe, with open borders and mass immigration of millions of non-citizens. Why would a German fight for the social construct "Germany", when his neighbour was given asylum on grounds of escaping military duty in his homeland?

rmetzler 9y ago
As a German pacifist I feel like Germany is partly responsible for refugees fleeing wars as long as German companies sell weapons and whole plants for weapon fabrication.
- contingencies 9y ago
  Seconded by another German (though I've never lived there).
Hasknewbie 9y ago
>> his neighbour was given asylum on grounds of escaping military duty in his homeland Ha, yes, those people refusing to enlist for either a dictator gassing his own people, or a crazed islamist death cult. The nerve! Beside the absurdity of your comment (I'll go on a limb and make the guess that you are, in fact, not German?), regarding the "millions of non-citizens/immigrants" thing, I'll just point out that the most Gung-Ho country in the West, the USA, is also the one with the largest number of immigrants.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vacri 9y ago

This seems like one of those questions that definitely can't be studied with a survey. The context of 'fighting for your country' differs quite a lot; there's a major difference between fighting a defensive war against a brutal opponent and fighting an irrelevant war on the other side of the world. Look at the US, and how many soldiers signed up to "fight for their country" in the invasion of Iraq, a country that never threatened the US. Compare that against how many would sign up if the US mainland was actually attacked. Likewise, if Russia threw caution to the wind and started marching through Europe again, I'd be surprised if only 18% of Germans would fight to defend their country. But if Germany were to invade an Iraq-a-like, I'd be surprised if as many as 18% would.

democracy 9y ago
You realize that not only Russia marched through Europe but also UK/USA but unless fighting Hitler was a bad idea I hardly see a problem with this fact, now do you?
- vacri 9y ago
  In what tortured version of modern-day politics can you possibly see the UK or the US invading Germany, even in a pipe dream?
  - democracy 9y ago
    Not sure about a pipe dream but there are 30k strong US group in Germany as we speak. Some people might have different views on this fact.

0xbear 9y ago

Understandable. Germany has experienced crushing, humiliating defeat not once, but twice in a hundred years, and the second time it was abundandtly clear that they were on the wrong side of history. No wonder the fightin' spirit hasn't recovered. That said, when certain substances start hitting the fan, no one will ask you whether you want to fight. Read some WW2 memoirs: the shit was so horrific that even hardened patriots had serious second thoughts from time to time. I mean, imagine living in a trench for five years and watching your buddies die one by one. People get PTSD in as little as 6 months in conditions far less gruesome. Now imagine 10 times as much time in conditions that are easily 10x worse. It sometimes worries me that kids these days know nothing whatsoever about this. Those who don't know history are liable to repeat it.

lorenzfx 9y ago
Unfortunately, the first time wasn't as crushing as the second time, at least it wasn't perceived as such.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Actually I think the opposite is true. The winning side chose to rub Germany's nose in it the first time around, both economically and politically. The result was the rise of national-socialist party, with "national" bit addressing political humiliation, and "socialist" promising to deal with poverty and economic recovery. Note that this did not happen the second time around, and allies occupied Germany for quite a while and helped it rebuild and become a democracy.
notfromhere 9y ago
The allies kinda spent the last ~70 years pacifying Germany so thoroughly that they're not interested in war. All of the German militarism and military adventurism within the armed forces is largely gone

mirekrusin 9y ago

Looking at my country I'd say - depending on who's coming you'll get different numbers. Countries with more clearly defined (by history etc) enemy have higher rates. Other factors account as well of course.

zng 9y ago

I think it should also be tied to when each country was last in a war and/or involved in a major international conflict. I see France and Germany being more present in war and conflicts much more so than (for example) Sweden, Finland in the past 100 years. Interesting in any case! :)

democracy 9y ago
Not sure about Sweden but Finland had 4 military conflicts with USSR before end of WW2. They also oficially took part in Nazi operations. So let's be honest about it. And before "100 years ago" they were part of Russian empire. History is never black and white.

lwansbrough 9y ago

I think this question may leave too much too interpretation. I'm Canadian. You probably couldn't see me fighting a war on foreign soil except under extreme circumstances. As for a war inside on our land? Much more likely.

SyneRyder 9y ago

Only slightly related, but if this topic interests you, you might like a (fictional) series on Netflix called "Occupied". It's about a future where a peaceful Norway tries to deal with a Russian occupation, after Norway's green energy technology poses an economic threat to Russia's international gas pipeline. Part of the dynamic of the show is whether fighting for your country is the right thing.

oerpli 9y ago

Diverging colormaps should only be used when some value in between should be highlighted (sea level height, median). Also, I find 21% surprisingly large for Austria.

dcw303 9y ago

I'm not surprised that Japan had the lowest world wide with 11%, but it does poke holes in a couple of theories listed in these comments, namely proximity to a threat and cultural homogeneity.

ascorbic 9y ago
It's likely there are several overlapping reasons. Japan is, like Germany, a special case. War evokes national shame, not pride, and pacifism has been deeply embedded in the national consciousness through 70 years of education.

democracy 9y ago

There will never be a total WW2-like conflict so for the majority of people it is just a nice mind exercise. But how many people are prepared to fight a war against propoganda? To defend freedom of speech? To defend opposite political views and opinions? It is scary but in the 1st and 2nd world you can still lose friends and even your job if you openly express your political views. People are afraid to express their views and it bothers me more than anything else.

lorenzfx 9y ago
Before WW1 people also believed that large scale European conflict couldn't happen any more because of the economic entanglement. In hindsight, that notion looks pretty stupid.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Currently we believe it's impossible due to nuclear weapons - there wouldn't be anything left to fight over or with.
  - NoGravitas 9y ago
    I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein

koonsolo 9y ago

I think the question is too generic, and therefore not much conclusion can be derived from it. Is it defending or attacking, on European territory or outside, for your countries gain or Europe's gain, etc.? It would be interesting to ask: Are you willing to fight a war to defend European countries against an outside threat, such as Russia.

dddw 9y ago
indeed a followup question could be: would you fight for the EU?

danmaz74 9y ago

I would expect very different results if the question was "willing to defend your country in war if attacked". For most West Europeans, "fighting a war" brings to mind more going to Iraq or something similar.

keganunderwood 9y ago
I don't know how this is possible outside of science fiction but I wonder how popular military service would be on a historical timeline, all else being equal but the variables being we turn on or off a livable basic income and free of cost health care (like medicare) for all. Would people still be eager to join the US military?
- alkonaut 9y ago
  The military as a refuge for those who would otherwise have a hard time finding work/education/healthcare etc is probably a US phenomenon - and the US military probably would be less attractive if more progressive politics meant better conditions for all. In countries with pro armies outside the US I believe it's more like any other job such as a policeman. In countries with conscription it's not even a job, it's more like a part of mandatory schooling (I have lived through both kinds - I did it with conscription and now it's a professional career like any other). Trouble with the law, dropping out of school etc here now means you can't become a soldier, just like you can't be a cop.
  - Inconel 9y ago
    I don't have a citation or link handy at the moment, and I don't have the ability to find one right now, and I'm going by memory so I will preface this by saying it's entirely possible that I am wrong here, but I believe in the case of the US the military, both the officer and enlisted ranks, have been increasingly coming from fewer families and increasingly wealthier families. This isn't to say they have been coming from the top income brackets, although this may be true for the officer ranks, but instead solidly middle class backgrounds.
  - arethuza 9y ago

vim_wannabe 9y ago

Or maybe its as simple as conscription, current or recent. Without it defense, or knowledge of what it takes, is essentially outsourced to a small group of people or NATO. Out of sight, out of mind.

esteves_ 9y ago

I am European and I would not fight for my country, because it isn't my country anymore. It is a multi-something peace of land.

apexalpha 9y ago

Is the question asked "Fight for your country" as in defend it from foreign invaders, like my country (NL) was during World War 2, or like Ukraine is now by Russia? Or is this "Fight for your country" as in join team America in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and <Insert next country here>? Because the first one: probably, yes. The second? No thank you.

thedevil 9y ago
I'm an American and I used to say that I'm antiwar but what I really meant is that I'm anti-iraq-war, anti-Afghanistan-war, etc. I do think there are wars we should fight. We just haven't had any of those in my lifetime.
batushka 9y ago
>Or is this "Fight for your country" as in join team America in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and <Insert next country here>? >Because the first one: probably, yes. The second? No thank you. Typical NATO free rider. Do you have the word ALLY in your culture?
- Belphemur 9y ago
  An ally come to help when in needs. America wedged war for financial gain not for helping anybody. Why its ally would need to help when there is a no real need for the war in the first place.
  - batushka 9y ago
    Never heard of war that wasn't smeared by other side. When rooskies bombed Finland, Molotov told they're delivering bread baskets to starving Finns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_bread_basket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_bread_basket
    - oblio 9y ago
      Nice trolling, I guess? When there's a conflict, I generally look at the "weight" of the opponents. Can you, with a straight face, call Iraq a real opponent or even threat for the US? More than that, do you think the US really needed allies to invade Iraq? (except for trying to use them to legitimize the war).

metafunctor 9y ago

In Finland, the army exists for the purpose of defending Finland against attack. Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces. Finnish males serve a mandatory 6-12 months in the Finnish Defence Forces. It's a citizen's duty here; some people opt for a civil service duty. Thus, when asked a question like this, most Finns will automatically assume defending Finland against a military attack.

ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
>>Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces. "Wehrmacht" means something along the lines of the "defense force" too. Not saying the rest of your reasoning is wrong, just pointing out that calling your army a "defense force" doesn't necessarily mean that it's used for defense only...
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Does it? I thought "Wehr" translated to "War". (Disclaimer: I don't actually speak German.)
  - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
    It does. "War" would be "Krieg".
moogly 9y ago
Many countries' military have gone through that name change to make it sound more palatable. It's basic PR. I live in Finland's neighbour country Sweden where as late as 1974, the Swedish Armed Forces were still named "Krigsmakten" as opposed to post-1975 "Försvarsmakten" ("krig" = "war", "försvar" = "defence").
Belphemur 9y ago
A little of geographical context could help other understand, Finland situation. Finland has a border with Russia and a big history with them. Lots of Finn I met think Russia could come any day hence the need for a military force ready to fight.

youngtaff 9y ago

Poor choice of colours in that map… Red generally == bad, and in this map lower percentage == red, there for a lower percentage willing to fight is bad?

vilmosi 9y ago
This. I was super confused for a second because Germany was dark red.
wavefunction 9y ago
I don't know that "fight for your country" is "bad" or "good". Defending your country against outside aggression seems "good." Fighting in a war of convenience is "bad". I think an interesting qualifier is if the person answering assumed "fighting for your country" meant defense or offense.
- zild3d 9y ago
  True, still the color choice is poor. Strong red color brings to mind, personally, a high value. I thought it would mean 90-100, except it actually meant 0-9. If red isn't clearly good or bad, then don't use it. Use light to dark shades of the same color or white to color, etc.
ForRealsies 9y ago
Germany's self-identity has been an exercise in self-shame for 70 years now. Their culture would do well to take some pride in itself, otherwise they'll submissively embrace Sharia.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

This is a dumb info-graphic. It basically all depends on the war in question. Another round of playing world police? Not my thing. California seceding from the union? I'll help you pack. Canada annexing Vermont? Depends on how Vermont feels about it. Actual foreign invasion? Where's the nearest recruiter.

logfromblammo 9y ago

I would assume that the question was posed in the subject's native tongue. I would further assume that different languages impose different meanings on the word or phrase used for "your country". For instance, in US English, there is a clear distinction between "country", "nation", "state", and "government", and those words have slightly different meanings to different people. Thus, the question--with the same wording--could be interpreted by one as "Would you take up arms to defend the people in your neighborhood from military attack?" and by another as "Would you murder strangers for the benefit of rich oligarchs that never actually put themselves at risk of harm?" I imagine if you asked those two different questions explicitly to the same person, you would see a large gap in responses. As such, without more specific information on how the survey was conducted, I'd be cautious about comparing results across language groups and cultures. I imagine the answers are heavily influenced by the sense "Would you re-fight your country's previous wars?"

inops 9y ago

The article doesn't say how this was apportioned between men and women in each country, and if it was the same across the countries. I would imagine you would see higher percentages all round if you asked just men. Men do the actual "fighting" in most every case.

5_minutes 9y ago

Soldiers often are the suckers in wars. But I guess there's a big difference in defending or go invading

Spooky23 9y ago

Good for them. The reality of modern war is that there isn't a lot of room beyond modern imperial proxy warfare in places like Syria and Afghanistan. WW3 in Europe means that most of Europe will be a smoking hole.

democracy 9y ago
Most of the world, I would say.

wink 9y ago

German here as well. For one I (and probably many others as well) aren't expecting any war on German ground anytime soon (let's hope for the best). But maybe "fighting a war for your country" implies quite a bit of patriotism. If there's ever been a country where concept of patriotism.. let's say slightly differs from other countries - yes, it's Germany. Trying to write this as objective as possible: Big (compared other countries at least) parts of the population already wouldn't want to run around with a German flag. Some already see all the flags during football world cup season as "too patriotic". I'm torn. I think I'd describe myself as very much not a patriot. I like living in Germany, looking at some things I'm even glad. But I don't see anything inherently good in German. I surely wouldn't object to being a "European citizen" with such a passport.

sp332 9y ago

From http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg the exact question is "If there were a war which involved [country], would you be willing to fight for your country?" Not really any clearer than the headline makes it out to be.

andrewla 9y ago

I can't seem to find any more details on the survey other than basic methodology. The thing that I'm curious about is the language used in the survey. In a sense, you could argue that some of the disparity in results comes from what people would interpret as the meaning of "fight for your country", but I'm curious as to whether the ambiguity of this phrase (fight at the behest of my country, fight to defend my country, fight to defend my country's "honor"?) carries over into foreign translations and whether that affects the way the question is interpreted. Or it is possible that the underlying question was more specific to avoid these linguistic ambiguities, and we are seeing a "digestion" of the various more specific questions. If someone can dig up a link to more detailed survey results, I'd be interested in seeing it. All the link in the article leads to is a press release about the results.

runeks 9y ago
It would be interesting to focus on only e.g. English-speaking countries, and see how great the variance is within this group. It’s also interesting to see that the countries which are often invaded/occupied by Western nations are much more willing to fight, whereas the occupiers/invading nations seem less willing. Could it be that Westerners answer “no” because their idea of “fighting for your country” is starting a war somewhere else, whereas to the people of Vietnam (89% willingness) the same question conjures up an image of being invaded by a foreign nation, and defending themselves against that?

et2o 9y ago

Of course the Finns are at the top :) Interesting to see Turkey included as a European country. Not that it matters any more than semantically, but is it considered European now, by other Europeans? Different from what I was taught in school. Obviously a political issue.

democracy 9y ago
I remember an Israeli general when asked about European military might laughed and said the strongest army of Europe resides in.... Israel!

omnimus 9y ago

Some would not fight because they are leftist pacifist. Some would not fight because they are immigrants. Some would not fight because their country is full of immigrants.

barking 9y ago

I think Goering's famous quote just about sums it up: "..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”