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

http://brilliantmaps.com/europe-fight-war/

by wsc981 • 9 years ago

167 245 9 years ago

brilliantmaps.com

moccachino• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

The Finns are always ready to fight the Russians again...

ddnb• 9 years 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.

hjrnunes2• 9 years ago

So you wouldn't risk your life but you would risk your family's, friend's and colleagues instead?

hjrnunes2• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

charlesdm4• 9 years 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.

lorenzfx4• 9 years 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

CalRobert2• 9 years ago

" loved ones to a more safer place."

The trouble arises when there are no more safe places, or when you along with millions of other people are desperately trying to get to said safer place (note the refugees currently in limbo in Turkey and elsewhere)

Where would you go when Western Europe is invaded? New Zealand? North Africa? The former is hard to get to, and any trouble befalling Europe could spread to the latter.

With Pax Americana coming to an end I think a lot of people who've had the luxury of forgetting that power and force are a thing will be cruelly reminded of it. It's hard to maintain a liberal democratic utopia when your neighbor's tanks are rolling through.

taway_12123• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

Unless you're female.

ChemicalWarfare4• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

sattoshi• 9 years ago

Extra discussion: 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.

JPLeRouzic4• 9 years 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).

Hasknewbie3• 9 years 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-re...

barking3• 9 years 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

justin663• 9 years ago

I doubt immigrants would have the same interest in war as the natives.

Many, many immigrants serve in the US armed forces. Some move to the front of the line to earn their citizenship that way, but it's not much of a stretch to imagine that the kind of people who are attracted to living in the US also relate to the idea of military service.

It's understandable that it would work differently in Europe. Most of those countries definitely have a different "brand," as it were...

darklajid2• 9 years 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?

blowski2• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

derefr• 9 years 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. :)

batiudrami• 9 years ago

I read it as non-specific - don't think it implies that your country would be the aggressor.

kbody• 9 years ago

Most probably there's a big difference between fighting offensively or defensively. Would be really interesting to see 2 different questions.

ajuc4• 9 years ago

doesn't seem to talk about fighting in defense of one's country

I assumed it is in defence (and I guess everybody in my country would do the same - we have neither a possibility nor motivation to invade anybody, on the other hand Russian threat is widely accepted as a fact of live).

It should be specifed for comparable data.

fsloth4• 9 years ago

I think the definition includes defence. Otherwise it would not be applicable in any foreseeable scenario to e.g. Finland.

maze-le3• 9 years ago

Would you be willing to defend your country in the Hindukush mountains?

The definition of 'Defence' can be streched and bend in various ways. You can be sure, that in the end almost every casus belli is in 'defense' of 'your country' or 'your countrymen' or 'your values'.

dddw2• 9 years ago

would you fight for the EU?

Bartweiss• 9 years ago

The main place this survey gets cited is in discussing NATO obligations.

So I'd like to see someone ask about that explicitly: not defense of German borders, but defense of (for example) Estonia against a Russian invasion. Thoughts there?

gabipurcaru• 9 years 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

executesorder662• 9 years ago

Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some assholes conquer your home?

fsloth4• 9 years 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.

arethuza7• 9 years 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.

darklajid2• 9 years 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.

duncanawoods• 9 years ago

Note that "defending your country from invasion" isn't the survey question, its "fight a war for". For the UK, our next war is much more likely to be a war of aggression or an intervention in someone else's conflict hence rather low desire to get involved. If there were a credible threat, I'm pretty sure the figure would be much higher.

I expect the answers is highly correlated with "is the next war your country involved defending from an aggressor or being the aggressor?".

fsloth4• 9 years ago

The value proposition depends on the country. For instance, Finland absolutely needs high level of support for it's concript army to stop Russia even of thinking of an attack (it's not about would it succeed but at what cost). Better to offer worse odds to the generals throwing dice in Kremlin or what ever other apparatus was responsible for Ukraine.

vacri3• 9 years ago

Australia's defence is the same. Our only real threat is Indonesia, and if they decided to invade, we can't stop them by ourselves. So it's the defence plan to do more damage than would be gained.

Of course, Indonesia isn't likely to invade - it has enough trouble keeping itself together; all the decent economic bits of Australia are on the far fringes of the continent; and the US Navy would finally get the chance to engage in a maritime war, so they'd be in like Flynn to help out.

ajuc4• 9 years ago

Why would that be the case?

If free societies don't want to defend - they are conquered by the oppressed societies, and cease to be free.

And it's not like in modern Europe there are no wars (Russia-Ukraine for one example), or aggressive dictatorships (Russia, Turkey, less agressive but 100% dictatorship Belarus, and a few more dictatorships in making, all of them using nationalism as the building block).

democracy9• 9 years ago

Belarus is indeed very agressive, only New Zealand Empire can stop it from its attempts to conquer the world...

kevin_b_er• 9 years ago

To put it bluntly: Because they stand at risk from invasion by Russia. The notion is that they're too complacent in spite of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its current propaganda campaign of Novorossia around Lithuania.

lwansbrough3• 9 years ago

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

macavaney• 9 years ago

Linked from the article: http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-...

lwansbrough3• 9 years ago

I'm having trouble accessing that. Press release from 2014 also available here: http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_r...

pavement• 9 years 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• 9 years 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

Variations by regions and religions: http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg

wideem• 9 years ago

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

othello3• 9 years 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_12123• 9 years 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.

othello3• 9 years 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.

usrusr3• 9 years 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.

notfromhere3• 9 years 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_gaussian2• 9 years ago

From the article

Since World War Two, Europe has been relatively peaceful with major exceptions of the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s and various political suppressions during the Cold War. However, the 19th century was also a relatively peaceful time for Europe that ended with the start of World War I.

So no, the vividity of the world wars is popular but unconvincing.

em3rgent0rdr2• 9 years ago

"However, the 19th century was also a relatively peaceful time for Europe that ended with the start of World War I."

Operative word: relatively. Still I see more than 18th century (although maybe severity of conflicts vary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#19...

ascorbic3• 9 years ago

Most Europeans have known living relatives who lived under bombardment or occupation. We may have lived in relative peace since then, but that's largely because the cultural memory of it is still so strong. This is what the precursor of the EU was created to ensure.

JPLeRouzic4• 9 years ago

Russia suffered by far the most of any countries on the Western front,

I do not know, Germany had more displaced people => after <= WWII than any other European countries and 500,000 died in the process [0].

Between 1944 and 1948 about 31 million people, were permanently or temporarily moved from Central and Eastern Europe.

The newly created UN even decided that a criteria for "migrant/displaced" person would exclude German people from the Poland/Hungary/etc...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...

othello3• 9 years ago

In terms of loss of civilians and military personnel though, it does not compare: the Soviet Union accounted for more than 40% of all WW2 deaths (both civilian and military) worldwide - including deaths on the Pacific front.

The Soviet Union lost a total of 26.6 million people, or 13.8% of their 1939 population. Germany suffered tremendously as well of course, with 5.7 million dead, or 8.2% of their 1939 population [0].

This is obviously not a contest, and I'm sure we can all agree that the suffering was tremendous on all sides. However, when it comes to the perception of war in Russia, the fact that the brunt of the Allied war effort in terms of casualties was borne out by the Soviet Union during WW2 (a fact often little known or recognized in Western countries) is especially relevant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

markvdb2• 9 years ago

The persistent glorification of Russia's role in WW2 (although historically justified)

Nazi Germany lost WWII largely because of the USSR indeed. That does not justify glorification of the USSR. It justifies celebrating liberation from nazism only.

Cyph0n• 9 years ago

Maybe not glorification, but definitely respect and appreciation for their sacrifice.

simo73• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

TorKlingberg• 9 years ago

That's a really far fetched conspiracy theory. Personally I am happy that Europeans are not too exited to start more wars.

tobltobs2• 9 years ago

Peace is only good for the wealthy?

pjc504• 9 years ago

If "mass immigration" makes war in Europe less likely then that's yet another thing in its favour.

But I don't think there's much of a correlation. People forget that migration was much easier administratively before WW1. Austria-Hungary was a multicultural state with a dozen languages whose residents could live anywhere within the borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#/media/File:Au...

Similarly the British Empire had free movement of people within it.

JohnStrange• 9 years ago

That theory would be in serious need for backup, because I can't see any connection. The pension systems will break down in countries like Germany without substantial mass immigration, that much is true, but is clinging to existing power the major motive for avoiding this breakdown? I'm not sure about this second part.

As for Germany, by the way, the explanation is kind of simple. Contrary to popular belief, the German border cannot be effectively closed, and once someone has seeked for asylum, this needs to be checked. At the same time, the Dublin II regulation is extremely unfair and unsolidaric, it was designed for a few refugees here and there, and insisting on it would have tumbled Greece even further into crisis and alienated Italy. More importantly, however, the German constitution would have made rejecting refugees impossible, as it guarantees the right to asylum to someone who comes from a country in which a war rages. Moreover, rejecting them would also have violated Article 18 of the EU constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is constitutional law and ratified international law, so Merkel thought something like "Blimey, what do I do now? Break all these laws and loose in front of the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights , or risk my career while standing in for those fancy human rights values I've always held speeches about?"

thinkfurther2• 9 years ago

"common identity" is kind of an oxymoron. Any person can at at best have their own identity. A "shared identity" is not a lot of people having a shared identity, but each of them not having one. Shared values, mutual trust, those make sense, "shared identity" is double think. If it can be shared it's not identity.

How would not going to war allow wealthy people to hold on to their wealth? That's a head scratcher, too.

And remind me, what are a lot of those immigrants fleeing from? Who was in favour of fucking up the already fucked up Middle East plenty more, for example? Who set the stage for ISIS? Wasn't it a nation riled up into a frenzy, with a "shared identity" pouring out every nook and cranny?

davissorenson• 9 years ago

Finland and Denmark have mandatory military service for males. Sweden got rid of mandatory military service in 2010, then reinstated it in 2016. Norway currently has "weak conscription" in that recruits are not forced to serve. Latvia was a part of the Soviet Union a generation ago, and had conscription until 2005.

So what all those countries have in common is that a large portion of the male population has actual military training.

notfromhere3• 9 years ago

And are next to Russia (except Denmark)

Lewton• 9 years ago

I don't think that's a strong pattern at all... Iceland? Denmark? Austria?

glebedel• 9 years ago

Not to mention Japan was the lowest with 11%...

simo73• 9 years ago

Strong doesn't mean it's the only explanation, probably different factors at play like in most things.

For instance for Germany (and maybe Austria?) major factor could be aversion to nationalism?

gkya• 9 years ago

the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country.

I guess the correlation is inverse, i.e. the more patriotic a people the less the diversities.

simo73• 9 years ago

Well correlation has not direction of causality, but I get your point.

Although not sure why you see it that way, seems easier to explain the other way around to me.

dejv• 9 years ago

Not really true: Czech republic have one of the most homogenous population in the world (95%, 97% if you count Slovaks which we used to share the country with) and still the the score is just 23%.

kartan• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

tobltobs2• 9 years ago

Or maybe the willingness to fight leads to more conflicts?

celticninja• 9 years ago

I agree, I would answer differently to both questions, defend yes, attack no.

bambax• 9 years ago

Germany is closer to Russia than France, and yet less "willing" to go to war.

Japan with 11% is really amazing, and yet it's near real threats with China and North Korea.

It would seem, countries who remember what war is actually like, would rather not fight; that would explain the results of Japan, Germany, France, Spain, the UK. The only exception is Russia, who suffered immensely during WW2 and yet would apparently fight again?

Or does it have something to do with age?

kofejnik3• 9 years ago

Russian TV has operated in patriotic imperial brainwashing mode for the past 15 years (and their culture in general - for the last 300 years), so no surprise here.

e12e• 9 years ago

Japan with 11% is really amazing, and yet it's near real threats with China and North Korea.

And Russia. Japan was the first industrial country to win a war with Russia, so there's some history there as well as with the rest of the Pacific.

aqsalose• 9 years ago

Finland participated in the WW2, moreover, also on the side that lost the war.

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6• 9 years ago

Your insight doesn't seem to apply even to the small subset of countries you decided to check it on, which really makes it look more like your preconceived ideal rather than anything you read from this map, no?

I think other explanations (including geographically induced ways of interpreting the question) are rather more likely.

thinkfurther2• 9 years ago

the closer you are to a thread, the most willing are you to fight.

The most close to the threat is being the threat, so I'm not disagreeing.

nielsole• 9 years ago

You might think of Latvia as a counter argument (41%) but keep in mind that the threat is Russia and only 62% of the population is Latvian. It would be nice to know if they narrowed down what "their" country is (Russia or Latvia). Just because you live in a country doesn't mean you identify with it as "your" country. Assuming that Russians all said no (assuming Latvia was meant) this makes 66% of the Latvians willing to go to war. This is far closer in line with other countries in close proximity to Russia.

For comparison: Ukraine has 77% Ukrainians Finland has 89% Fins

I couldn't find ethnic information by age group or how the question was exactly posed and who exactly was interviewed. Depending on each factor the results of this study might be heavily skewed for Latvia.

golergka• 9 years ago

In the current Ukranian-Russian conflict, there are a lot of ethnic Russians, speaking Russian, fighting on Ukranian side. While there are plenty of traditional ethnical and cultural conflicts around the world which had the chance to turn violent, the relationship between russian and ukranian people was never even close to this, and it's not the basis for the current conflict.

yeahforsureman• 9 years ago

For all countries, you seem to be quoting percentages based on (primary) language, not nationality or self-identified ethnicity. Just curious, do you feel it's impossible for a native Russian speaker living in Latvia to identify as Latvian, perhaps both Latvian and Russian?

The number you present for Finland is highly misleading, by the way. We have around 6 % of Swedish-speaking Finns but they almost all speak Finnish, have very deep roots in Finland and certainly identify as Finns just as much as the rest of us -- and definitely not as Swedes. Swedish is even the second official language. As for the rest, I'm sure most of the citizens growing up in an Estonian, Russian, Somali etc. speaking household identify as Finns, too.

djhworld• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

underlying tensions

More like - active war

capex• 9 years 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.

draugadrotten2• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

CalRobert2• 9 years ago

"I think we all know the answer"

Please enlighten us then. If you don't have data or personal experience to share, do you have anything of value to contribute?

Immigrants to nations have fought for their adopted homes with ferocity in the past. It make sense, really - this is somebody who liked (loved, even) the country so much that they worked hard to get there, as opposed to someone who happened to be born there and so is there by default.

Also, one complication to consider in your example of the American in Germany is that US citizens who join foreign militaries risk losing their US citizenship. Of course, for some people that's not a problem (there are a lot of accidental US citizens), but for others and their families it could pose an issue.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerati...

snakeanus2• 9 years ago

Does not really explain the Japan case.

wonderwonder• 9 years ago

The French Foreign Legion would like a word...

turbinerneiter• 9 years ago

Or invade some poor shits country because freedom.

chrisseaton3• 9 years ago

No one looks forward to it

I have a lot of experience of soldiers and junior officers competing to get posted into units scheduled to deploy on operations.

aphextron3• 9 years ago

I have a lot of experience of soldiers and junior officers competing to get posted into units scheduled to deploy on operations.

In the Army there are three types of people: psychopaths, brainwashed patriots, and scared kids. You're describing the first two, and the second one will become the third as soon as bullets start flying.

boyce• 9 years ago

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

draugadrotten2• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

Seconded by another German (though I've never lived there).

Hasknewbie3• 9 years 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.

vacri3• 9 years 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.

democracy9• 9 years 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?

vacri3• 9 years 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?

0xbear2• 9 years 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.

lorenzfx4• 9 years ago

Unfortunately, the first time wasn't as crushing as the second time, at least it wasn't perceived as such.

0xbear2• 9 years 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.

notfromhere3• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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! :)

democracy9• 9 years 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.

lwansbrough3• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

ascorbic3• 9 years 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.

democracy9• 9 years 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.

lorenzfx4• 9 years 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.

pjc504• 9 years ago

Currently we believe it's impossible due to nuclear weapons - there wouldn't be anything left to fight over or with.

koonsolo• 9 years 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.

dddw2• 9 years ago

indeed a followup question could be: would you fight for the EU?

danmaz74• 9 years 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• 9 years 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?

alkonaut2• 9 years 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.

vim_wannabe• 9 years 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.

apexalpha• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

metafunctor• 9 years 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.

Belphemur• 9 years 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.

oblio2• 9 years ago

While I agree with you, the first point is not as solid as it seems. "Wehrmacht" also means "defense force" :)

ChemicalWarfare4• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

Does it? I thought "Wehr" translated to "War". (Disclaimer: I don't actually speak German.)

moogly• 9 years 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").

youngtaff• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

This. I was super confused for a second because Germany was dark red.

wavefunction• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

inops• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

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

Spooky23• 9 years 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.

democracy9• 9 years ago

Most of the world, I would say.

wink• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

From 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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?

logfromblammo• 9 years 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?"

et2o• 9 years 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.

democracy9• 9 years ago

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

omnimus• 9 years 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.

barking3• 9 years 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.”

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

Related Stories