Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country(brilliantmaps.com)
brilliantmaps.com
Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country
http://brilliantmaps.com/europe-fight-war/
257 comments
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?
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?
would you fight for the EU?
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.
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. :)
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. :)
Exactly. There is quite a bit of clarification needed for someone to fully answer the question and depending on how you define certain terms the responses, I would imagine, would quite different.
"Fight a War" : Front line with arms? Controlling a drone from thousands of miles away? Being a military medic, engineer, or strategist? Propaganda writer?
"country": Sovereign physical boarders? Extends to protecting assets/people overseas? Cyber footprint? The political party in charge? The constitution? The population?
by whom?: Invading foreign force? Internal civil uprising? Military coup? aliens? ;)
"Fight a War" : Front line with arms? Controlling a drone from thousands of miles away? Being a military medic, engineer, or strategist? Propaganda writer?
"country": Sovereign physical boarders? Extends to protecting assets/people overseas? Cyber footprint? The political party in charge? The constitution? The population?
by whom?: Invading foreign force? Internal civil uprising? Military coup? aliens? ;)
Yep, that's a very good synopsis )
So we should have asked these questions, instead of the irrelevant one that was actually asked :/
Absolutely. Whether or not I'd risk my life would depend on a lot of things.
Asking the first three questions of a German is some serious WW2 history trolling.
You forgot one: would you join in a war to protect people of your ethno-linguistic background who live in a country who are (you are told) under threat as second-class citizens? I believe that was the stated reason for invading Czechslovakia.
You forgot one: would you join in a war to protect people of your ethno-linguistic background who live in a country who are (you are told) under threat as second-class citizens? I believe that was the stated reason for invading Czechslovakia.
The second war (to protect the party and banking institutions) would be promoted like the first. Propaganda is a rather effective thing in wars.
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.
I read it as non-specific - don't think it implies that your country would be the aggressor.
Most probably there's a big difference between fighting offensively or defensively. Would be really interesting to see 2 different questions.
And fighting 'defensively' also has a large range. Most recent wars involving western nations would probably be categorised (at least by them) as defensive whereas I would disagree. There's a huge difference between fighting because your country has been invaded (e.g. troops on the ground, trying to overthrow your government, killing civilians) and fighting because a country has dangerous weapons they could theoretically use to attack you at some future date (both arguable defensive, but only the first would I consider fighting in).
Yeah. I think the interesting split would be between defending your own soil vs. invading another country (for whatever reason).
> 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.
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.
I think the definition includes defence. Otherwise it would not be applicable in any foreseeable scenario to e.g. Finland.
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'.
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'.
Pacifism is not always a tenable strategy for piece.
Finland has a population of 5M. Russia has 144M. Russia has been a wanton overbearing opportunist when it comes to foreign policy. Now, in this particular instance, which policy from Finlands part do you think leads more likelier to a future of non-invasion: a) cordial relationships and a standing army b) cordial relationships.
Finland has a population of 5M. Russia has 144M. Russia has been a wanton overbearing opportunist when it comes to foreign policy. Now, in this particular instance, which policy from Finlands part do you think leads more likelier to a future of non-invasion: a) cordial relationships and a standing army b) cordial relationships.
a) to be sure. But I am not advocating for a world without military, this would be an utopia, but not realistic (sadly). I just wanted to point out, that the word 'defense' can also be used to justify a war of aggression.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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)
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)
> 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.
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.
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.
What I found interesting is that Sweden, which has had peace for over 200 years, has a really high percentage.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Russia has been invaded every 80-100 years for the last 1000 years. I have understanding for them, it is already some 75 years since the last one.
Russia has waged dozens of aggressive wars during that period, including 2 since 2008
Yes, sure. The first one was their UN peacekeeping units being attacked[1], and that second one was never proved, the only evidence is evidence by repetition, ala Goering.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...
oh really, "there were no Russian troops in Crimea, where's your proof", straight from Russian TV. Now tell us that Boeing wasn't shot by the paramilitaries backed, organized, armed and financed by Russia.
edit: also, your nickname seems very fitting. You a Stalin fan?
edit: also, your nickname seems very fitting. You a Stalin fan?
Crimea is way more complicated case than "green muzhiks". You could start with Khrushchev and 1954. Or at least the 1992 referendum, which was ignored.
And that Boeing? Really? The evidence for this claim is even worse than for Saddam's WMDs. You didn't even ask yourself cui bono?
And that Boeing? Really? The evidence for this claim is even worse than for Saddam's WMDs. You didn't even ask yourself cui bono?
> 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.
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.
Finland participated in the WW2, moreover, also on the side that lost the war.
Of course one should remember that Finland lost WW2 "better" than most countries won it. In fact, many Finns will say that it was a victory. While the war was brutal, Finland is one of the few countries where the casualities were mostly limited to the military. There were only ~2000 civilian deaths. Finland was never occupied[1] and there was no large scale bombing of cities. Finland remained an independent democracy, and prospered after the war. The contrast to the rest of Eastern Europe is pretty stark.
[1]: Only one major Finnish city (Viipuri) was occupied by the USSR (after the civilian population of the city was evacuated).
[1]: Only one major Finnish city (Viipuri) was occupied by the USSR (after the civilian population of the city was evacuated).
>lost WW2 "better" than most countries won it
Finland also lost Karelia and other territories in the Winter war. Nominally a different war, but for finns it's a one long conflict with Stalin's Russia.
Finland also lost Karelia and other territories in the Winter war. Nominally a different war, but for finns it's a one long conflict with Stalin's Russia.
This reads like Finland was a willing Nazi ally which is unfair. Finland fought a parallel war to the rest of the world. They spent the whole time defending themselves against invasion from Russia. When Russia was invaded by Germany their former allies stopped supporting them and they had to seek what help they could get.
But at the start both France and the UK actually considered sending troops to assist Finland against the Soviets - this was when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was in place so the Soviets were effectively Nazi allies at that point.
Almost all European countries had Molotov-Ribbentrop-like pact with Germany, including UK and Poland. MR-pact was just the last one; made after UK and France sabotaged Molotov's effort to make pact with them and after the Austrian Anschluss and breaking of Czechoslovakia. They wanted Germany to attack the USSR and not to be bound to help, just like they looked the other way after Poland was attacked later that year.
Yes, but only the Soviets joined in with the Germans in invading Poland!
Yes, but somehow magically they stopped at Curzon line. I.e. they took back exactly the same lands, that Poles took them 20 years before.
At the dawn of WW2, Poles weren't innocent bystander either. They happily tooks parts of Czechoslovakia.
At the dawn of WW2, Poles weren't innocent bystander either. They happily tooks parts of Czechoslovakia.
What "same lands" are you talking about? Poland had same rights as Bolsheviks to parts of Russian Empire.
If you don't know, Lenin proclaimed that Bolsheviks aren't successors to Tsarist Russia.
If you don't know, Lenin proclaimed that Bolsheviks aren't successors to Tsarist Russia.
East of Curzon line. You know, that agreement that was made after WW1 (and therefore after USSR was established) and broken by the 1920-war?
Curzon line was suggested _during_ the war.
Besides, as I said - Poland had the same rights to these territories, so it was a fair game of whoever captured them first.
And if we're talking about broken agreements - Bolsheviks broke that agreement first.
Besides, as I said - Poland had the same rights to these territories, so it was a fair game of whoever captured them first.
And if we're talking about broken agreements - Bolsheviks broke that agreement first.
So basically you are saying that it was fair game for Poland to forcibly capture the territory, but when the USSR did the same, it's wrong and despicable?
Nice double standards.
Nice double standards.
Where did I ever said anything about 'wrong and despicable'?
Any links for this? It's the first time I hear about it.
For the Polish pact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggr...
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwoygYdTmY is an exchange between Tusk and Putin on the topic. I haven't found a better video.
About the Molotov negotiation, it is in the book by Nikolai Starikov, Who set Hitler against Stalin?, (ISBN 978-5-496-00332-2). It is in Russian, unfortunately. Excerpts have been translated to English, the part I was talking about is here: https://orientalreview.org/2015/04/18/episode-15-poland-betr...
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwoygYdTmY is an exchange between Tusk and Putin on the topic. I haven't found a better video.
About the Molotov negotiation, it is in the book by Nikolai Starikov, Who set Hitler against Stalin?, (ISBN 978-5-496-00332-2). It is in Russian, unfortunately. Excerpts have been translated to English, the part I was talking about is here: https://orientalreview.org/2015/04/18/episode-15-poland-betr...
You're confusing non-aggression pacts with MR pact, which in fact DIVIDED Europe between two different dictators and basically lead to WW2.
Also that guy Starikov is nota a historian, but an ultra-right nationalist playing current Kremlin tune. So his "works" should be taken with a truckloads of salt.
Also that guy Starikov is nota a historian, but an ultra-right nationalist playing current Kremlin tune. So his "works" should be taken with a truckloads of salt.
Nice ad-hominem and credentialism you have there, do you have anything that refutes his points?
How about common sense?
Or you plan to detail the discussion by switching context to talking about far-right fiction?
Or you plan to detail the discussion by switching context to talking about far-right fiction?
Well, if it is a far-right fiction, it will be easy to refute it's point instead of ad-homineming the author, right?
Wrong. That would be derailing.
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.
I think other explanations (including geographically induced ways of interpreting the question) are rather more likely.
Or maybe the willingness to fight leads to more conflicts?
I agree, I would answer differently to both questions, defend yes, attack no.
> 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.
The most close to the threat is being the threat, so I'm not disagreeing.
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.
> 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.
When under foreign attack, you don't join the army - the army "joins" (conscripts) you. It's not voluntary.
Unless you're female.
>> 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?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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).
So you wouldn't risk your life but you would risk your family's, friend's and colleagues instead?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
South Africa? South America? Australia? Hell, even Greenland could work. They might not all be optimal choices, but anything is better than war. Guess it would depend on the situation, and where the conflict is.
Part of it is making sure you have resources to pay for stuff if something goes wrong, e.g. don't hold all of your money in a local bank account. In such a situation, if all your funds are held in local bank accounts, since they'll likely get frozen to some extent, you're essentially fucked.
All in all, given the bank bailout rules introduced by the EU a few years ago (look at what happened in Cyprus), it's probably not a bad idea to keep some funds in separate accounts... healthy paranoia?
Part of it is making sure you have resources to pay for stuff if something goes wrong, e.g. don't hold all of your money in a local bank account. In such a situation, if all your funds are held in local bank accounts, since they'll likely get frozen to some extent, you're essentially fucked.
All in all, given the bank bailout rules introduced by the EU a few years ago (look at what happened in Cyprus), it's probably not a bad idea to keep some funds in separate accounts... healthy paranoia?
> South Africa? South America? Australia?
While as a Belgian you'd be able to enter there and stay for a short while, you'd still have to comply with their residence visa process or hope that their refugee provision is generous.
While as a Belgian you'd be able to enter there and stay for a short while, you'd still have to comply with their residence visa process or hope that their refugee provision is generous.
I guess the logical country to go to would be one which allows access through investment, hence another reason to have a rainy day fund. Money, while unfair, essentially buys residency in many countries.
This sounds extremely selfish, just writing this.
This sounds extremely selfish, just writing this.
Hard to blame you for selfishness, when the topic is literally how to save the lives of you and your family, should shit hit the fan.
I did some introspection on that topic myself, and I realized that while my desire to help people in need is strong, my own desire to stay alive is strong as well.
I did some introspection on that topic myself, and I realized that while my desire to help people in need is strong, my own desire to stay alive is strong as well.
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
edit: a word
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
>>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...
"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...
Does it? I thought "Wehr" translated to "War". (Disclaimer: I don't actually speak German.)
It does. "War" would be "Krieg".
While I agree with you, the first point is not as solid as it seems. "Wehrmacht" also means "defense force" :)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
While the US might be an outlier amongst postindustrial western countries in terms of the military being a survival opportunity for the poor, in the grand historical picture this has probably been the norm more often than the exception. When lost crops meant that you would not likely survive the next winter, a plundering army could count on a steady supply of recruits, much like a fire uses its own great to prepare the raw fuel for quick oxidation.
"it's more like any other job such as a policeman"
I don't know what its like now but in the 80s/90s the people I knew who were in the UK forces were either from very posh backgrounds if they were officers (particularly Guards regiments in the army) or from pretty humble backgrounds for other ranks.
I don't know what its like now but in the 80s/90s the people I knew who were in the UK forces were either from very posh backgrounds if they were officers (particularly Guards regiments in the army) or from pretty humble backgrounds for other ranks.
Yeah I didn't mean in terms of class but in terms of other status (grades, criminal background) we don't have the "it was either jail or the army" type people as you often hear (perhaps more historically and of course from fiction) about the US.
I certainly knew a few people from high school who I suspect probably would have ended up in jail had it not been for the Army (NB I did not go to a posh school!).
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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...
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.
> There truly is nothing more disgusting than war
The first counterexample that came to mind: to be exterminated without even putting up a fight.
The first counterexample that came to mind: to be exterminated without even putting up a fight.
It seems that you are assuming that the attacking country would employ some form of genocide tactic.
It's a valid example. There are people alive today who remember that exact scenario happening, in Western Europe itself no less.
As I said, merely the first counterexample that came to mind.
I'd judge surrendering your freedom and your property without putting up a fight as "more disgusting than war." Allowing an innocent ally to be conquered probably also qualifies. There's really quite a lot of stuff that is "more disgusting than war." But people can feel free to choose what they're disgusted by...
I'd judge surrendering your freedom and your property without putting up a fight as "more disgusting than war." Allowing an innocent ally to be conquered probably also qualifies. There's really quite a lot of stuff that is "more disgusting than war." But people can feel free to choose what they're disgusted by...
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.
The French Foreign Legion would like a word...
Does not really explain the Japan case.
Or invade some poor shits country because freedom.
> 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.
I have a lot of experience of soldiers and junior officers competing to get posted into units scheduled to deploy on operations.
>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.
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.
I just can't relate that to the people I know in the military at all. Most people are skilled professionals who are keen to do the best job they can in what are almost always complex situations.
>I just can't relate that to the people I know in the military at all. Most people are skilled professionals who are keen to do the best job they can in what are almost always complex situations.
I imagine you're talking about Navy/Airforce? They tend to be normal intelligent folks for sure. Line units in the Army are a completely different world.
I imagine you're talking about Navy/Airforce? They tend to be normal intelligent folks for sure. Line units in the Army are a completely different world.
No I'm talking about my experience in line units in the British Army.
I think you're working off ancient stereotypes. Modern land warfare is highly technical and extremely mentally and physically demanding. A modern professional army doesn't have any room for psychopaths, brainwashed people, or scared kids.
Look at all the effort the military goes into in combating 'brainwashing' - mission command and encouraging people to use as much initiative as possible.
I think you're working off ancient stereotypes. Modern land warfare is highly technical and extremely mentally and physically demanding. A modern professional army doesn't have any room for psychopaths, brainwashed people, or scared kids.
Look at all the effort the military goes into in combating 'brainwashing' - mission command and encouraging people to use as much initiative as possible.
>No I'm talking about my experience in line units in the British Army.
Ah, that makes sense. Let me tell you a thing about the US Army vs. our European counterparts. The Army is essentially a "last ditch" choice for impoverished kids with no other option in terms of jobs or education. The smart ones join the Air Force or Navy, and the dummies get filtered into the Army infantry. I know because I was one of them. I went through basic training with a convicted drug dealer and an attempted murderer. It's technically a "volunteer force", but once you sign up you are bound as a slave by law for the length of your entire enlistment. (Obviously this does not apply to officers)
Contrast this with European militaries which are 10x smaller, and thus only accept an elite core of people who are able to make the cut. The result is a completely different culture and force. I have no doubt that the British Army is full of complete professionals, as anyone who wasn't into it would quit or be kicked out or not even make it through selection in the first place. It simply doesn't work that way here.
Ah, that makes sense. Let me tell you a thing about the US Army vs. our European counterparts. The Army is essentially a "last ditch" choice for impoverished kids with no other option in terms of jobs or education. The smart ones join the Air Force or Navy, and the dummies get filtered into the Army infantry. I know because I was one of them. I went through basic training with a convicted drug dealer and an attempted murderer. It's technically a "volunteer force", but once you sign up you are bound as a slave by law for the length of your entire enlistment. (Obviously this does not apply to officers)
Contrast this with European militaries which are 10x smaller, and thus only accept an elite core of people who are able to make the cut. The result is a completely different culture and force. I have no doubt that the British Army is full of complete professionals, as anyone who wasn't into it would quit or be kicked out or not even make it through selection in the first place. It simply doesn't work that way here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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...
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
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.
* 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.
I can't contradict you, you clearly are better informed than me. It was in a documentary about the end of the war and its aftermath, in Germany. It did also mention the rapes by Russian soldiers and then it singled out the French areas in the West. I am not sure why it mentioned colonial soldiers in particular but it did. I may have exaggerated when I said 'vast majority', I can't remember the exact words.
They interviewed a doctor who carried out abortions and he mentioned that the situation of the girls he came into contact with was very bad. The impression I came away with was that it was the soldiers from the countries that were invaded by Germany that let their soldiers have free rein when it came to rape. In the British area there was a lot of 'liberation' ie looting but no mention of rape. Also one british soldier mentioned that the british administrators were a mixed lot with many having an 'eye for the main chance'.
The American sector wasn't mentioned at all except to contrast it with the British one where there was no end of bureaucracy and where there were five times the number of administrators.
> 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...
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...
> 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).
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).
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).
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).
> 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.
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.
Maybe not glorification, but definitely respect and appreciation for their sacrifice.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
The Soviet Union was indeed considerably larger than Russia had been since the 17th century.
Russians largely saw the Soviet Union as an extension of Russian power. Hence all the russification that occured in non-Russian majority republics
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.
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.
> "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...
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...
More data: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/
I would not want to draw a firm conclusion from this, though. It says that "in Europe the second half of the 20th century was extraordinarily peaceful", but that particular graph only counts wars between nations, not civil wars, guerilla wars and terrorism.
There's a lot of data in that page, though, so I can't really compress it into a HN comment.
I would not want to draw a firm conclusion from this, though. It says that "in Europe the second half of the 20th century was extraordinarily peaceful", but that particular graph only counts wars between nations, not civil wars, guerilla wars and terrorism.
There's a lot of data in that page, though, so I can't really compress it into a HN comment.
Thanks, there is quite a bit of info with great visualizations. It seems 1751-1800 was a relative minimum of years of wars.
Well, the wars in this time may be fewer by number, but not by impact. In this time period, the first truly global conflict was fought. The "Seven Years' War" (1756–1763) was a war between european colonial powers over maritime and colonial hegemony. Some historians call it the "true first world war", because battles took place on all colonial and native frontiers of the participating parties.
This was truly a change of paradigm, regarding the scale of conflicts, not unlike the real first world war.
Also, the two wars that really changed the world (on a ideological level) took place in this time: The American war of independence and the French revolution.
This was truly a change of paradigm, regarding the scale of conflicts, not unlike the real first world war.
Also, the two wars that really changed the world (on a ideological level) took place in this time: The American war of independence and the French revolution.
And the 20th century also has a decent list after WWII
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.
> 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...
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...
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
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
That's true, I do not disput it.
My point was about the countries as a whole, including civilians and by including the displaced people. And I did include them because you pointed at the amputation of territories, which is something that happened nearly 70 years after the WWII, so I felt I could talk about what happened in the ten years after the WWII.
You know this point about displaced people strikes me because I am French:
I did work with (old) Germans and sometimes I felt some bitterness, including an occasion where one guy in an hotel told me of bombardments on Heidelberg (not a town that suffered heavily) and I was thinking that my father suffered also from bombardments (bombs exploded around him) as a 18 years old in France, so what was his point? Many years later I learned that the Allied discourse of "the good and the bad people" was an heavy (re) writing of history.
My point was about the countries as a whole, including civilians and by including the displaced people. And I did include them because you pointed at the amputation of territories, which is something that happened nearly 70 years after the WWII, so I felt I could talk about what happened in the ten years after the WWII.
You know this point about displaced people strikes me because I am French:
I did work with (old) Germans and sometimes I felt some bitterness, including an occasion where one guy in an hotel told me of bombardments on Heidelberg (not a town that suffered heavily) and I was thinking that my father suffered also from bombardments (bombs exploded around him) as a 18 years old in France, so what was his point? Many years later I learned that the Allied discourse of "the good and the bad people" was an heavy (re) writing of history.
> Many years later I learned that the Allied discourse of "the good and the bad people" was an heavy (re) writing of history.
I agree that that was heavily the case on the Eastern front (with the Allies doing heavy cover-ups for USSR genocides so that they are not associated with a "bad guy"), but how did that happen on the Western front?
I agree that that was heavily the case on the Eastern front (with the Allies doing heavy cover-ups for USSR genocides so that they are not associated with a "bad guy"), but how did that happen on the Western front?
That is what I point out in my previous replies.
You can look also at:
* US (Roosevelt) planned for nearly destruction of after war Germany, fortunately Hoover stopped that policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indust...
* Living with 1200 calories per day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany
* Another strange behavior is that Allied forces imposed to De Gaulle to "whitewash" its troops before entering Paris. I suppose it was a only trick to make it impossible for French troops to enter in Paris without having to refuse bluntly, but that shows that the demand of "having only white soldiers" was considered to be perfectly normal and acceptable by UK and US forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm
* US (Roosevelt) planned for nearly destruction of after war Germany, fortunately Hoover stopped that policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indust...
* Living with 1200 calories per day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany
* Another strange behavior is that Allied forces imposed to De Gaulle to "whitewash" its troops before entering Paris. I suppose it was a only trick to make it impossible for French troops to enter in Paris without having to refuse bluntly, but that shows that the demand of "having only white soldiers" was considered to be perfectly normal and acceptable by UK and US forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm
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?
Red generally == bad, and in this map lower percentage == red, there for a lower percentage willing to fight is bad?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This. I was super confused for a second because Germany was dark red.
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.
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
> 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).
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).
Belarus is indeed very agressive, only New Zealand Empire can stop it from its attempts to conquer the world...
https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38692/en/be...
I wrote it's "less agressive", but it's still a dictatorship.
I wrote it's "less agressive", but it's still a dictatorship.
It is also an Eastern europeam country with a population of 10m people (link to wikipedia to be added). Does this fact make it more or less agressive?
It's aggressive towards its own people, not towards neighbors. And it's a dictatorship, so it can change in a moment. These facts make it a possible threat.
Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some assholes conquer your home?
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?".
I expect the answers is highly correlated with "is the next war your country involved defending from an aggressor or being the aggressor?".
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.
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.
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.
The "assholes" may not have come from elsewhere.
A completely agree. I was just pointing out that going to war doesn't automatically = bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It would be interesting to ask: Are you willing to fight a war to defend European countries against an outside threat, such as Russia.
indeed a followup question could be: would you fight for the EU?
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.
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.
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%.
> 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.
I guess the correlation is inverse, i.e. the more patriotic a people the less the diversities.
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.
Although not sure why you see it that way, seems easier to explain the other way around to me.
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.
The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because it lets them hold on to their wealth.
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
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.
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.
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!
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 : )
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 : )
I'm pretty sure the UK defence industry isn't run primarily to equip our armed forces with decent equipment....
[Edit: UK armed forces seemed to have to suffer comparatively poor but very expensive equipment foisted on them for political reasons].
[Edit: UK armed forces seemed to have to suffer comparatively poor but very expensive equipment foisted on them for political reasons].
Here, https://www.reddit.com/user/EugeneZavidovsky - is the discusion about SMS direct democracy on another my reddit account. People are afraid even of public voting : ) Well, it's possible to make it secret with clever enough citizens, but I don't think, it is reasonable...
Man. They are all corrupted or just too ignorant. J.R.Nyquist can tell you even more : )
Have you ever heard of thista?
For any engineering problem one can make a "brute-force" algorithm, which theoretically finds its solution, describe that algorithm as a logical scheme (a directed graph with logic gates as nodes) and then one can use an AI agent to make that logical scheme easier to compute, by simplifying (through transformation rules like the De Morgan rule) unnecessary computation steps, input variables, etc. The solution to the problem can be found by calculation of that simplified version of the logical scheme.
The AI agent may be built from Neural Nets, or from the algorithm, which I call Evolution of Neural Graphs [0].
Some of interesting engineering problems are:
- to find a machine code for a controller of a bipedal robot [1], which makes it able to work in warehouses and factories;
- to find a machine code for a multiprocessor system [2], which behaves as an AI agent purposed for a given work to be done;
- to find a CAD file [3], which describes the design of a spheromak working with MHD generators;
- to find a file [4], which describes the manufacturing steps to produce the first molecular nanofactory in the world;
- etc…
Officials of what country would take it seriously, can you guess?
[0] https://github.com/Eug145/TetrAI/blob/master/Source-v0.92bet...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtHCFToYPY
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/08/23/new-microchip-demo...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynomak
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg
I have a reddit account, you may discuss it there too.
Have you ever heard of thista?
For any engineering problem one can make a "brute-force" algorithm, which theoretically finds its solution, describe that algorithm as a logical scheme (a directed graph with logic gates as nodes) and then one can use an AI agent to make that logical scheme easier to compute, by simplifying (through transformation rules like the De Morgan rule) unnecessary computation steps, input variables, etc. The solution to the problem can be found by calculation of that simplified version of the logical scheme.
The AI agent may be built from Neural Nets, or from the algorithm, which I call Evolution of Neural Graphs [0].
Some of interesting engineering problems are:
- to find a machine code for a controller of a bipedal robot [1], which makes it able to work in warehouses and factories;
- to find a machine code for a multiprocessor system [2], which behaves as an AI agent purposed for a given work to be done;
- to find a CAD file [3], which describes the design of a spheromak working with MHD generators;
- to find a file [4], which describes the manufacturing steps to produce the first molecular nanofactory in the world;
- etc…
Officials of what country would take it seriously, can you guess?
[0] https://github.com/Eug145/TetrAI/blob/master/Source-v0.92bet...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtHCFToYPY
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/08/23/new-microchip-demo...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynomak
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg
I have a reddit account, you may discuss it there too.
That's a really far fetched conspiracy theory. Personally I am happy that Europeans are not too exited to start more wars.
Peace is only good for the wealthy?
"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?
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?
[deleted]
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.
So what all those countries have in common is that a large portion of the male population has actual military training.
And are next to Russia (except Denmark)
I don't think that's a strong pattern at all...
Iceland? Denmark? Austria?
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.
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.
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
Unfortunately, the first time wasn't as crushing as the second time, at least it wasn't perceived as such.
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.
Well this survey shouldn't be trusted. Why wasn't Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and even Norway included?
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.
Out of sight, out of mind.
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?"
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?"
The Finns will save us!
Also, can't blame the Germans for being unsure which side to be on in the next great war..
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.”
"..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.”
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.
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.
I remember an Israeli general when asked about European military might laughed and said the strongest army of Europe resides in.... Israel!
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.
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.
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! :)
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! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Also, I find 21% surprisingly large for Austria.
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.
Some would not fight because they are immigrants.
Some would not fight because their country is full of immigrants.
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.
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.
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.
Currently we believe it's impossible due to nuclear weapons - there wouldn't be anything left to fight over or with.
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
Soldiers often are the suckers in wars. But I guess there's a big difference in defending or go invading
Is there a map of percentages of people who responded with "what's the pay like"
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?
>> 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.
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.
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.
Seconded by another German (though I've never lived there).
I'd like to see North America, anyone know if this information is available?
Linked from the article: http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-...
I'm having trouble accessing that. Press release from 2014 also available here: http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_r...
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.
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
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
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?