Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing To Fight A War For Their Country

[Resentless]

uhh what? went from the dark times to raping and pillaging africa to killing off natives in both south and north america. then couple hundred years later started world wars... at what point did those values stick? 1950 - now? lol

while i like white people and dont hold grudges lets be fucking real.

???? This is troll? XD

That's not how the timeline went bud. I recommend 'The Silk Roads' or the History of the world in bite sized chunks' to get you started on learning actual human history instead of whatever craziness you read on black lives matter.

[Fonduset]

If my country was at genuine risk of being invaded then yeah I will fight. If it is a pointless war such as in Afganistan then no. They were never going to invade us (UK) nor overthrow our democracy.

[NewOrleansTrolley]

Okay, i wil take this up with you.

The reason why so many in europe arent really going to fight for their country, is because they have no enemy. Who should we fight against? All of the countries in middle/west europe are in complete peace and their nearest "enemy" is far in the middle east. While alot of people like to put up Russia as the big enemy, most people know that they are just as willing as we are when it comes to fighting an enemy, who is not really our enemy.

Peace thrives in Europe and people are very happy about it. They have no need to fight because there is nobody around them, that want to destroy that peace. Give people a real enemy and the amount of people ready to fight for their country will rise, but when you ask people if they are willing to defend their country from some fantasy enemy, they are ofcourse not going to take it serious and say hell no. The only war most people have experience with in Central Europe is the war in the Middle East and that war was more about other peoples problems and profits then our own countries safety. Nowadays people go to war to earn a living, not to defend their values.

So in the end, i am actually surprised that fewer people did not say no to this. It is an imaginary question with very little foundation in reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, went to bed last night. Your post is completely reasonably if the premises are true. But that doesn't seem believable. Those countries are under attack by terrorists almost seasonally. Despite this, those countries' majority response is typically "let's not look racist here.." and "We've arrested some people who said bad things about the terrorists on facebook." Right now, if push came to shove, the majority response isn't going to be "let's fight," but rather, "let's pretend we're on the morally superior high ground while Rome burns."

A low percentage of pride in a country is never a good sign. Granted, I admit I'm stubborn and stuff. But life isn't about being nihilist or relative. That's for young teenagers mad they're out of black eyeshadow. lol

[namecraft]

I'd fight against genocide, not my stupid government

[Lahis]

Sorry, went to bed last night. Your post is completely reasonably if the premises are true. But that doesn't seem believable. Those countries are under attack by terrorists almost seasonally. Despite this, those countries' majority response is typically "let's not look racist here.." and "We've arrested some people who said bad things about the terrorists on facebook." Right now, if push came to shove, the majority response isn't going to be "let's fight," but rather, "let's pretend we're on the morally superior high ground while Rome burns."

A low percentage of pride in a country is never a good sign.

How do you wage war against small terrorist cells? Bomb your own cities to smoke them out? Nuke whole of Middle-East?

[Aphrel]

I don't believe it, you'd rather live under Russian rule?

Nobody is "PREFERING" any other goverments rule.

What they are prefering is the safe option to live under another goverments rule rather than the great risk of dying in war.

[Airlick]

The longer a country doesn't participate in a full out war, the lazier people get, the less they want to fight for it. You can easily see that general trend. It is swayed by different reasons, if a country's politics is blatantly corrupt, if a country is poor and offers no perspectives (see Bulgaria, Romania as countries that have natural enemy in Turkey at their borders and yet they have a very low rate of people willing to fight). Other factors are denationalizing the population and promoting "liberal" ideas as it happens in western Europe. The better living standards, the lower rate of people willing to fight, too, though Finland is an exception.

Then you get a case of Ukraine, which is extremely corrupt and poor, but since it has what Ukrainians perceive as open war against Russia and Ukrainians are afraid of losing their independence, whatever it's worth, there are still many people willing to fight for it.

Even if a country hasn't really been in a full out war for long, like Russia, propaganda and indoctrination can still work wonders and make people want to fight for it. It can work the other way around, as in the case of Japan.

[Lahis]

The better living standards, the lower rate of people willing to fight, too, though Finland is an exception.

There's a reason for that.

[d00mGuArD]

The countries you show that are most willing are also countries that are...well, for the lack of a better word: Garbage

I have to call bs on this one. You mean finland and sweden? they are at the very top of the list.

[Najnaj]

A low percentage of pride in a country is never a good sign.

Actually it is quite the opposite. Nationalism and success are polar opposites statistically. Even within a country you will find more flag waving in a poorer area.

[Flurryfang]

Sorry, went to bed last night. Your post is completely reasonably if the premises are true. But that doesn't seem believable. Those countries are under attack by terrorists almost seasonally. Despite this, those countries' majority response is typically "let's not look racist here.." and "We've arrested some people who said bad things about the terrorists on facebook." Right now, if push came to shove, the majority response isn't going to be "let's fight," but rather, "let's pretend we're on the morally superior high ground while Rome burns."

A low percentage of pride in a country is never a good sign. Granted, I admit I'm stubborn and stuff. But life isn't about being nihilist or relative. That's for young teenagers mad they're out of black eyeshadow. lol

Yeah, terroists without a country and without the power to invade. Most terroist attacks are made with the sole purpose of giving people the feeling of not being able to do anything. There is no area in the world, where we can go and kill terroists, because they are by nature without nation, in smaller groups and often dead during their actions. People are very well aware by the danger there is in the world, but the reason why people are doing their best to hold back on their fears, is because we are really helpless as a community against terroism. It is insanely hard to stop individuels from doing horrible things and most countries in Europe know this. Just because the Europe is often attacked by muslims, does not mean that a person can not be racists against muslims. Less then 0.001% of all muslims are terroists, so saying that all of them are just out to kill people is, yes, racists.

In the end, many of Europe leaders are doing their best to try and satisfy the stranger-danger feel in many europeans when it comes to muslims, while also making sure the world goes around and to make sure the humanistic values and ideas are kept alive despite being under attack for no reason. Just because 0.00001% of people immigrating are terrorists, should not mean that we should stop all immigration. Just because all current terrorist attacks in Europe has been done by muslims, does not mean all muslims should take the blame for it.

And i think that you misunderstand the difference between what OP has put forward and Pride. There is a huge amount of homeland-pride in my country and in most of the scandinavian countries even have a big influx in what could be called nationalistic ideals, but they are also very well aware that their government is not always doing what is best for the country and that war often leads to a worse situation. People like and love their country, but they also believe that war is rarely the right thing.

But again, give us a real enemy, that we can actually defend ourselfs against and people will be more then willing to defend their children and families against a realistic enemy. Giving every man willing a gun and give them an order to defend the country is proberly gonna lead to a worse country.

[Sentynel]

Interesting to me that the countries with the highest 'willing to fight' are among the least civilized and with low qualities of life.

Sweden 55%, Finland 74% say hi

[Flurryfang]

The longer a country doesn't participate in a full out war, the lazier people get, the less they want to fight for it. You can easily see that general trend. It is swayed by different reasons, if a country's politics is blatantly corrupt, if a country is poor and offers no perspectives (see Bulgaria, Romania as countries that have natural enemy in Turkey at their borders and yet they have a very low rate of people willing to fight). Other factors are denationalizing the population and promoting "liberal" ideas as it happens in western Europe. The better living standards, the lower rate of people willing to fight, too, though Finland is an exception.

Then you get a case of Ukraine, which is extremely corrupt and poor, but since it has what Ukrainians perceive as open war against Russia and Ukrainians are afraid of losing their independence, whatever it's worth, there are still many people willing to fight for it.

Even if a country hasn't really been in a full out war for long, like Russia, propaganda and indoctrination can still work wonders and make people want to fight for it. It can work the other way around, as in the case of Japan.

Again, why is having a low rate of people ready to fight a bad thing? It is actually quite good, that in peace time with no real invadeable enemies, people are not in any need to go and die for something unspecific. In this day and age, having a big % of your population ready to fight and die for their country, often means that they think there is currently something that needs to be defended against and can lead to higher amounts of nationalism.

[shrunken]

Interesting to me that the countries with the highest 'willing to fight' are among the least civilized and with low qualities of life.

sweden & finland on blast

[Dangg]

Sweden 55%, Finland 74% say hi

what was their WWII experience?
neither heard stories about getting destroyed when growing up

[Lahis]

what was their WWII experience?
neither heard stories about getting destroyed when growing up

Sweden avoided any real war by willingly selling ore to south.

Finland was attacked by Soviets.

[Jalatiphra]

I won't fight for my country, but I would fight for the European Union.

exactly my thoughts ( as a german)

[Deleted]

We have the most to lose, and we've also been involved in World Wars, then unjust wars more recently which have led to people wanting to avoid war. There's also immigration with a lack of integration, which could skew results in surveys that are essentially about nationalism.

Most people would fight if invasion was a prospect, I imagine. With foreign wars, we just don't really need or want to anymore. We have ways to fight without just chucking bodies at the situation.

[Jingoism]

Interesting to me that the countries with the highest 'willing to fight' are among the least civilized and with low qualities of life.

Coddled western europeans incapable of self-defense, news at 11.

Infracted - Trolling

[h4rr0d]

I have to call bs on this one. You mean finland and sweden? they are at the very top of the list.

I find it amusing that Swedes would be willing to fight in a war for their country when they actively try to silence anyone who would try to fight the war they are in and losing right now (sharia no-go zones growing left and right). They'd even go to such lengths as 'cancelling' early election when the pre-election survey shows the 'wrong' party would win.