
Percentage of Europeans Who Are Willing to Fight a War for Their Country - wsc981
http://brilliantmaps.com/europe-fight-war/
======
darklajid
That's one of the rare moments where I feel that I can relate to my fellow
countrymen - I'm German.

Why would you 'fight a war for your country'? Given the way this is phrased
that doesn't seem to talk about fighting in defense of one's country (I'd like
to see the stats for that as well) unless my English as a foreign language
skills fail me?

~~~
blowski
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.

~~~
derefr
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. :)

~~~
pjc50
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.

~~~
dogma1138
It's the same reasoning that Russia uses today, this isn't as much of an
excuse as a pretty common cause through history.

~~~
ascorbic
Yes, exactly, and a very good reason to dismiss these as a valid reason for
war.

------
andrewla
I can't seem to find any more details on the survey other than basic
methodology. The thing that I'm curious about is the language used in the
survey.

In a sense, you could argue that some of the disparity in results comes from
what people would interpret as the meaning of "fight for your country", but
I'm curious as to whether the ambiguity of this phrase (fight at the behest of
my country, fight to defend my country, fight to defend my country's "honor"?)
carries over into foreign translations and whether that affects the way the
question is interpreted.

Or it is possible that the underlying question was more specific to avoid
these linguistic ambiguities, and we are seeing a "digestion" of the various
more specific questions.

If someone can dig up a link to more detailed survey results, I'd be
interested in seeing it. All the link in the article leads to is a press
release about the results.

~~~
runeks
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?

------
kartan
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)

~~~
bambax
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?

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

~~~
juki
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).

~~~
nullifidian
>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.

------
ddnb
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.

~~~
charlesdm
Belgian too, but would personally never join the army. I would however, find a
way to relocate myself + loved ones to a more safer place.

I would totally give up on this country. Home is where you hang your hat, and
being with the people you care about (and knowing that they are safe) matters
a lot more than some border on a map.

~~~
lorenzfx
I am very glad that your and a lot of other people's ancestors didn't think
like that or we would probably all live under a fascist regime.

edit: a word

~~~
charlesdm
Definitely grateful for the sacrifices that have been made in the past, but
I'm looking at things based on how the world is set up today. It has become a
much smaller place -- people and capital can move around more easily.

I've personally never had a very strong national identity (others do seem to
have that), and I think in part it's because it has become so easy to move
around.

And if you travel a bit, you realise people are actually not all that
different. A lot of them have similar priorities: build out a good life, raise
children, care for their friends and loved ones, have fun, etc.

~~~
lorenzfx
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".

------
metafunctor
In Finland, the army exists for the purpose of defending Finland against
attack. Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces.

Finnish males serve a mandatory 6-12 months in the Finnish Defence Forces.
It's a citizen's duty here; some people opt for a civil service duty.

Thus, when asked a question like this, most Finns will automatically assume
defending Finland against a military attack.

~~~
ChemicalWarfare
>>Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces.

"Wehrmacht" means something along the lines of the "defense force" too.

Not saying the rest of your reasoning is wrong, just pointing out that calling
your army a "defense force" doesn't necessarily mean that it's used for
defense only...

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

~~~
ChemicalWarfare
It does. "War" would be "Krieg".

------
dcw303
I'm not surprised that Japan had the lowest world wide with 11%, but it does
poke holes in a couple of theories listed in these comments, namely proximity
to a threat and cultural homogeneity.

~~~
ascorbic
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.

------
danmaz74
I would expect very different results if the question was "willing to defend
your country in war if attacked". For most West Europeans, "fighting a war"
brings to mind more going to Iraq or something similar.

~~~
keganunderwood
I don't know how this is possible outside of science fiction but I wonder how
popular military service would be on a historical timeline, all else being
equal but the variables being we turn on or off a livable basic income and
free of cost health care (like medicare) for all. Would people still be eager
to join the US military?

~~~
alkonaut
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.

~~~
arethuza
"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.

~~~
alkonaut
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.

~~~
arethuza
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!).

------
SyneRyder
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.

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

~~~
draugadrotten
Some European countries, like Sweden, now have 25% of residents with a
motherland which is not the country they live in. Would an Afhan boy living in
Sweden fight for Sweden, or would he just take a flight back home to his real
motherland? Would an American living in Germany fight for Germany, or take the
next flight home? I think we all know the answer, and therefore large parts of
the people living on European soil will not fight anymore. They would just
leave.

~~~
mnm1
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.

~~~
justin66
> There truly is nothing more disgusting than war

The first counterexample that came to mind: to be exterminated without even
putting up a fight.

~~~
snakeanus
It seems that you are assuming that the attacking country would employ some
form of genocide tactic.

~~~
reading-at-work
It's a valid example. There are people alive today who remember that exact
scenario happening, in Western Europe itself no less.

------
apexalpha
Is the question asked "Fight for your country" as in defend it from foreign
invaders, like my country (NL) was during World War 2, or like Ukraine is now
by Russia?

Or is this "Fight for your country" as in join team America in invading
Afghanistan and Iraq and <Insert next country here>?

Because the first one: probably, yes. The second? No thank you.

~~~
thedevil
I'm an American and I used to say that I'm antiwar but what I really meant is
that I'm anti-iraq-war, anti-Afghanistan-war, etc.

I do think there are wars we should fight. We just haven't had any of those in
my lifetime.

------
vacri
This seems like one of those questions that definitely can't be studied with a
survey. The context of 'fighting for your country' differs quite a lot;
there's a major difference between fighting a defensive war against a brutal
opponent and fighting an irrelevant war on the other side of the world.

Look at the US, and how many soldiers signed up to "fight for their country"
in the invasion of Iraq, a country that never threatened the US. Compare that
against how many would sign up if the US mainland was actually attacked.

Likewise, if Russia threw caution to the wind and started marching through
Europe again, I'd be surprised if only 18% of Germans would fight to defend
their country. But if Germany were to invade an Iraq-a-like, I'd be surprised
if as many as 18% would.

~~~
democracy
You realize that not only Russia marched through Europe but also UK/USA but
unless fighting Hitler was a bad idea I hardly see a problem with this fact,
now do you?

~~~
vacri
In what tortured version of modern-day politics can you possibly see the UK or
the US invading Germany, even in a pipe dream?

~~~
democracy
Not sure about a pipe dream but there are 30k strong US group in Germany as we
speak. Some people might have different views on this fact.

------
sattoshi
Extra discussion:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_of_europeans_who_are_willing_to_fight)

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.

~~~
Hasknewbie
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...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-story-of-the-french-resistance)

~~~
barking
Controversially and OT but it was in a documentary I saw recently. It's been
suggested that the colonial troops were responsible for the the vast majority
of the large numbers of rapes of women in the French occupied part of Germany

~~~
Hasknewbie
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.

~~~
barking
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.

------
othello
The surprising fact here is that this can mostly be explained pretty well as
the lessons of WW2 still being vivid in the memory of many countries...except
that Russia suffered by far the most of any countries on the Western front,
and still a majority there would fight a war for their own country.

The persistent glorification of Russia's role in WW2 (although historically
justified) might have something to do with it. The amputation of a quarter of
Russia's territory right after the end of the Cold War is also used to great
effect by nationalists (just like Germany's territory was reduced, by the same
proportion, in 1919 - with the same effects).

~~~
taway_1212
> 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.

~~~
usrusr
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.

------
youngtaff
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?

~~~
wavefunction
I don't know that "fight for your country" is "bad" or "good".

Defending your country against outside aggression seems "good." Fighting in a
war of convenience is "bad".

I think an interesting qualifier is if the person answering assumed "fighting
for your country" meant defense or offense.

~~~
zild3d
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.

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

~~~
executesorder66
Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some
assholes conquer your home?

~~~
arethuza
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.

~~~
rjsw
The "assholes" may not have come from elsewhere.

------
wink
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.

------
koonsolo
I think the question is too generic, and therefore not much conclusion can be
derived from it. Is it defending or attacking, on European territory or
outside, for your countries gain or Europe's gain, etc.?

It would be interesting to ask: Are you willing to fight a war to defend
European countries against an outside threat, such as Russia.

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

------
simo7
I think a strong pattern here is:

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

See Italy, Spain, Belgium for instance: people from different area of those
countries really feel belonging to different cultures. Contrari to the Nordic
& Easter European ones. In Germany is more of a historical thing instead.

~~~
retox
You've touched on one theory of why European governments are seemingly so in
favour of mass immigration; a people with no common identity are much less
willing to go to war for it.

The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because
it lets them hold on to their wealth.

~~~
StreamBright
Unfortunately it is never the people who start wars. Politicians do. If you
want to decrease the chance of your country going into war it would be an easy
fix to introduce laws that mandates pro-war politicians to submit their family
members to service to fight at the front in case of a war.

~~~
EugeneAZ
SMS Direct Democracy with the right of citizens to secede. And professional
military, of course, like in the USA. You make war much rarer thereby.

~~~
arethuza
Does having a professional military leads to fewer wars - the UK has had a
preference for professional military for centuries and it didn't stop us
invading a significant proportion of the world!

~~~
EugeneAZ
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 : )

~~~
arethuza
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].

~~~
EugeneAZ
Here,
[https://www.reddit.com/user/EugeneZavidovsky](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...

------
0xbear
Understandable. Germany has experienced crushing, humiliating defeat not once,
but twice in a hundred years, and the second time it was abundandtly clear
that they were on the wrong side of history. No wonder the fightin' spirit
hasn't recovered.

That said, when certain substances start hitting the fan, no one will ask you
whether you want to fight. Read some WW2 memoirs: the shit was so horrific
that even hardened patriots had serious second thoughts from time to time. I
mean, imagine living in a trench for five years and watching your buddies die
one by one. People get PTSD in as little as 6 months in conditions far less
gruesome. Now imagine 10 times as much time in conditions that are easily 10x
worse. It sometimes worries me that kids these days know nothing whatsoever
about this. Those who don't know history are liable to repeat it.

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

~~~
0xbear
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.

------
djhworld
Countries like Greece, Finland, Ukraine and Turkey have military conscription.

Additionally there are underlying tensions between a lot of these nations,
e.g. Ukraine/Russia, Greece/Turkey etc

I wonder if that skews these figures somewhat

~~~
Yizahi
> underlying tensions

More like - active war

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

------
vim_wannabe
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.

------
logfromblammo
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?"

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

~~~
dtx1
> Also, can't blame the Germans for being unsure which side to be on in the
> next great war..

Nah that's easy, we just look which side is losing and take that.

------
barking
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.”

------
et2o
Of course the Finns are at the top :)

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

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

------
dsfyu404ed
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.

------
zng
I think it should also be tied to when each country was last in a war and/or
involved in a major international conflict.

I see France and Germany being more present in war and conflicts much more so
than (for example) Sweden, Finland in the past 100 years.

Interesting in any case! :)

~~~
democracy
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.

------
sp332
From [http://gallup-international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg](http://gallup-
international.bg/images/Fight_0515/3.jpg) the exact question is "If there were
a war which involved [country], would you be willing to fight for your
country?" Not really any clearer than the headline makes it out to be.

------
inops
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.

------
lwansbrough
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.

------
mirekrusin
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.

------
Spooky23
Good for them.

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

~~~
democracy
Most of the world, I would say.

------
oerpli
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.

------
omnimus
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.

------
democracy
There will never be a total WW2-like conflict so for the majority of people it
is just a nice mind exercise.

But how many people are prepared to fight a war against propoganda? To defend
freedom of speech? To defend opposite political views and opinions? It is
scary but in the 1st and 2nd world you can still lose friends and even your
job if you openly express your political views. People are afraid to express
their views and it bothers me more than anything else.

~~~
lorenzfx
Before WW1 people also believed that large scale European conflict couldn't
happen any more because of the economic entanglement. In hindsight, that
notion looks pretty stupid.

~~~
pjc50
Currently we believe it's impossible due to nuclear weapons - there wouldn't
be anything left to fight over or with.

~~~
NoGravitas
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

------
5_minutes
Soldiers often are the suckers in wars. But I guess there's a big difference
in defending or go invading

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

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

~~~
rmetzler
As a German pacifist I feel like Germany is partly responsible for refugees
fleeing wars as long as German companies sell weapons and whole plants for
weapon fabrication.

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

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

~~~
macavaney
Linked from the article: [http://gallup-
international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-...](http://gallup-
international.bg/en/Publications/2015/220-WIN-Gallup-
International%E2%80%99s-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-
for-their-country)

~~~
lwansbrough
I'm having trouble accessing that. Press release from 2014 also available
here:
[http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_r...](http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/EOY_release_2014_The_Americas_-
_FINAL.pdf)

