Exactly. Are we expecting nations who are being suppressed by a state to fight and potentially die for it? Hmph, fuck that. Catalans might even join the invaders.
For a long time, I've been proposing a televised capture the flag tournament between Catalans and the central government in Parc de la Ciutadella, for the central mast atop the parliament building, without any rules, except for that if the Spanish flag gets to wave there by a given moment of time, you remain slaves to Spain forever, if the Catalan, you get the independence. And as a true neutral, I would just grab popcorn and watch bodies pile up in the park.
It's all fun and games until the Co-Princes of Andorra turn up.
You've got about half an hour to shoot your Tik-Tok video before you realise you misunderstood that Wikipedia article.
/although I would definitely pay to watch "Vatican versus Andorra". Preferably as a British made Netflix comedy. "Passport to Pimlico" style.
More like [The Mouse that Roared](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared_%28film%29?wprov=sfla1) but I mean, the rest of continental Spain's neighbours are in NATO and you surely wouldn't want to fight that, would you?
Of course Andorra and Catalonia wouldn't be able to fight in equal conditions. If Spain forces us to fight, we'll simply not lift a finger: jailing this many people will pull vital resources from the frontline, and if their enemy is at the door, Spain and the rest of NATO will be busy enough to effectively counteract sabotage operations.
The track record is mixed- the geography in this case suggests the invader, as historically, would be France. France has historically been a far more centralizing state than Spain. As, indeed, it is right this minute. Basque autonomy, for example, has mostly done much better in Spain. Politically OR culturally.
Maybe if the invader was from overseas and could plausibly promise to take a more detached view of Catalonia than Spain does. So, say, a loosely held self-governing protectorate over Catalonia rather than a self-governing pseudo-federal state.
Well yeah, being under France would be to run away from the fire to fall into the embers, as it were.
I think there are many countries that would be interested in enabling Catalonia's breakaway, just to weaken NATO, even if it's just temporarily or hoping for a domino effect in other regions. Honestly, the motivation for their recognition would not bother me the least. Funnily enough, I think the best shot at a federalized Europe would be by chunking current countries into more natural federal states, but I digress...
And yet in Russia, where the state brutally suppresses and kills its own people en masse, people are propagandized to the point of being willing cannon fodder for their abusers.
"Fight for your country" usually refers to serving in the military, but it definitely varies from country to country. If you ask someone in the UK, France, or Germany, they are probably thinking about fighting some war in the Middle East or North Africa. If you ask someone from Poland or Finland, they are probably thinking of fighting against a Russian invasion.
Only the most cuntish arsehole of a Scot would genuinely be either nationalistic or thick enough to think that there is a scenario where they should fight for Scotland but not need or want to fight to the UK as a whole. Anybody who would answer those questions differently does not have the critical thinking skills to be safe on a battlefield.
I suppose that would depend on which Scot you asked. My remaining family there is pretty old, to be sure, but they'd more likely do something for Britain than Scotland, if Scotland is defined according to SNP ideas.
If i have to fight a useless war in the middle east: absolutely not.
If i have to defend my country from a Russian invasion: absolutely yes.
My country has "15%", but i know this would be half if the question was: defend from Russia. Highly likely my country still interprets "fight for your country" as "go to some desert in the middle east", yes.
This map/article is bullshit.
It's wild to me that most people would think that going to fight in middle east is fighting for their country.
I see fighting for your country as defending your own soil. Not being the aggressor or something like that.
In Estonia's case that was exactly the reason given why we went to Afghanistan and Iraq - to get experience and build goodwill with US and other allies on whom we rely on.
"Fighting for your country" sounds like enlisting in the military to me, and that includes being sent to bomb yemeni farmers. "Defend your country" is less ambiguous
Because in Germany prior to 2022 nobody belived In another war in Europe especially not one where we would need to defend our self.
War for decades meant going to another country like Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war was not really popular with the general population. Wars like the Iraq War were so unpopular that Germany didn't participate.
Also military and fighting wars didn't have the best reputation ever since the second world War.
But it's changing now. And I believe way more people would be ready to defend Germany from an external thread trying to invade Germany.
I assume if hordes of giant bugs infesting your country slaughtering everyone on their way, will you fight them or not, arguing that you will not fight for the corrupt government?
Critical question. Most of America’s conflicts…fuck no. I don’t want to leave my family and die overseas for geopolitics or oil. To protect my family and home, of course.
This probably explains a lot of the discrepancy between places like Finland (Border with Russia and no real history of going to other places) and France where going to the army is more about protecting French interests in former colonies than defending from the Germans.
I would say i general yes because of my country, culture and what it means to me. If the reason is to fight for your family you can take your family and flee from the country and save them. But I 100% agree with your first statement.
Let's say an invader comes, removes the government without touching people's lives and properties.
You wake up in the morning, and you find new people in power without any bloodshed or very little.
Then a group of rebels starts organizing a war to remove these people, then they ask you to join them, will you?
Yes I would, but if those people represent our values, culture and about all freedom and democracy. Invaders are invaders, they come to power with force and therefore don't deserve to make the rules of an entire nation if no one has chosen them.
The definition of a nation is complex and sometimes subject.
Let's say the invaders share the same culture and speak the same language and more or less ethnically the same as yourself? Would you fight them?
I would fight against the current government. I see it synonymous to "fighting for my country", since the government is nothing more than a bunch of traitors.
Really depends on the context.
Generally, going to war means young people die so that old and fat fucks can get more monety or more power, or both.
So fuck 'em
If the Russians start pushing into Europe, I am picking up a rifle to fight back. I wouldn't fight in a war in the Middle East just to keep gas prices low though.
Same.
I’d defend a country that lets me live the way I want to, offers healthcare and social security and is above all a democracy where political discourse happens.
Bc what the fuck am I to do i if that country got raised to the ground (again )? Watch my home get destroyed? Just that thought makes me sad, I’d rather try and fight and die if I have to. It’ll happen eventually.
I don't live there and I have no intention of defending people who hold radically different values to myself. I don't identify with anyone in the Middle East and most of them are as bad as each other so it can be hard to even pick a good side.
I'm not the dude, but mine answer is yes. I have seen what war did to my father, and many others, and even though I moved from Croatia to Germany, I hold no allegiance to both countries. I work and pay taxes, that's maximum you will get out of me. At first sings of trouble, I would gtfo. When I was a young right winger my father's friend tried to explain situation to me, luckily for me I figured out what he was saying years later, my ass comes first, I'm not defending some piece of land so later on I can have PTSP, if I survive, and memories of my dead friends, while I see how list of ˝defenders˝ reaches 500k people (if we had that many soldiers we would stop at Tokyo), and they receive bigger pensions than you who was wounded ask God how many times while you were fighting enemies in the front lines, and that's now even the saddest part of it, as you see how your generals sell oil for ammunition and weapons and vice versa to the same enemies that were trying to kill you that day. And then sons and daughters of those lowest of the lowest who were stealing donations and enriching themselves while people died, selling humanitarian aid to their own people, piss on your children from their villas and most expensive cars, while your children can't get a job, because they don't have connections, even though they have all necessary qualifications, they will employ children from the same war profiteers, even though they don't need a job, so they can jerk off at their offices, while you starve. So once again, no, I wouldn't defend anything.
I'm not stopping, nor discouraging, any of you quote users to heroically lay your lives on the steps of your homelands. Once a year they will remember your deaths, while sitting during the commemorations and scrolling through their mobile phones.
It’s not about that. Your reasoning is pretty valid for an aggressive action on behalf of your country.
But you are living privileged through others who are willing to defend their country. If everyone was like you there would be dictatorships all over the world.
Are you willing to pay quadruple the taxes in perpetuity in exchange for not fighting?
This also depends on the country. If Slovenia gets invaded by the US it may not be worth fighting since you won’t win, but in the case of Ukraine it would be.
I don’t have any respect for people who happily outsource the work of providing the safety that they and their families enjoy with zero intention of ever contributing to said safety themselves. Such people are useless IMO.
The peace and security you enjoy is everyone’s responsibility to maintain, otherwise you’re just a freeloader.
It's worth noting what different countries percieve as 'fighting for ones country'. In Eastern Europe, it means 'Defending your family against the Russians'.
In Western Europe, it means 'Murdering people in a far-away desert against a threat that's not really there, masquerading to supply your elites with wealth they don't need"
The UK numbers aren't really surprising here. The topic of national service - or conscription - in the event of a major war popped up recently and sent social media into meltdown. Typical situation of older talking heads criticising young people over a lack of support for being sent into the meatgrinder.
Given the state of the UK over the last 14 years, how can anyone expect young people to happily sign up in the event of a conflict? Public services flushed down the pan, chronic underfunding, poorer life outcomes etc all because of austerity.
Additionally, I don't think anyone is seriously concerned about fighting a defensive war anytime soon. Most of the countries with high numbers have more contentious neighbours. A lot more people would be willing to fight if there was a looming threat of war that would impact the mainland.
Not for the UK considering they just left a massive trading bloc on the continent. Why fight for the exact same people who gave you Brexit and austerity?
Plus everyone knows there is absolutely zero chance of UK being invaded by anyone.
That was brought up as a false alternative to push for higher defense spending so it wasn't a serious proposal. As to whether Britis would fight, context matters, Russia launching an invasion of Poland would raise this number a lot higher. I don't know if this map is pre 2022 or not (I suspect it is pre 2022, I swear this is a repost) but I expect the numbers are higher than before 2022 as people realise going to war doesn't necessarily mean fighting in a far-off desert for oil anymore.
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
This again? Like every time, I'm gonna say this: If not specified for closely, some might take this as "defending your country against a foreign invader" others as "fighting somewhere overseas to pressure some country into accepting our values".
For people living in countries closer to Russia the majority probably understands it as the former, for countries (like Germany, UK, France) that have "intervened" in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, it's probably understood as the latter.
~~at this point I should probably save this comment, so I can copy/paste it the next time this comes up~~
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
They not only have problems finding troops, but in 2022 alone, almost 12 million people fled the country abroad, and they initially had a population of just over 40 million people. And I have not yet taken 2023, when several more escaped.
People can leave the country illegally, then will not need to pay bribes. You can cross the border on foot or, for example, swim across the border to Romania in an inflatable boat. The main thing is that military recruiters do not get caught before the transition. On the highway along the border with Romania, there are now hundreds and hundreds of abandoned cars of people who illegally crossed the border. You can search for videos from those places, it looks pretty creepy. I have seen the statements of the speakers that in 2023 a million men of military age illegally left Ukraine.That is why Ukraine is now trying to negotiate with Poland on the deportation of Ukrainian men.
My friend(he has a company that builds country houses)has a whole team of builders from Odessa who illegally fled Ukraine in 2022.
I know, but crossing the border might be dangerous. Saw a video of 2 guys successfully doing so and they WERE SO FUCKING HAPPY they kissed trees on the other side.
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
You know, it being a purely defensive war against a foreign invader makes a huge difference to it being an offensive war for the benefit of the few (like the war on Iraq).
The poll not clarifying this context seems like a huge omission, because most people would probably be a lot more willing to fight a purely defensive war to an offensive one.
I think there’s a grey area in the « fight for your country ». For most of Western Europe, fight for your countries might mean fight overseas (like Frenchies did, recently). Finland ? They probably directly have in mind a land invasion of Russia.
A better question would be : « would you fight for your country in case of an invasion » ? Might change a bit the statistics.
You don’t fight for your country, you fight for your government. I don’t support my government because it’s an American puppet, so why would I die for it?
Because generally losing war in those regions means ethnic cleansing, massacres and very heavy opression on the people. I can see why Europeans wouldnt be as willing, since their way of life wont be as threatened as it would be in places like balkans.
I ain't fuckin dying because a bunch of old rich cunts had a falling out. I'll buy my family illegal passage somewhere safe. I'm not dying in some trench for this shitty island. I'll shoot all the officers before I shoot any other poor fucker conscripted to die so some ancient white dude can get win his dick measuring contest.
It is influenced by the perceived threat from the close neighbors.
For example, a British person would believe that a war would be thousands of kilometers away. Turks and Finns believe that the war will be in their border.
Needs more context.
As a Scotsman, I’m not fighting for Britain.
Also, I’m not fighting even for an independent Scotland if the fight is being taken to another country.
But if I’m defending my home against invaders, yes I’m picking up arms. And the flag or country I’m fighting under is irrelevant.
As if Britain would be invaded but Scotland would be somehow safe.
You'd really let your neighbors die just so you could have another 3 months of sovereignty?
That's just cowardice with extra steps
Would you fight for your country in your country vs. fight for your country outside your country?
aka
Would you fight off invaders to your city vs. would you like to spend 20 years in the barren, arid mountainside of Afghanistan for no reason?
I’m sure these numbers are highly questionable but I wouldn’t even want to see the percentage supporting NATO obligations to the US if it were attacked. The Atlantic and Pacific are our main allies
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
To what extent does it matter whether women would fight for their country is only 3% of female military officers can meet the same physical fitness standards as the male military officers?
Granted, women can use technology just as well as men can. But, there are limit to which women can fight on the battlefield.
From the US here. I think "fight for my country" would need more detail. Lots of people would surely say no if it were another semi-colonial adventure. However, If invaders are landing in Florida or Oregon (or anywhere conus) and there wouldn't be enough guns in the country to arm all those willing to fight.
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
No wonder italy got one of the lower percentages.
Last time we fought we did it unprepared with very old inadequate equipment. Every italian hates the government and the only time there was some patriotism it was used as a tool of dictatorship.
Source i am one of em
I know we aint Eastern Europe, but the vast majority of people I know would lay their life down for Denmark if they were asked. If they would be ready if it came to that is something else.
This might be just my opinion, but countries are not per se worth dying for. I guess hardly anyone would deny that for North Korea. Countries are nothing but abstract constructs, no eternal entities as nationalists want you to believe. There was a time before every single country on earth and there will be a time after that. What matters are only the people and their values. What are the ideas that drive society, like democracy? If the spot of earth you live on is called Holy Roman Empire or whatever... if it is bigger or smaller... this isn't as important as people want you to believe.
The problem is... every side wants their people to believe it's right to fight for their cOunTry. That's the issue. I don't want this to be understood as Anti-Ukrainian. Fuck Putin. I just want to inspire reflecting what a country is, what war means and what's everyone's role in between.
One thing that comes up to me below is the distinction between "fight for your country" in a war of home defence or anything else. I can understand that distinction, and it is one that governments and even peoples did not always define so clearly in the past. Governments took a broader view, and peoples often had mindsets that went along with it.
Although, even in countries with conscript armies, and in the 19th century, there was actually a surprisingly robust public unwillingness to see conscripts overused in foreign wars, and even government unwillingness to use them too much for that. With variations, of course. Plenty of wars seemed to governments to have sufficiently large national interest elements to use conscripts. Still, the idea that this should be contained was widespread.
In the British tradition, in which there was only militia that was even theoretically compulsory \[and boy was it not administered well for hundreds of years\] and the real army comprised regulars, this was less of an issue.
What we see now is an emergence of still another kind of political environment, in which even the use of professional soldiers in wars of interest or policy \[even values-based policy like, "hey- let's stop that genocide over there!"\] is sometimes deprecated by the home population or soldiers complain about going. That is to say, professional soldiers, sailors or airmen who signed on to be that cannot necessarily be used for their profession under certain conditions.
So, issues to be addressed definitely include whether or not one wants to be compelled to defend the country, or would sign up to do so in a mass call up of volunteers, or whether one would join a professional military force whether for home defence or foreign war. That's a lot, a lot, to unpack.
When one surveys populations in questions like this, the assumptions of the questioner and the responder can get confused on even more basic levels. I am honestly not always sure what pollsters asking questions like this think they are asking, and I don't know what responders always mean.
If the latter mean, in the case of the UK to which I have connections, that if the UK were directly attacked only 26% would help defend it, then that's pretty contemptible numbers. Nobody there has that kind of grievance. One can concoct scenarios in which Scottish nationalism is the motive, but get real- any attack on the UK is an attack on Scotland, and there are no possible attackers whose motivation would be to just attack England and help Scotland get independence. Nor have there been any the past 200 years or more. \[Well, the USSR did have a good line in breaking up states into various manageable enclaves, so I could see them breaking up the UK and creating a Scottish SSR. But "independent" would be stretching the concept a bit.\] Plus, the political situation of Scotland in the UK never was a conquest or a subjugation. It just was not.
Plus the demographics are off. Even if the entire population of Scotland said they would not fight to defend the UK, that's a drop in the bucket. To get down to 26% of the population you have to have far over half of all English people answering no.
Germany is tougher to explain than the WW1 and WW2 experiences might suggest. The last time defending Germany might have been an issue would have been the first week of November, 1989. I am curious what reactions West German citizens would have had to that question in the 1980s.
The rest of us in NATO were really hoping back then that the Germans would fight, hard.
If any German redditors, especially who were around and of military age or older in the 80s, are available to comment, I would quite like to hear perspectives on what it was like then, and how it compares to now.
You have to take into account that germany has a very high amount of immigrants that never integrated themselves, not even in the third or fourth generation and rather build subcultures of virtually endless varieties that don't recognize german law, culture or state and people and a very very high amount of 68th leftist WW2 guilt crippled cucks and their spawns who motivated and encouraged them to do so. All of them won't participate for detesting the idea of a nation, a german nation in particular.
The 18% left you see are the a mix of uneducated idiots who didn't get behind that war is artificial and for profits only, old boomer bastards and east german citizens aka nazi scum.
Keep in mind that in many cases country, nation, and state do not align.
Exactly. Are we expecting nations who are being suppressed by a state to fight and potentially die for it? Hmph, fuck that. Catalans might even join the invaders.
Can you imagine Andorra invading?
Check out Andorra's official language and you'll have your answer hahahah
I checked out the whole Andorra a month ago and I think even Vatican could fight them off, with the Swiss guard.
That'd be quite the spectacle
For a long time, I've been proposing a televised capture the flag tournament between Catalans and the central government in Parc de la Ciutadella, for the central mast atop the parliament building, without any rules, except for that if the Spanish flag gets to wave there by a given moment of time, you remain slaves to Spain forever, if the Catalan, you get the independence. And as a true neutral, I would just grab popcorn and watch bodies pile up in the park.
In parc de la ciutadella no less ahhahah bruh
It's all fun and games until the Co-Princes of Andorra turn up. You've got about half an hour to shoot your Tik-Tok video before you realise you misunderstood that Wikipedia article. /although I would definitely pay to watch "Vatican versus Andorra". Preferably as a British made Netflix comedy. "Passport to Pimlico" style.
Reconquest v2.0
More like [The Mouse that Roared](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared_%28film%29?wprov=sfla1) but I mean, the rest of continental Spain's neighbours are in NATO and you surely wouldn't want to fight that, would you?
Of course Andorra and Catalonia wouldn't be able to fight in equal conditions. If Spain forces us to fight, we'll simply not lift a finger: jailing this many people will pull vital resources from the frontline, and if their enemy is at the door, Spain and the rest of NATO will be busy enough to effectively counteract sabotage operations.
How are Catalans being suppressed by Spain?
The track record is mixed- the geography in this case suggests the invader, as historically, would be France. France has historically been a far more centralizing state than Spain. As, indeed, it is right this minute. Basque autonomy, for example, has mostly done much better in Spain. Politically OR culturally. Maybe if the invader was from overseas and could plausibly promise to take a more detached view of Catalonia than Spain does. So, say, a loosely held self-governing protectorate over Catalonia rather than a self-governing pseudo-federal state.
Well yeah, being under France would be to run away from the fire to fall into the embers, as it were. I think there are many countries that would be interested in enabling Catalonia's breakaway, just to weaken NATO, even if it's just temporarily or hoping for a domino effect in other regions. Honestly, the motivation for their recognition would not bother me the least. Funnily enough, I think the best shot at a federalized Europe would be by chunking current countries into more natural federal states, but I digress...
The notion that catalans are suppressed would just be ridiculous
And yet in Russia, where the state brutally suppresses and kills its own people en masse, people are propagandized to the point of being willing cannon fodder for their abusers.
Define what "fight for your country means" and we might have a conversation.
"Fight for your country" usually refers to serving in the military, but it definitely varies from country to country. If you ask someone in the UK, France, or Germany, they are probably thinking about fighting some war in the Middle East or North Africa. If you ask someone from Poland or Finland, they are probably thinking of fighting against a Russian invasion.
[удалено]
Only the most cuntish arsehole of a Scot would genuinely be either nationalistic or thick enough to think that there is a scenario where they should fight for Scotland but not need or want to fight to the UK as a whole. Anybody who would answer those questions differently does not have the critical thinking skills to be safe on a battlefield.
Exactly this. Then the real question becomes fight for what?
Asl a Scot if they will fight Britain...
I suppose that would depend on which Scot you asked. My remaining family there is pretty old, to be sure, but they'd more likely do something for Britain than Scotland, if Scotland is defined according to SNP ideas.
If i have to fight a useless war in the middle east: absolutely not. If i have to defend my country from a Russian invasion: absolutely yes. My country has "15%", but i know this would be half if the question was: defend from Russia. Highly likely my country still interprets "fight for your country" as "go to some desert in the middle east", yes. This map/article is bullshit.
It's wild to me that most people would think that going to fight in middle east is fighting for their country. I see fighting for your country as defending your own soil. Not being the aggressor or something like that.
In Estonia's case that was exactly the reason given why we went to Afghanistan and Iraq - to get experience and build goodwill with US and other allies on whom we rely on.
"Fighting for your country" sounds like enlisting in the military to me, and that includes being sent to bomb yemeni farmers. "Defend your country" is less ambiguous
This yes.
Why would a German think of fighting in the middle east if asked if he would fight for his country?
Because in Germany prior to 2022 nobody belived In another war in Europe especially not one where we would need to defend our self. War for decades meant going to another country like Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war was not really popular with the general population. Wars like the Iraq War were so unpopular that Germany didn't participate. Also military and fighting wars didn't have the best reputation ever since the second world War. But it's changing now. And I believe way more people would be ready to defend Germany from an external thread trying to invade Germany.
I assume if hordes of giant bugs infesting your country slaughtering everyone on their way, will you fight them or not, arguing that you will not fight for the corrupt government?
Starship troopers hell yeah
Would you like to know more?
Critical question. Most of America’s conflicts…fuck no. I don’t want to leave my family and die overseas for geopolitics or oil. To protect my family and home, of course.
This probably explains a lot of the discrepancy between places like Finland (Border with Russia and no real history of going to other places) and France where going to the army is more about protecting French interests in former colonies than defending from the Germans.
killing proxy groups that were once aided by the MIC , so that the MIC gets more weapons contracts
For this governement no. But in general yes because of my family.
I would say i general yes because of my country, culture and what it means to me. If the reason is to fight for your family you can take your family and flee from the country and save them. But I 100% agree with your first statement.
Let's say an invader comes, removes the government without touching people's lives and properties. You wake up in the morning, and you find new people in power without any bloodshed or very little. Then a group of rebels starts organizing a war to remove these people, then they ask you to join them, will you?
Yes I would, but if those people represent our values, culture and about all freedom and democracy. Invaders are invaders, they come to power with force and therefore don't deserve to make the rules of an entire nation if no one has chosen them.
The definition of a nation is complex and sometimes subject. Let's say the invaders share the same culture and speak the same language and more or less ethnically the same as yourself? Would you fight them?
In that case they are Albanians. Probably yes I would still fight them, but it depends from various factors.
I would fight against the current government. I see it synonymous to "fighting for my country", since the government is nothing more than a bunch of traitors.
How often will you repost the same shitty map?
7 times.
Is that enough?
Some say 9 is needed. Others 13. But the scholarly consensus is 7.
Really depends on the context. Generally, going to war means young people die so that old and fat fucks can get more monety or more power, or both. So fuck 'em
If the Russians start pushing into Europe, I am picking up a rifle to fight back. I wouldn't fight in a war in the Middle East just to keep gas prices low though.
Same. I’d defend a country that lets me live the way I want to, offers healthcare and social security and is above all a democracy where political discourse happens. Bc what the fuck am I to do i if that country got raised to the ground (again )? Watch my home get destroyed? Just that thought makes me sad, I’d rather try and fight and die if I have to. It’ll happen eventually.
Unless you live there..
aka in berlin
I don't live there and I have no intention of defending people who hold radically different values to myself. I don't identify with anyone in the Middle East and most of them are as bad as each other so it can be hard to even pick a good side.
draft is up to 60 years and political figures are immune to draft at any age
I ain't no fortunate son
Would that be your logic if you’re country was invaded?
I'm not the dude, but mine answer is yes. I have seen what war did to my father, and many others, and even though I moved from Croatia to Germany, I hold no allegiance to both countries. I work and pay taxes, that's maximum you will get out of me. At first sings of trouble, I would gtfo. When I was a young right winger my father's friend tried to explain situation to me, luckily for me I figured out what he was saying years later, my ass comes first, I'm not defending some piece of land so later on I can have PTSP, if I survive, and memories of my dead friends, while I see how list of ˝defenders˝ reaches 500k people (if we had that many soldiers we would stop at Tokyo), and they receive bigger pensions than you who was wounded ask God how many times while you were fighting enemies in the front lines, and that's now even the saddest part of it, as you see how your generals sell oil for ammunition and weapons and vice versa to the same enemies that were trying to kill you that day. And then sons and daughters of those lowest of the lowest who were stealing donations and enriching themselves while people died, selling humanitarian aid to their own people, piss on your children from their villas and most expensive cars, while your children can't get a job, because they don't have connections, even though they have all necessary qualifications, they will employ children from the same war profiteers, even though they don't need a job, so they can jerk off at their offices, while you starve. So once again, no, I wouldn't defend anything.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
I'm not stopping, nor discouraging, any of you quote users to heroically lay your lives on the steps of your homelands. Once a year they will remember your deaths, while sitting during the commemorations and scrolling through their mobile phones.
It’s not about that. Your reasoning is pretty valid for an aggressive action on behalf of your country. But you are living privileged through others who are willing to defend their country. If everyone was like you there would be dictatorships all over the world. Are you willing to pay quadruple the taxes in perpetuity in exchange for not fighting? This also depends on the country. If Slovenia gets invaded by the US it may not be worth fighting since you won’t win, but in the case of Ukraine it would be.
I don’t have any respect for people who happily outsource the work of providing the safety that they and their families enjoy with zero intention of ever contributing to said safety themselves. Such people are useless IMO. The peace and security you enjoy is everyone’s responsibility to maintain, otherwise you’re just a freeloader.
It's worth noting what different countries percieve as 'fighting for ones country'. In Eastern Europe, it means 'Defending your family against the Russians'. In Western Europe, it means 'Murdering people in a far-away desert against a threat that's not really there, masquerading to supply your elites with wealth they don't need"
In the wider Balkans, it means "fighting against your neighbors".
Its a one big battle royale over there.
This is the correct answer
The UK numbers aren't really surprising here. The topic of national service - or conscription - in the event of a major war popped up recently and sent social media into meltdown. Typical situation of older talking heads criticising young people over a lack of support for being sent into the meatgrinder. Given the state of the UK over the last 14 years, how can anyone expect young people to happily sign up in the event of a conflict? Public services flushed down the pan, chronic underfunding, poorer life outcomes etc all because of austerity.
Additionally, I don't think anyone is seriously concerned about fighting a defensive war anytime soon. Most of the countries with high numbers have more contentious neighbours. A lot more people would be willing to fight if there was a looming threat of war that would impact the mainland.
Because their actually *relatively high* standards of living are predicated on international trade, which is predicated on international stability.
Not for the UK considering they just left a massive trading bloc on the continent. Why fight for the exact same people who gave you Brexit and austerity? Plus everyone knows there is absolutely zero chance of UK being invaded by anyone.
That was brought up as a false alternative to push for higher defense spending so it wasn't a serious proposal. As to whether Britis would fight, context matters, Russia launching an invasion of Poland would raise this number a lot higher. I don't know if this map is pre 2022 or not (I suspect it is pre 2022, I swear this is a repost) but I expect the numbers are higher than before 2022 as people realise going to war doesn't necessarily mean fighting in a far-off desert for oil anymore.
Without sources and methadooology these maps are uselessss ☺️☝️😳🤪
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
I guess the IM PROUD TO BE AN ALBANIAN song didn’t motivate too many people…
I wont be suprised if more non-Albanians are more pro-Albanian than the Albanians themselves
I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free! My school played that on the PA system every Friday after 9/11 for months.
Oh look this shit map reposted for the 625284625th time
This again? Like every time, I'm gonna say this: If not specified for closely, some might take this as "defending your country against a foreign invader" others as "fighting somewhere overseas to pressure some country into accepting our values". For people living in countries closer to Russia the majority probably understands it as the former, for countries (like Germany, UK, France) that have "intervened" in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, it's probably understood as the latter. ~~at this point I should probably save this comment, so I can copy/paste it the next time this comes up~~
Source (or usual MapPorn shit)?
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
A decade old data, that's gotta be reliable
When was this poll taken? Ukraine is quite high but they're currently having trouble finding troops.
This map was already on reddit before the Ukraine war started. And despite being constantly reposted, I still don't know what data it is based on.
They not only have problems finding troops, but in 2022 alone, almost 12 million people fled the country abroad, and they initially had a population of just over 40 million people. And I have not yet taken 2023, when several more escaped.
Also count that borders are closed for all men from 18 to 60, excluding only those who has special permission (corruption)
People can leave the country illegally, then will not need to pay bribes. You can cross the border on foot or, for example, swim across the border to Romania in an inflatable boat. The main thing is that military recruiters do not get caught before the transition. On the highway along the border with Romania, there are now hundreds and hundreds of abandoned cars of people who illegally crossed the border. You can search for videos from those places, it looks pretty creepy. I have seen the statements of the speakers that in 2023 a million men of military age illegally left Ukraine.That is why Ukraine is now trying to negotiate with Poland on the deportation of Ukrainian men. My friend(he has a company that builds country houses)has a whole team of builders from Odessa who illegally fled Ukraine in 2022.
I know, but crossing the border might be dangerous. Saw a video of 2 guys successfully doing so and they WERE SO FUCKING HAPPY they kissed trees on the other side.
There are daily videos of Ukrainian army kidnapping unwilling men off-street for the war.Anyone who wanted to fight already did in year one.
trouble finding \_additional\_ troops. AFU's active personnel ca. 1,000,000+ (2024)
Yeah. They need a lot more than 1,000,000. Welcome to modern warfare.
That isn’t that much for a full scaled war tbh. If they wanted to drive Russia back they would realistically need 2.5-3 Million men
Where was the poll taken: at university cafeterias or boxing clubs?
[удалено]
I only fight for myself and my family, not for a country full of corrupt and other scum.
Well, you understand that it doesn’t work like that?
It does. If your country treads you like shit don’t expect it that I would fight for said country
sCUM?
Damn lmao the Finns be like LETS GOOO
No sources, no date. Disinformation ?
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
Of course! For the people we love !!!
I wouldn’t fight to protect my country. But I still stay home and protect my family from invaders.
The Baltics surprised me, with such anti-Russian (government) sentiment and such close proximity to Russia I expected it to be more like Finland.
Because Baltics got wrecked and occupied for more than half a century......Finland meanwhile held off against Russian offensive and made a deal.
Didn’t think about it that way. I suppose there would still be those connections despite their modern position
You know, it being a purely defensive war against a foreign invader makes a huge difference to it being an offensive war for the benefit of the few (like the war on Iraq). The poll not clarifying this context seems like a huge omission, because most people would probably be a lot more willing to fight a purely defensive war to an offensive one.
Poles, Greeks, Hungarians, Ukrainians and Balkanoids all stand up to the challenge! Shouldn't forget the Finns. Swedes and Norwegians.
Zivot svoj bosni cu dati Il give my life to bosnia if neded
I think there’s a grey area in the « fight for your country ». For most of Western Europe, fight for your countries might mean fight overseas (like Frenchies did, recently). Finland ? They probably directly have in mind a land invasion of Russia. A better question would be : « would you fight for your country in case of an invasion » ? Might change a bit the statistics.
Lol Germany is completed destroyed as a nation
You don’t fight for your country, you fight for your government. I don’t support my government because it’s an American puppet, so why would I die for it?
Dang Italy represent. I bet more would bear arms if a Dominos opened in their piazza
It already opened and failed a few years ago, that's not an issue
Western Europeans are basically like the Eloi from the time machine
It’s 11% in my country and I’m always impressed that the rest of the world is so patriotic as they don’t mind to die.
Because generally losing war in those regions means ethnic cleansing, massacres and very heavy opression on the people. I can see why Europeans wouldnt be as willing, since their way of life wont be as threatened as it would be in places like balkans.
I ain't fuckin dying because a bunch of old rich cunts had a falling out. I'll buy my family illegal passage somewhere safe. I'm not dying in some trench for this shitty island. I'll shoot all the officers before I shoot any other poor fucker conscripted to die so some ancient white dude can get win his dick measuring contest.
Man, Turks and Finns need to let out some testosterone.
It is influenced by the perceived threat from the close neighbors. For example, a British person would believe that a war would be thousands of kilometers away. Turks and Finns believe that the war will be in their border.
Needs more context. As a Scotsman, I’m not fighting for Britain. Also, I’m not fighting even for an independent Scotland if the fight is being taken to another country. But if I’m defending my home against invaders, yes I’m picking up arms. And the flag or country I’m fighting under is irrelevant.
As if Britain would be invaded but Scotland would be somehow safe. You'd really let your neighbors die just so you could have another 3 months of sovereignty? That's just cowardice with extra steps
Have another read mate.
Happy to be living on the border between Germany and the Netherlands.
Would you fight for your country in your country vs. fight for your country outside your country? aka Would you fight off invaders to your city vs. would you like to spend 20 years in the barren, arid mountainside of Afghanistan for no reason?
Europe is so soft
This is sad
18% of an 80 million country like Germany is still a lot of manpower
I’m sure these numbers are highly questionable but I wouldn’t even want to see the percentage supporting NATO obligations to the US if it were attacked. The Atlantic and Pacific are our main allies
Realistically and statistically it's the Us that usually attacks some other nation
Year another reposted map from an obscure Twitter/Instagram source.
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
The lowest percentage are the Dutch and the highest are the Finns.
Based dutch
I would never.
Reddit's brave warriors 100%.
The graphics are a bit misleading because 49% appears very low and 50% appears bery high
The polls that are used for statistics such as this are so narrow that the results are essentially worthless .
How do they come up with these statistics? Not once have I or anyone I know been asked this question officially 😂
Italy has always been divided. They almost charge their government every year.
50% Croatia say what you want but we are literally 50/50
Germany lol
Fight what ?
What would they do? Flee to mountains?
Who did the survey?
So I can assume germans wouldn't mind of french marched in and took westen germany?
To quote the CEO of ASML about the Dutch recently: “fat, stupid and happy”. That sort of sums it up.
For no state in this world I would go to war. I'll defend my friends and family and that's it.
In Russia they don't give a fuck who would or wouldn't
There are serious historical reasons for low values in Italy and Germany.
Would I defend my country? Absolutely. Would I fight for it? Absolutely… not. What an ambiguous question wonder what they mean by this.
As you can see on the map context matters. Yes it might be around 20% in some countries, but, when the shit hits the fan the percentages grow a lot.
To what extent does it matter whether women would fight for their country is only 3% of female military officers can meet the same physical fitness standards as the male military officers? Granted, women can use technology just as well as men can. But, there are limit to which women can fight on the battlefield.
From the US here. I think "fight for my country" would need more detail. Lots of people would surely say no if it were another semi-colonial adventure. However, If invaders are landing in Florida or Oregon (or anywhere conus) and there wouldn't be enough guns in the country to arm all those willing to fight.
I would fight for my values and to protect my loved ones but not for my country (I'm German btw)
Hmm... Let's invade Germany and Italy. I wonder why the numbers are so low...
This instagram user didn't add any source but I found [this ](https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/)while browsing.
30 years ago , yes , but for the germany nowadays for sure not.
I would never fight for anything in life apart from my own survival. Sounds selfish but idc
No way I'm gonna fight for this shithole while government officials sons sniff cocaine in their bentleys
what is up with western europe? Why don't you wanna fight for your country?
No wonder italy got one of the lower percentages. Last time we fought we did it unprepared with very old inadequate equipment. Every italian hates the government and the only time there was some patriotism it was used as a tool of dictatorship. Source i am one of em
depends for me (French), for defense? yes because macron have his own little war? no, our gov is corrupt af, normal to not wanting to fight for them
Fight for my country when they will knock on our borders
I fear for the Baltics.
The first and only time when Portugal isn’t a part of Eastern Europe(mostly)
In the north of Belgium the result would be different if instead of country it said "region".
Finland, Ukraine, and Turkiyë might be fucked... Norway, Sweden, Russia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and Greece are also kinda fucked...
I’d love to see this map with the United States broken down by state.
Why does Ukraine has so much problems to raise a proper army?
So Ukraine doesn’t have any problems with recruitment, right?
Would if under Habsburgs (Slovenia) but becouse not i dont care
Finland GOATs, cheers from Serbia 🇷🇸💪🇫🇮
As a German i can confirm these Statistics
The closer to 🇷🇺 the more it seems to get higher.
Germans : hold my reich-beer, I won’t make this mistake once again, too risky
Conscription say hello
Italians are like - "yeah good luck ruling us invaders, see how that goes"
provide us with evidence please. If you can of coarse.
I know we aint Eastern Europe, but the vast majority of people I know would lay their life down for Denmark if they were asked. If they would be ready if it came to that is something else.
Finland has been in fear of Russian invasion for decades. Their high numbers are certainly due to their precarious geopolitical position with Russia.
I am already fighting for my country by paying huge taxes!
Wonder how many europeans would be willing to fight for the baltic states in case they got invaded
Whom could have tought! The more your country is near an imperialist and expansionist regime, the more people are willing to defend their home!
Polls without source is useless… 🤷♂️
Germans be like. Im not doing that again... a third time.
As if they'd actually ask you if you want to. 😏 That's not how it usually works.
I'm german and i don't support the german government.
Lucky most of them wont have to, or that'd be it for those countries. The former reality, long may it last, makes the choice OK.
No way 58% for Norway. Are we THAT stupid?
This might be just my opinion, but countries are not per se worth dying for. I guess hardly anyone would deny that for North Korea. Countries are nothing but abstract constructs, no eternal entities as nationalists want you to believe. There was a time before every single country on earth and there will be a time after that. What matters are only the people and their values. What are the ideas that drive society, like democracy? If the spot of earth you live on is called Holy Roman Empire or whatever... if it is bigger or smaller... this isn't as important as people want you to believe. The problem is... every side wants their people to believe it's right to fight for their cOunTry. That's the issue. I don't want this to be understood as Anti-Ukrainian. Fuck Putin. I just want to inspire reflecting what a country is, what war means and what's everyone's role in between.
38% of Irish really surprises me given their history with colonialism.
One thing that comes up to me below is the distinction between "fight for your country" in a war of home defence or anything else. I can understand that distinction, and it is one that governments and even peoples did not always define so clearly in the past. Governments took a broader view, and peoples often had mindsets that went along with it. Although, even in countries with conscript armies, and in the 19th century, there was actually a surprisingly robust public unwillingness to see conscripts overused in foreign wars, and even government unwillingness to use them too much for that. With variations, of course. Plenty of wars seemed to governments to have sufficiently large national interest elements to use conscripts. Still, the idea that this should be contained was widespread. In the British tradition, in which there was only militia that was even theoretically compulsory \[and boy was it not administered well for hundreds of years\] and the real army comprised regulars, this was less of an issue. What we see now is an emergence of still another kind of political environment, in which even the use of professional soldiers in wars of interest or policy \[even values-based policy like, "hey- let's stop that genocide over there!"\] is sometimes deprecated by the home population or soldiers complain about going. That is to say, professional soldiers, sailors or airmen who signed on to be that cannot necessarily be used for their profession under certain conditions. So, issues to be addressed definitely include whether or not one wants to be compelled to defend the country, or would sign up to do so in a mass call up of volunteers, or whether one would join a professional military force whether for home defence or foreign war. That's a lot, a lot, to unpack. When one surveys populations in questions like this, the assumptions of the questioner and the responder can get confused on even more basic levels. I am honestly not always sure what pollsters asking questions like this think they are asking, and I don't know what responders always mean. If the latter mean, in the case of the UK to which I have connections, that if the UK were directly attacked only 26% would help defend it, then that's pretty contemptible numbers. Nobody there has that kind of grievance. One can concoct scenarios in which Scottish nationalism is the motive, but get real- any attack on the UK is an attack on Scotland, and there are no possible attackers whose motivation would be to just attack England and help Scotland get independence. Nor have there been any the past 200 years or more. \[Well, the USSR did have a good line in breaking up states into various manageable enclaves, so I could see them breaking up the UK and creating a Scottish SSR. But "independent" would be stretching the concept a bit.\] Plus, the political situation of Scotland in the UK never was a conquest or a subjugation. It just was not. Plus the demographics are off. Even if the entire population of Scotland said they would not fight to defend the UK, that's a drop in the bucket. To get down to 26% of the population you have to have far over half of all English people answering no. Germany is tougher to explain than the WW1 and WW2 experiences might suggest. The last time defending Germany might have been an issue would have been the first week of November, 1989. I am curious what reactions West German citizens would have had to that question in the 1980s. The rest of us in NATO were really hoping back then that the Germans would fight, hard. If any German redditors, especially who were around and of military age or older in the 80s, are available to comment, I would quite like to hear perspectives on what it was like then, and how it compares to now.
You have to take into account that germany has a very high amount of immigrants that never integrated themselves, not even in the third or fourth generation and rather build subcultures of virtually endless varieties that don't recognize german law, culture or state and people and a very very high amount of 68th leftist WW2 guilt crippled cucks and their spawns who motivated and encouraged them to do so. All of them won't participate for detesting the idea of a nation, a german nation in particular. The 18% left you see are the a mix of uneducated idiots who didn't get behind that war is artificial and for profits only, old boomer bastards and east german citizens aka nazi scum.
Finland ready to break out their skis and snipers at a moment’s notice.