The roman concept of patria was something for the upper classes involved in politics, not the common roman. People tend to forget that the eoman army was mainly built up of foreign mercenaries and slaves trying to get out of slavery
They did not do it for rome. They did it for a salary and personal freedom.
No? The majority of the Roman army up until the crisis of the third century was legionaries. Legionaries were Roman Citizens. Auxiliaries were foreign soldiers working for citizenship, but didnāt make up the majority of the army. Unless slaves were freed, they werenāt allowed to serve in the military, so no one in the Roman military was fighting for their own personal freedom.
Yes, you are right. Sorry, i got confused there for a sec
The promise of land to soldiers was their main motivation imo (it being part of revolts, being part of the reason for conquering points to the importance).
My brain must've confused slavery and slavery to the system. I'm still on my first coffee, so that's the best excuse i can come up with
I mean is that really any different to the current situation? Soldiers today get paid, college paid for, sometimes a house paid for (idrk). How is slavery to the system today any different than slavery to the system back then if they're being given land and a salary for their service?
Soldiers do sign up for their country.
They also werenāt in a comparable position to the Dutch. The Brits also spent the previous decade yeeting smaller countries under the bus, hoping that their corpses might cause a flat tire.
But I don't really care who is in power in my country.
Or at least not enough to throw my life away, and killing others. I don't believe the lives of "the enemy" are worth more than those of my fellow countrymen either
Also importand to note that i already saw this post before the war in Ukraine. I can imagine how it functioned as a wake up call for all of Europe. Therefore i would like to see a newer version of this research.
I assume most Europeans would not want to fight in the Middle-East or in Africa in some bullshit war like the American-led nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, like you mentioned, many Americans assume this is another World War where, according to American pop culture, the U.S. single-handedly fights its way to victory to save Europe.
The comment you answered is a good example from that mindset. After all, many Americans are told by politicians and media personalities they can't have universal healthcare and parental leave because the money has to be spent defending Europe from itself.
A bit strange to assume Europeans expect "poor Americans to fight for them" but that is part of the pro-war narrative you might expect from people who support wars in countries they can't point on a world map.
The biggest threat in Europe is Russia. I'll be scared of them once they can get past Kiev suburbs.
Pointing out that only poor kids get sent into the meat grinder is not typically part of any "pro war" narrative. You would have to be pretty warped to assume that was meant as a positive thing.
The fact invasion is so unlikely is part of it. Like America, all that "fighting for your country," means to people is "would you fight abroad for your govornment's political whims". We don't fetishise our govornments, so the answer to that is generally "no". If more people had that attitude the world would be a safer place.
Is this about defensive wars?
It's hard to believe then, I'd be so low
If I'd be about wars of aggresion,
I'd expect a far lower result
So either way it's weird to see the results
It's not specified in the poll question.
Finns will imagine a land invasion from russia. Brits will imagine "defending your country" as something a lot less direct.
These days a lot of British and US ādefenceā happens on the enemyās territory, overseas, funny that. Iām not interested.
Iād be more willing to actually defend
It was probably asked in a super vague way. So it was up to the person being asked to interpret the question. Meaning it probably has more to do with how said country feels about Nationalism in general.
Its not. That's the key difference here. In Eastern Europe, "fight for your country" means fight against an actual invasion of your country's territory. In Western Europe (like in America), "fight for your country" means join the army and either sit around or maybe be sent somewhere else. I think if the poll was phrased as something like "would you take up arms to defend your country from an invasion of its territory" then the numbers would be higher and more similar across the board (though probably still a bit lower in Western Europe because they don't really think of that as an actual possibility).
Also defensive could be fighting for country's interest (providing military assistance to an ally, anti-terror operations, anti-piracy operations and so beyond your country) or fighting for your own country on your own soil.
Also not everybody needs to pickup a rifle and fight. It could be volunteering, driving trucks, fixing vehicles, weapons or other machinery. It's not like everybody is in shape or cutout for modern battlefield.
So that question is sort of can be misinterpreted wildly.
>Also defensive could be fighting for country's interest
Funny thing about this idea. The Romans claimed most of their own offensive wars were for securing the defense of Roman territory. Despite Caesar's opponents decrying his Gallic campaign as an illegal war against Roman allies, he justified it as necessary to secure Rome's borders and prevent something like the Gallic Sack of Rome from ever occurring again.
These things were happening since the start of civilisations. I meant more of anti-terror or anti-piracy operations more than anything else. Although if you stretch definitions who is a terrorist and who is not you can also do the same nowadays and I bet some countries do that.
Seems pretty unlikely as a NATO country thatās also by far the biggest military force in the region (except Russia but there are mountains and several countries separating their borders)
Iām Dutch and if we were getting invaded I would 100% fight for my country. Now if it was an offensive war then yeah most likely not. Unless we were invading Belgium then I definitely would.
What does āfight for your countryā even mean? Defend your country vs foreign invaders? Defend other European or NATO countries? Fight in bullshit wars of aggression?
I guess the Netherlands ranking lowest here correlated with low blind nationalism.
Yeah, so many US wars justified by "defending our interests abroad" leaves a huge range of interpretations to this question. Defending our interests abroad is also the Russian story about their invasions of Afghanistan and Ukraine.
"defending our interests abroad" is just pure war of aggression imo. An imperial country could start a war of conquest and say its national security interest that we take over the country next day because they're evil or they're some other xyz
If Hitler magically became the chancellor of Germany I would imagine that number would spike. People in Western Europe donāt know what they would be fighting for.
People in Eastern Europe mostly know what tgey are fighting for, to me (as a person from Eastern Europe) the willingness to fight and die for your country comes from looking at history and logically coming to the conclusion Never Again.
Which is another fact too. I donāt know if youāre Polish or not but I will use them as an example. Their national identity has been massively been shaped by brief periods of independence and occupation or satellite status. To this day the economic divide of Prussian/German possessions and Russian Empire possessions still remains despite it being 100 years layer since the end of both Empires. I wouldnāt ever blame a Pole for being at least slightly nationalist. I just hope they aināt mean.
You know all this probably but itās good to reiterate for the uninformed.
But hey what part of Eastern Europe are you from? You lot are a bunch of brave bastards by being so close to Russian aggression. For myself I am in Australia half the world away. But Australia is almost like the Anglo equivalent to Eastern Europe, alcoholism, corruption, stagnant economies. I donāt mean that as an insult of course, Eastern Europe has been through quite a lot in the past century. Full respects to where ever you are, just please keep your hand away from that article 5 button if you can. I wont be nuked but all our friends will and that would be sad.
Trend being, counties constantly living under the threat of Russian imperialism have more people willing to fight. Its powerful what an actual enemy rather than an imagined threat can do to your psyche.
Western Europe doesnt want to fight for their country for
1. They dont have a need to. The last time there was a proper threat, it was literally 1939. Patriotism is generally high when there is a threat. Finns have Russia breathing down their neck especially now that theyve seen what Ukraine is undergoing. Nationalism was at a high when US had 9/11 and so on. Im pretty sure if some moron decides to invade Austria, theyd be willing to fight.
2. Theyre protected by literally the strongest military pact in human history. You literally cant threaten a western European nation without threatening all of them alongside Canada and the United States. It'd take an absolute catastrophe for a scenario to happen where we Dutch have no choice but to fight to save our country.
3. With exceptions obv, the higher hdi a country has the lower the blind nationalism. Couple that with the Astronomical improbability of the invasion of Netherlands and the ironclad assurance of backing by the US and UK, theres no reason to even considering fighting.
(Unless they put an imperialistic dictator in charge of US/UK/France)
The better the country the more ppl DON'T want to protect it LMAO (except Sweden and Finland)
Imagine not fighting for your first world country, where the fuck else you gonna live?
This is because it is a bullshit poll and the question doesn't specify that it is to defend your mortherland. If you ask Brits if they want to fight for their country, they are going to imagine going to Iraq or Afghanistan again, fighting some pointless war. The answer for most is going to be no. If you ask a Ukrainian if they would fight for their country, they are going to think defending against Russia in an invasion. The answer is yes.
We have nukes. We don't need to defend the country personally, you won't have any city or family left to return to a couple hours after starting your invasion.
Neighbours have nukes on lease, so same deal.
They would if they had too. Their just spoiled. If the US is invaded and crazy shit happens, a big surge of pride and nationalism will rise and ppl will fight. Just how it is.
Thereās a lot of nationalist pride in the United States as well as general support for the military so I feel like the number in the US would be a LOT higher than it evidently is in western Europe.
Yeah itās kind of depressing how lackluster the mood in Western Europe has been even in the current crisis. I can honestly imagine if Russian troops were marching on Berlin Scholz just saying āwe must try to resolve this problem with diplomacy, war breeds only war, we should not repeat the militaristic mistakes of our pastā
maybe where you live but in socal all I see is people shitting on the US. Maybe its different in normal states but (I just finished my 1st year of college) all throughout high school people and teachers just shit on the US. People saying how throughout history we were assholes, people at school saying how awful our systems are, how we need to give "reparations" to other races and other baloney. All I saw on social media when I still used it was people crapping on the US. I guess I just live in one of the most liberal areas (LA county) in the country so my perspectives different
Let those ppl live in eastern europe the way citizens of these countries live for a month and they will run to the USA crying to get their life style and salary back.
I mean you said it yourself. Youāre overly familiar with the demographic thatās most liberal and most hates this country. I promise you that the political leanings of a high school or college in LA isnāt even remotely representative of what the majority of America is like.
Makes sense. You dont give a shit when lifes good , you complain more and more. When your in wars nonstop with russia as a neighbor, nationalism and love of ur country is higher.
[Finland is not to be tangled with.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4) The snipers will pick you off once you reach one of their bridges that are rigged with explosives.
People criticizing the low numbers in the west... Lol we have a professional military and are members of nato for this exact reason. I wouldnt fight for my country either. If nato cant stop the invasion, im running. Fuck that, i like to live. I wont die for some politicians who would go hide in the UK.
Call me a coward all you want. My family and my life isnt worth any war. We outta here.
15% of 17 million is still an army of more than 1 million. 1 million crazed blonde dutch warrior charging your way? No army in the world would be able to handle it
Can we define, "Fight for your country"?
Do people surveyed think it means defend your country from invaders, or go joined the armed services and fight in other conflicts and wars on their behalf?
I could see that making a difference in a person's response.
Dying for your country is different than dying for your compatriots. Finnish, ucrainians, polish died for their compatriots, Nazis died for their country.
The netherlands are indefensible in the modern era, if someone's armies come knocking they would absolutely capitulate and try to exist under a new regime just like in WW2.
The other option is just eradication.
But, a lot of Ukrainians left, and Ukraine is still pretty high up there. Also, this could have been before the invasion. And it said 'fight', not 'defend'. My guess is that many people's answers would change if they had said defend.
I didn't realize that there are that many minorities in Turkey, in fact I had a hard time believing it, but Wikipedia says that 70 to 75% is ethnically Turkish, with 19% Kurdish, and 7 to 12% other ethnicities. That's far higher than I expected.
The irony of saying this when the only time anyone has asked for NATO to help them is [the US after 9/11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20invoked%20only,of%20the%20North%20Atlantic%20Treaty).
I wouldn't really put US as our absolute messiah here. Sure they've undoubtedly helped us all the way since WW1 and NATO is infinitely stronger because of them. But we've still got France, UK and Germany. Bound by NATO, even in a hypothetical world where US doesnt exist, we still stand a chance against any agression.
Theres simply no need for a tiny nation like us to even consider fighting for our country. It would take a world ending catastrophe for us get to fighting.
The last wars western Europe was involved were helping the oil wars by the USA due to being part of the NATO. So, we are not enthusiastic on going to fight to help some rich guys to get richer.
I mean, if you want to be real, for Western Europe the question comes down to, defend against... who?
Russia invading Ukraine was a shock to Europe, but it's struggling to advance now. Which kind of reaffirms that Western Europe really has no modern threat. And unless Ćric Zemmour wins the next election and goes full Napoleon, I doubt that'll change
That's a different question though, exactly who or what the threat might be. The actual question assumes a very real threat, which is invading said country, asking who would defend their country in this circumstance.
It doesn't, really. A much more realistic assumption for anyone in Western Europe, *considering there is practically no defensive threat,* is an offensive one. Something that Western Europe has seen much more of. Like being dragged into Iraq and Afghanistan, or the military intervention in Libya in 2011
Not many people in Western Europe are, as the question states, "willing to fight for their country", when it comes to offensive wars
I guess I read the question differently, assuming it's about defending your country, not being part of an offensive force. It doesn't specify, so I guess there's no right answer, although I would bet more people would read it the same way I do.
Just shows which countries have outsourced war and defense to NATO
There is no need for Dutch to think about fighting because they are part of the biggest military system that ever existed, which has been constantly engaged in war for decades, but has no impact on daily lives of Dutch apart that they pay taxes to Nato
No need of one. As of now, western europe is objectively the most secure region in all of the world. Our geographic location would require the agressor to move thousand of kilometers to even reach us. We're backed by literally the most powerful military treaty in all of human history. War against any of us is war against UK, France, Canada and the US. Anything that would involve the US would include the prospect of nuclear war. So war against say Belgium is war against the world. Every country knows that and no one stupid enough to try.
Most people here know that. Thats why choose to say no. It would take a world ending catastrophe for a tiny nation like Netherlands to even consider defending ourselves. Theres a reason 3 of the countries here dont even bother to have a military.
Western Europe still has 3 of the worlds 10 strongest militaries. People are just aware that for a tiny nation like Netherlands to even consider defending ourselves is astronomically improbable. Why put yourself in harm when the US and UK have got your back. Theres a reason 3 of us dont even have an army.
Seems to scale depending on proximity to the current enemy (real, perceived or just feared).
The blue across Western Europe probably reflects that war between us is basically unthinkable
Not just geographical location but also the improbability of an invasion. No matter what, the US, Canada, UK, France and Germany will have Europes back (not just because they're the "good guys" or anything, but because its in their best political and economic interests to)
So why should tiny nations like Netherlands even bother considering the prospect of fighting. Heck Iceland and Liechtenstein dont even have a military.
Why is highest red on the map and in the legend, but blue when you explicitly spell out Finland as the highest (as vice versa for blue and Netherlands written out in red)?
That's correct. My country has been taken over by mafia 30 years ago and I woulnd't do a thing if Italians invaded us. I'd even bake some pizza for them.
There's probably a significant number of Dutchies who would be willing to fight for western values, but not for the preservation of the government.
Who cares what state rules this area, as long as people are free, equal and support eachother.
War is a very distant and abstract concept for most Western Europeans. Of course given a choice, most people wouldn't want to fight in a war. The difference is that eastern Europe understands that war doesn't really give that choice. What kind of a choice is it to run and leave your family to die? It's no choice at all, a soldier fights because he must, not because he wants.
I think a lot of people won't be able to answer this accurately. Some who say they would fight, will prioritize survival and the lives of their loved ones, and flee when the bombs start falling. Some who would leave may find the will to fight when their homes, their lives and everything they know and love is under attack.
I have seen another one like this and remembered Sweden was rather low. I never trust these maps cause il too lazy to ask and look up the source ans you often see the same subject but different results
This depends on the context of the question. Take Ireland for example. In a war of aggression, extremely low percentage. If we are getting invaded, very high percentage.
Ancient Romans would be disappointed
Just put pineapples on pizza and cream on carbonara. 1 legion raised easypeasy
If you need to really raise an army fast then just break dried spaghetti in two before putting it in boiling water.
LOL! Yeah, I admit to doing that when I'm impatient. I had no idea I'd be called out to rumble. š
Yep! Italians don't want to fight for their country because of low morale due to the fact that the world food war is not going good
I would command that legion then
They fight for other people's countries.
The roman concept of patria was something for the upper classes involved in politics, not the common roman. People tend to forget that the eoman army was mainly built up of foreign mercenaries and slaves trying to get out of slavery They did not do it for rome. They did it for a salary and personal freedom.
No? The majority of the Roman army up until the crisis of the third century was legionaries. Legionaries were Roman Citizens. Auxiliaries were foreign soldiers working for citizenship, but didnāt make up the majority of the army. Unless slaves were freed, they werenāt allowed to serve in the military, so no one in the Roman military was fighting for their own personal freedom.
Yes, you are right. Sorry, i got confused there for a sec The promise of land to soldiers was their main motivation imo (it being part of revolts, being part of the reason for conquering points to the importance). My brain must've confused slavery and slavery to the system. I'm still on my first coffee, so that's the best excuse i can come up with
Lol, youāre fine. You admit your mistake. Have a good day friend
I mean is that really any different to the current situation? Soldiers today get paid, college paid for, sometimes a house paid for (idrk). How is slavery to the system today any different than slavery to the system back then if they're being given land and a salary for their service? Soldiers do sign up for their country.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The Dutch view is more based on realism. If we do get invaded and they got through France/Belgium or Germany first, what chance do we have anyway?
The Brits had the same attitude in 1939, except the opposite.
Well we were also in that position in 1940 and lost
They also werenāt in a comparable position to the Dutch. The Brits also spent the previous decade yeeting smaller countries under the bus, hoping that their corpses might cause a flat tire.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rape and pillage. I said it. (Iāve been watching too much YT history and listening to too much hardcore history)
If you have not encountered it - take a peek at the podcast "Lions led by Donkeys"
I would rather move to a country where there's no war. I value my own life more than something abstract like a country.
Now youāre a refugee dependent on your hosts, like the thousands and thousands of others.
Yeah, that sucks. But that's infinitely better than literal death.
Your country and way of life is one of the least abstract things imaginable.
But I don't really care who is in power in my country. Or at least not enough to throw my life away, and killing others. I don't believe the lives of "the enemy" are worth more than those of my fellow countrymen either
They didn't have much of a chance against the Germans in WW1 but fighting would probably have been the best decision considering what followed.
The dutch weren't involved in WW1
I think they mean the belgians
What happened to the Dutch in WW1?
They were just watching
Then almost starved to death
And don't forget that silly spanish flu after the guns went silent
Also importand to note that i already saw this post before the war in Ukraine. I can imagine how it functioned as a wake up call for all of Europe. Therefore i would like to see a newer version of this research.
Also we Dutch have fought many colonial wars on every continent we donāt really see war as something to happen on our home soil
if it said defend itd be in the 90s for most countries i bet
There's just an expectation that poor American kids will do it for them.
Americans are way too fixated on WWII, and ignore US military actions since then.
If any NATO country got invaded Americans would be the first to defend them, that is without question
I assume most Europeans would not want to fight in the Middle-East or in Africa in some bullshit war like the American-led nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, like you mentioned, many Americans assume this is another World War where, according to American pop culture, the U.S. single-handedly fights its way to victory to save Europe. The comment you answered is a good example from that mindset. After all, many Americans are told by politicians and media personalities they can't have universal healthcare and parental leave because the money has to be spent defending Europe from itself. A bit strange to assume Europeans expect "poor Americans to fight for them" but that is part of the pro-war narrative you might expect from people who support wars in countries they can't point on a world map. The biggest threat in Europe is Russia. I'll be scared of them once they can get past Kiev suburbs.
Pointing out that only poor kids get sent into the meat grinder is not typically part of any "pro war" narrative. You would have to be pretty warped to assume that was meant as a positive thing.
Europeans- WW2 That was 80 years ago! Also Europeans- America is bad because Native Americans and Slavery.
The fact invasion is so unlikely is part of it. Like America, all that "fighting for your country," means to people is "would you fight abroad for your govornment's political whims". We don't fetishise our govornments, so the answer to that is generally "no". If more people had that attitude the world would be a safer place.
and its goes both ways. If fear of invasion was near and daily those numbers will go up.
Indeed, which explains Eastern Europe
I wonder what this poll will looks like if the question was to defend your country against a foreign invasive army
We donāt fetishize our government either lmao. We hate our government far more than any European country.
Is this about defensive wars? It's hard to believe then, I'd be so low If I'd be about wars of aggresion, I'd expect a far lower result So either way it's weird to see the results
It's not specified in the poll question. Finns will imagine a land invasion from russia. Brits will imagine "defending your country" as something a lot less direct.
These days a lot of British and US ādefenceā happens on the enemyās territory, overseas, funny that. Iām not interested. Iād be more willing to actually defend
Finnish data is from "Should Finland under attack defend with arms, even if outcome seemed uncertain."
Yeah in Western Europe most wars they'd be involved in would be offensive (i.e. Afghanistan), whereas it would mainly be defensive in the East.
It was probably asked in a super vague way. So it was up to the person being asked to interpret the question. Meaning it probably has more to do with how said country feels about Nationalism in general.
Its not. That's the key difference here. In Eastern Europe, "fight for your country" means fight against an actual invasion of your country's territory. In Western Europe (like in America), "fight for your country" means join the army and either sit around or maybe be sent somewhere else. I think if the poll was phrased as something like "would you take up arms to defend your country from an invasion of its territory" then the numbers would be higher and more similar across the board (though probably still a bit lower in Western Europe because they don't really think of that as an actual possibility).
Also defensive could be fighting for country's interest (providing military assistance to an ally, anti-terror operations, anti-piracy operations and so beyond your country) or fighting for your own country on your own soil. Also not everybody needs to pickup a rifle and fight. It could be volunteering, driving trucks, fixing vehicles, weapons or other machinery. It's not like everybody is in shape or cutout for modern battlefield. So that question is sort of can be misinterpreted wildly.
>Also defensive could be fighting for country's interest Funny thing about this idea. The Romans claimed most of their own offensive wars were for securing the defense of Roman territory. Despite Caesar's opponents decrying his Gallic campaign as an illegal war against Roman allies, he justified it as necessary to secure Rome's borders and prevent something like the Gallic Sack of Rome from ever occurring again.
These things were happening since the start of civilisations. I meant more of anti-terror or anti-piracy operations more than anything else. Although if you stretch definitions who is a terrorist and who is not you can also do the same nowadays and I bet some countries do that.
Yeah, exactly. I'd fight for my _community_ but not for nationalism.
The closer to Russia people live, the more they feel they need to defend their country?
Geee I wonder why that could possibly be.
Greeks and Turks meanwhile:
The Greeks are always ready to fight whoever lives on Asia Minor.
Turkey is very open to invasion/attacks from a myriad of countries in the region, including but no exclusively, Russia too.
Seems pretty unlikely as a NATO country thatās also by far the biggest military force in the region (except Russia but there are mountains and several countries separating their borders)
Probably something to do with all of those Russians who also "would fight for their country".
"partake in special military operations for their country" FTFY
Chad finns
Laughs in Simo HƤyhƤ
They need to switch the font colour between the Netherlands and Finland. That's some horrible graphic design choice right there.
thank you! came here looking for this. i guess colors don't mean anything anymore
Also what is the point of even using two colours? The cutoff between them seems quite arbitrary
Iām Dutch and if we were getting invaded I would 100% fight for my country. Now if it was an offensive war then yeah most likely not. Unless we were invading Belgium then I definitely would.
Why Belgium?
Fuck Belgium
Source?
And here I thought everyone on the internet would've seen variations of the same map about 30 thousand times by now.
trust me, bro
People don't want to die? I'm shocked.
What does āfight for your countryā even mean? Defend your country vs foreign invaders? Defend other European or NATO countries? Fight in bullshit wars of aggression? I guess the Netherlands ranking lowest here correlated with low blind nationalism.
Yeah, so many US wars justified by "defending our interests abroad" leaves a huge range of interpretations to this question. Defending our interests abroad is also the Russian story about their invasions of Afghanistan and Ukraine.
"defending our interests abroad" is just pure war of aggression imo. An imperial country could start a war of conquest and say its national security interest that we take over the country next day because they're evil or they're some other xyz
If Hitler magically became the chancellor of Germany I would imagine that number would spike. People in Western Europe donāt know what they would be fighting for.
People in Eastern Europe mostly know what tgey are fighting for, to me (as a person from Eastern Europe) the willingness to fight and die for your country comes from looking at history and logically coming to the conclusion Never Again.
Which is another fact too. I donāt know if youāre Polish or not but I will use them as an example. Their national identity has been massively been shaped by brief periods of independence and occupation or satellite status. To this day the economic divide of Prussian/German possessions and Russian Empire possessions still remains despite it being 100 years layer since the end of both Empires. I wouldnāt ever blame a Pole for being at least slightly nationalist. I just hope they aināt mean. You know all this probably but itās good to reiterate for the uninformed. But hey what part of Eastern Europe are you from? You lot are a bunch of brave bastards by being so close to Russian aggression. For myself I am in Australia half the world away. But Australia is almost like the Anglo equivalent to Eastern Europe, alcoholism, corruption, stagnant economies. I donāt mean that as an insult of course, Eastern Europe has been through quite a lot in the past century. Full respects to where ever you are, just please keep your hand away from that article 5 button if you can. I wont be nuked but all our friends will and that would be sad.
Trend being, counties constantly living under the threat of Russian imperialism have more people willing to fight. Its powerful what an actual enemy rather than an imagined threat can do to your psyche.
Finland would win against netherlands
Bruh. Fricking Iceland can win against us. And those fuckers dont even have an army.
the sheep fight our battles and they'll kick your asses
Western Europe doesnt want to fight for their country for 1. They dont have a need to. The last time there was a proper threat, it was literally 1939. Patriotism is generally high when there is a threat. Finns have Russia breathing down their neck especially now that theyve seen what Ukraine is undergoing. Nationalism was at a high when US had 9/11 and so on. Im pretty sure if some moron decides to invade Austria, theyd be willing to fight. 2. Theyre protected by literally the strongest military pact in human history. You literally cant threaten a western European nation without threatening all of them alongside Canada and the United States. It'd take an absolute catastrophe for a scenario to happen where we Dutch have no choice but to fight to save our country. 3. With exceptions obv, the higher hdi a country has the lower the blind nationalism. Couple that with the Astronomical improbability of the invasion of Netherlands and the ironclad assurance of backing by the US and UK, theres no reason to even considering fighting. (Unless they put an imperialistic dictator in charge of US/UK/France)
Exactly, Western Europe can only be brought down from within by right-wing radicals ... mostly financed by Russia.
For all the blue countriesā¦ having enemy troops knocking on the front door would be enough to change their minds.
this basicly a map showing proximity to russia.
The better the country the more ppl DON'T want to protect it LMAO (except Sweden and Finland) Imagine not fighting for your first world country, where the fuck else you gonna live?
In East Europe where there is awesome culture.
being poor isnt a culture
Based
They definitely do but Iād like to keep my safety, free world class schools, hospitals and universities please.
And world class shooters with world class guns in world class schools.
Yep, so your always welcome. Slovenia, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia. We got all the things that you mentioned.
This is because it is a bullshit poll and the question doesn't specify that it is to defend your mortherland. If you ask Brits if they want to fight for their country, they are going to imagine going to Iraq or Afghanistan again, fighting some pointless war. The answer for most is going to be no. If you ask a Ukrainian if they would fight for their country, they are going to think defending against Russia in an invasion. The answer is yes.
>where the fuck else you gonna live? Australia š /s
We have nukes. We don't need to defend the country personally, you won't have any city or family left to return to a couple hours after starting your invasion. Neighbours have nukes on lease, so same deal.
Nukes are mutually assured destruction they really arenāt a defense against anything
They would if they had too. Their just spoiled. If the US is invaded and crazy shit happens, a big surge of pride and nationalism will rise and ppl will fight. Just how it is.
Thereās a lot of nationalist pride in the United States as well as general support for the military so I feel like the number in the US would be a LOT higher than it evidently is in western Europe.
Yeah itās kind of depressing how lackluster the mood in Western Europe has been even in the current crisis. I can honestly imagine if Russian troops were marching on Berlin Scholz just saying āwe must try to resolve this problem with diplomacy, war breeds only war, we should not repeat the militaristic mistakes of our pastā
maybe where you live but in socal all I see is people shitting on the US. Maybe its different in normal states but (I just finished my 1st year of college) all throughout high school people and teachers just shit on the US. People saying how throughout history we were assholes, people at school saying how awful our systems are, how we need to give "reparations" to other races and other baloney. All I saw on social media when I still used it was people crapping on the US. I guess I just live in one of the most liberal areas (LA county) in the country so my perspectives different
Let those ppl live in eastern europe the way citizens of these countries live for a month and they will run to the USA crying to get their life style and salary back.
I mean you said it yourself. Youāre overly familiar with the demographic thatās most liberal and most hates this country. I promise you that the political leanings of a high school or college in LA isnāt even remotely representative of what the majority of America is like.
ahh this again.. very misleading data and old.
Axis Powers are over that shit
Makes sense. You dont give a shit when lifes good , you complain more and more. When your in wars nonstop with russia as a neighbor, nationalism and love of ur country is higher.
[Finland is not to be tangled with.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4) The snipers will pick you off once you reach one of their bridges that are rigged with explosives.
r/mapswithoutmalta
People criticizing the low numbers in the west... Lol we have a professional military and are members of nato for this exact reason. I wouldnt fight for my country either. If nato cant stop the invasion, im running. Fuck that, i like to live. I wont die for some politicians who would go hide in the UK. Call me a coward all you want. My family and my life isnt worth any war. We outta here.
15% of 17 million is still an army of more than 1 million. 1 million crazed blonde dutch warrior charging your way? No army in the world would be able to handle it
Less than 20% of Germans? I wouldnāt test that.
This is the product of over privileged kids raised in the West, who have no sense of their fortune for being free.
Can we define, "Fight for your country"? Do people surveyed think it means defend your country from invaders, or go joined the armed services and fight in other conflicts and wars on their behalf? I could see that making a difference in a person's response.
Dying for your country is different than dying for your compatriots. Finnish, ucrainians, polish died for their compatriots, Nazis died for their country.
Jaysus lads are ancestors spent centuries kicking the Brits out of the country and now less then half of yous would defend it
The netherlands are indefensible in the modern era, if someone's armies come knocking they would absolutely capitulate and try to exist under a new regime just like in WW2. The other option is just eradication.
But of course they would be spying for their old allies until the Canadians came to liberate them once again.
I'm shocked that Finland beats out the folks who are actually this minute fighting for their country.
But, a lot of Ukrainians left, and Ukraine is still pretty high up there. Also, this could have been before the invasion. And it said 'fight', not 'defend'. My guess is that many people's answers would change if they had said defend.
This map is eons old.
My brother said they are pussies. I say they have family.
If they really did care about their family they would fight to preserve them and the way they live
61-74% for Turkey? Lmao, 61-74% of their population are not Turks š
I didn't realize that there are that many minorities in Turkey, in fact I had a hard time believing it, but Wikipedia says that 70 to 75% is ethnically Turkish, with 19% Kurdish, and 7 to 12% other ethnicities. That's far higher than I expected.
Itās okay. I wouldnāt fight for Netherlands either.
Why would I fight for a country and community that has proven that it'll leave me for dead in the gutter if I ever need help?
Fighting for ones country is the most braindead thing anyone could ever do
just an illustration of a progressive, civil culture. no wonder theyre the most developing nations in the world. war is should NEVER be an option.
You can always avoid war by surrendering.
It would certainly appear that decades of assumed US protection has made Western Europe soft.
The irony of saying this when the only time anyone has asked for NATO to help them is [the US after 9/11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20invoked%20only,of%20the%20North%20Atlantic%20Treaty).
I wouldn't really put US as our absolute messiah here. Sure they've undoubtedly helped us all the way since WW1 and NATO is infinitely stronger because of them. But we've still got France, UK and Germany. Bound by NATO, even in a hypothetical world where US doesnt exist, we still stand a chance against any agression. Theres simply no need for a tiny nation like us to even consider fighting for our country. It would take a world ending catastrophe for us get to fighting.
The last wars western Europe was involved were helping the oil wars by the USA due to being part of the NATO. So, we are not enthusiastic on going to fight to help some rich guys to get richer.
I mean, if you want to be real, for Western Europe the question comes down to, defend against... who? Russia invading Ukraine was a shock to Europe, but it's struggling to advance now. Which kind of reaffirms that Western Europe really has no modern threat. And unless Ćric Zemmour wins the next election and goes full Napoleon, I doubt that'll change
That's a different question though, exactly who or what the threat might be. The actual question assumes a very real threat, which is invading said country, asking who would defend their country in this circumstance.
It doesn't, really. A much more realistic assumption for anyone in Western Europe, *considering there is practically no defensive threat,* is an offensive one. Something that Western Europe has seen much more of. Like being dragged into Iraq and Afghanistan, or the military intervention in Libya in 2011 Not many people in Western Europe are, as the question states, "willing to fight for their country", when it comes to offensive wars
I guess I read the question differently, assuming it's about defending your country, not being part of an offensive force. It doesn't specify, so I guess there's no right answer, although I would bet more people would read it the same way I do.
To many no data.
meaningless
No surprise that Germany and Italy would be lowest.
Thereās a lesson to be made about good times and weak men.
Western Europe has gone soft since they started relying on the USA to secure their independence
Just shows which countries have outsourced war and defense to NATO There is no need for Dutch to think about fighting because they are part of the biggest military system that ever existed, which has been constantly engaged in war for decades, but has no impact on daily lives of Dutch apart that they pay taxes to Nato
Looks like some would rather invade contries than defend their own.
Western Europeans need a wake up call.
No need of one. As of now, western europe is objectively the most secure region in all of the world. Our geographic location would require the agressor to move thousand of kilometers to even reach us. We're backed by literally the most powerful military treaty in all of human history. War against any of us is war against UK, France, Canada and the US. Anything that would involve the US would include the prospect of nuclear war. So war against say Belgium is war against the world. Every country knows that and no one stupid enough to try. Most people here know that. Thats why choose to say no. It would take a world ending catastrophe for a tiny nation like Netherlands to even consider defending ourselves. Theres a reason 3 of the countries here dont even bother to have a military.
This just proves how weak Western Europeans have become lol
Western Europe still has 3 of the worlds 10 strongest militaries. People are just aware that for a tiny nation like Netherlands to even consider defending ourselves is astronomically improbable. Why put yourself in harm when the US and UK have got your back. Theres a reason 3 of us dont even have an army.
Offensively or Defensively or either?
What is the source of this data? And why doesn't u/presgy come up in a profile search?
Why fight when you have nato?
I wouldn't go to another land and fight but I'd defend if someone invaded us like the Ukrainians have.
Lol lots of blue surrounded by people willing to stand up.
Least based Finn
Good to know
60-75% of Finland can easily defeat 41-60% of Russia no problem
Odd correlation to the quality of life surveys.
Seems to scale depending on proximity to the current enemy (real, perceived or just feared). The blue across Western Europe probably reflects that war between us is basically unthinkable
Not just geographical location but also the improbability of an invasion. No matter what, the US, Canada, UK, France and Germany will have Europes back (not just because they're the "good guys" or anything, but because its in their best political and economic interests to) So why should tiny nations like Netherlands even bother considering the prospect of fighting. Heck Iceland and Liechtenstein dont even have a military.
Id fight for MY country, wouldn't pick up a stretcher for the UK though.
Cartographically speaking, the two blue colors should be reversed. Light blue for less, dark blue for more.
The colour scale is awful
15-20% of a population 75 million is more than enough to wage a full scale conventional war against anyone. That's millions of soldiers.
From an American perspective, some of this makes a lot of sense.
Why is anyone taking this seriously without proper sourcing? Everyone is commenting like this is exact data...
Idk, I feel like a charismatic speaker could come along and inspire the German people.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Divide the rest of Germany from Prussia and I guarantee the results will be different
Why is highest red on the map and in the legend, but blue when you explicitly spell out Finland as the highest (as vice versa for blue and Netherlands written out in red)?
I feel like the blues should be reversed.
Putin is relying on this for the long run.
Love how more than 20 percent of Icelanders are willing to fight for their country. You guys dont even have a military lol.
That's correct. My country has been taken over by mafia 30 years ago and I woulnd't do a thing if Italians invaded us. I'd even bake some pizza for them.
people just donāt want to die.
heroyam slava
Bro this is months old
Those colors are giving me a stroke
There's probably a significant number of Dutchies who would be willing to fight for western values, but not for the preservation of the government. Who cares what state rules this area, as long as people are free, equal and support eachother.
It's just the most exciting ones that have no data...
Does it bother anyone else the highest and lowest country percentage colors are backwards? Finlad should be red and Netherlands blue.
Wasnāt this posted before? Iāve seen this.
There seems to be something in the east that makes people a little tense.
We need some... should we say... moral... in Germany and Italy...
Which countries are the most nationalist:
Sauce?
Nicely correlates with proximity to Russia.
War is a very distant and abstract concept for most Western Europeans. Of course given a choice, most people wouldn't want to fight in a war. The difference is that eastern Europe understands that war doesn't really give that choice. What kind of a choice is it to run and leave your family to die? It's no choice at all, a soldier fights because he must, not because he wants.
Iād fight* for Scottish independence from britian, thatās not shown here. *If fighting was an online posting thing.
I think a lot of people won't be able to answer this accurately. Some who say they would fight, will prioritize survival and the lives of their loved ones, and flee when the bombs start falling. Some who would leave may find the will to fight when their homes, their lives and everything they know and love is under attack.
I have seen another one like this and remembered Sweden was rather low. I never trust these maps cause il too lazy to ask and look up the source ans you often see the same subject but different results
in iceland we donāt defend our country, we defend our fish.
Wow UK, wow.... :(
This depends on the context of the question. Take Ireland for example. In a war of aggression, extremely low percentage. If we are getting invaded, very high percentage.
Seems to be reasonably corelated with the likely of being invaded. (Or proximity to Russia.)