41–50 of 265 posts
Is the question "Will you fight a war for your Country?" even valid in today's Europe, with open borders and mass immigration of millions of non-citizens. Why would a German fight for the social construct "Germany", when his neighbour was given asylum on grounds of escaping military duty in his homeland?
Belgian here, as a resident of one of the bottom 3 countries I have to say I thought about this question myself a few times in the past. Even though I would never join the army to fight wars, should an occupation come I would do everything in my power to resist and sabotage. So to this question I would have to answer 'no' even though that doesn't mean I'd give up on my country.
For example if the roman empire would invade and bring roads, a type of democracy and bureaucracy I maybe would not pick up arms to depose them.
the red and blue colors suggest that less is worse. Why would that be the case? It seems like it should ideally be the opposite, if anything
Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some assholes conquer your home?
That's one of the rare moments where I feel that I can relate to my fellow countrymen - I'm German. Why would you 'fight a war for your country'? Given the way this is phrased that doesn't seem to talk about fighting in defense of one's country (I'd like to see the stats for that as well) unless my English as a foreign language skills fail me?
Exactly. Would I be willing to fight a war because a fascist superpower was killing millions of human beings in my country? Probably, yes. Would I risk my life to protect the Conservative Party and banking institutions? Less likely.
How about a pre-emptive attack against a country where populist polls show overwhelming support for invading your country, even if its current administration is against the idea?
How about joining in to defend one neighbour against another, aggressor neighbour—one which you have no personal hatred of, and share much history with—because of treaty obligations?
Would you be willing to fight to defend your country (and your countrymen) if it was being invaded by a country that the UN said was in the right to attack you, because your nation was considered a dictatorship needing to be put down?
Would you support defending yourself in a civil war, to protect your own countrymen from your own countrymen, on political lines you don't care about?
There are a lot more shades of grey than just "a just war against absolute evil" and "a banal war against meaningless change of leadership." This distinction isn't doing its job until it makes you upset to think about it. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Would I be willing to fight a war because a fascist superpower was killing millions of human beings in my country? Probably, yes. Would I risk my life to protect the Conservative Party and banking institutions? Less likely.
The second war (to protect the party and banking institutions) would be promoted like the first. Propaganda is a rather effective thing in wars.
The surprising fact here is that this can mostly be explained pretty well as the lessons of WW2 still being vivid in the memory of many countries...except that Russia suffered by far the most of any countries on the Western front, and still a majority there would fight a war for their own country. The persistent glorification of Russia's role in WW2 (although historically justified) might have something to do with it…
I do not know, Germany had more displaced people => after Between 1944 and 1948 about 31 million people, were permanently or temporarily moved from Central and Eastern Europe.
The newly created UN even decided that a criteria for "migrant/displaced" person would exclude German people from the Poland/Hungary/etc...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...
That's one of the rare moments where I feel that I can relate to my fellow countrymen - I'm German. Why would you 'fight a war for your country'? Given the way this is phrased that doesn't seem to talk about fighting in defense of one's country (I'd like to see the stats for that as well) unless my English as a foreign language skills fail me?
I read it as non-specific - don't think it implies that your country would be the aggressor.
The surprising fact here is that this can mostly be explained pretty well as the lessons of WW2 still being vivid in the memory of many countries...except that Russia suffered by far the most of any countries on the Western front, and still a majority there would fight a war for their own country. The persistent glorification of Russia's role in WW2 (although historically justified) might have something to do with it…
> The amputation of a quarter of Russia's territory Soviet Union is (was) not Russia, it was a multinational empire, similar to Roman or Mongol Empries. AFAIK, Russia itself did not loose much (any?) territory after 1989.
The Soviet Union was indeed considerably larger than Russia had been since the 17th century.
Having spent 9 years in the military, I can say with some confidence that even soldiers are not willing to fight a war. War is evil. No one looks forward to it (except the generals). But when its thrust upon you, you rise up to the occasion and defend your motherland.