111–120 of 265 posts
I think the question is too generic, and therefore not much conclusion can be derived from it. Is it defending or attacking, on European territory or outside, for your countries gain or Europe's gain, etc.? It would be interesting to ask: Are you willing to fight a war to defend European countries against an outside threat, such as Russia.
I would expect very different results if the question was "willing to defend your country in war if attacked". For most West Europeans, "fighting a war" brings to mind more going to Iraq or something similar.
I don't know how this is possible outside of science fiction but I wonder how popular military service would be on a historical timeline, all else being equal but the variables being we turn on or off a livable basic income and free of cost health care (like medicare) for all. Would people still be eager to join the US military?
In countries with pro armies outside the US I believe it's more like any other job such as a policeman. In countries with conscription it's not even a job, it's more like a part of mandatory schooling (I have lived through both kinds - I did it with conscription and now it's a professional career like any other). Trouble with the law, dropping out of school etc here now means you can't become a soldier, just like you can't be a cop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "However, the 19th century was also a relatively peaceful time for Europe that ended with the start of World War I." Operative word: relatively. Still I see more than 18th century (although maybe severity of conflicts vary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#19...
More data: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/ I would not want to draw a firm conclusion from this, though. It says that "in Europe the second half of the 20th century was extraordinarily peaceful", but that particular graph only counts wars between nations, not civil wars, guerilla wars and terrorism. There's a lot of data in that page, though, so I can't really compress it into a HN comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think defending your country from invasion is worse than letting some assholes conquer your home?
If the question was "would you fight a war to stop some assholes conquer your home?" then I would answer "yes". However, given that there has to be two side to any conflict somebody presumably has to be the "assholes" and that's not something I'd be too happy doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking the first three questions of a German is some serious WW2 history trolling. You forgot one: would you join in a war to protect people of your ethno-linguistic background who live in a country who are (you are told) under threat as second-class citizens? I believe that was the stated reason for invading Czechslovakia.
It's the same reasoning that Russia uses today, this isn't as much of an excuse as a pretty common cause through history.
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 think the definition includes defence. Otherwise it would not be applicable in any foreseeable scenario to e.g. Finland.
The definition of 'Defence' can be streched and bend in various ways. You can be sure, that in the end almost every casus belli is in 'defense' of 'your country' or 'your countrymen' or 'your values'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it as non-specific - don't think it implies that your country would be the aggressor.
Most probably there's a big difference between fighting offensively or defensively. Would be really interesting to see 2 different questions.
I think a strong pattern here is: the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. See Italy, Spain, Belgium for instance: people from different area of those countries really feel belonging to different cultures. Contrari to the Nordic & Easter European ones. In Germany is more of a historical thing instead.
You've touched on one theory of why European governments are seemingly so in favour of mass immigration; a people with no common identity are much less willing to go to war for it. The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because it lets them hold on to their wealth.
How would not going to war allow wealthy people to hold on to their wealth? That's a head scratcher, too.
And remind me, what are a lot of those immigrants fleeing from? Who was in favour of fucking up the already fucked up Middle East plenty more, for example? Who set the stage for ISIS? Wasn't it a nation riled up into a frenzy, with a "shared identity" pouring out every nook and cranny?
I'm not surprised that Japan had the lowest world wide with 11%, but it does poke holes in a couple of theories listed in these comments, namely proximity to a threat and cultural homogeneity.
There will never be a total WW2-like conflict so for the majority of people it is just a nice mind exercise. But how many people are prepared to fight a war against propoganda? To defend freedom of speech? To defend opposite political views and opinions? It is scary but in the 1st and 2nd world you can still lose friends and even your job if you openly express your political views. People are afraid to express their…