
<p>A recent poll conducted for German broadcaster RND reveals a striking truth about modern Germany: nearly 60 percent of Germans say they would not take up arms to defend their country if it were attacked. Only 16 percent said they would “definitely” fight, while another 22 percent said they “probably” would. That leaves a clear majority—59 percent—who said they are either “probably” or “definitely” unwilling to defend their homeland.</p>



<p>This poll, reported by <em>The Telegraph</em>, has sparked concern in Berlin. But the numbers are not the root of the problem. They are only the latest sign of a deeper trend that has been unfolding for years. The issue is not just political or military. It is cultural and civilizational. The poll is a symptom of what British historian Sir John Glubb called the “Age of Decadence,” a stage that eventually weakens even the mightiest of empires.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">The Glubb Effect: Decay Follows Wealth</h3>



<p>Sir John Glubb, a former British general, studied the life cycles of empires in his 1976 essay <em>The Fate of Empires</em>. He found that great civilizations tend to rise through struggle, unite through shared purpose, and fall when wealth and comfort begin to erode the very values that built them. He described the final stage of this process as the Age of Decadence—a period marked by selfishness, cynicism, and a growing unwillingness to sacrifice for the common good.</p>



<p>In Glubb’s words, “The citizens of such a nation will no longer make an effort to save themselves, because they are not convinced that anything in life is worth saving.”</p>



<p>Germany appears to be living this moment. The reluctance to fight is not caused by the poll itself. The poll is merely a mirror reflecting a society that has grown materially rich but emotionally detached from its own survival.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Berlin&#8217;s Military Plans Face a Cultural Wall</h3>



<p>The results of the RND survey come as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is trying to rebuild Germany’s military strength. He has unveiled a plan to grow the Bundeswehr from 182,000 active-duty troops to 260,000 by 2035. Reserve forces would also be expanded from 60,000 to 200,000. As part of this effort, the government may begin sending mandatory questionnaires and medical screenings to young men when they turn 18, laying the groundwork for a modern form of conscription.</p>



<p>But the defense ministry is facing more than just a recruiting challenge. The problem is not just that there are too few soldiers. It is that the will to be a soldier has nearly vanished. Even with strong financial backing and structural reforms—including a new €500 billion infrastructure fund and expanded military budgets—public resistance to service remains high.</p>



<p>The reality is that no amount of money can reverse a cultural trend that has taken decades to form. Germany’s inability to inspire its citizens to defend the nation suggests that the real crisis is not in the barracks, but in the soul of the country.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Post-Heroic Warfare and the End of Sacrifice</h3>



<p>The phenomenon is not limited to Germany. Across Europe, wealthy democracies are facing the same decline in civic duty and military readiness. In Italy, a similar survey showed that only 16 percent of citizens were willing to fight for their country. In Britain, both the army and navy have consistently missed their recruitment goals since 2010. Analysts blame poor housing and stagnant pay, but those are surface-level problems. The deeper issue is the fading belief that one’s country is worth fighting for.</p>



<p>Strategic thinker Edward Luttwak described this trend as “post-heroic warfare.” In a recent essay, he explained that affluent societies now structure their military policies around avoiding casualties, not achieving victory. “They have largely lost the old ‘warrior ethos’ and are unwilling to risk their comfortable lifestyles or their soldiers’ lives,” Luttwak wrote. He even recounted how some NATO contingents in Afghanistan paid local insurgents not to attack them—just to avoid bloodshed.</p>



<p>This mindset does not just weaken military strategy. It undermines the entire concept of national defense.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Why Rich Nations Lose Wars</h3>



<p>Andrew Mack, a political scientist, examined this dynamic in his influential article <em>Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars</em>. He argued that rich countries often fail in asymmetrical conflicts not because they lack firepower, but because they lack the will to endure hardship. Poorer nations or insurgent forces fight for survival. They are all in. Rich countries, on the other hand, often fight optional wars that do not threaten their existence. As casualties mount, they lose interest. The war becomes too expensive, too uncomfortable, and too distant to justify.</p>



<p>In Mack’s words, “the strong may ultimately withdraw, leaving the field to the weak.”</p>



<p>Germany today is not engaged in such a war, but the principle still applies. If conflict ever reaches its borders, and Germans do not believe their way of life is worth preserving through struggle, the nation could crumble from within—no matter how modern or well-funded its military appears on paper.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Mistaking Safety for Security</h3>



<p>One of the most dangerous assumptions in wealthy societies is that they can remain safe without being willing to defend themselves. This false sense of security is part of what military analyst Ralph Peters calls the “decadence of deterrence.” In his commentary for the Hoover Institution, Peters criticizes the belief that wealthy democracies can protect themselves through diplomacy, sanctions, and defense budgets alone. “They have the arms and wealth to back up their security commitments,” Peters wrote, “but not the will.”</p>



<p>He argues that real deterrence depends not just on military strength, but on the credibility of using it. When that credibility fades, adversaries become emboldened. What looks like restraint to the West may look like weakness to its enemies.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Germany &#8211; and Indeed the West &#8211; at a Crossroads</h3>



<p>The recent poll revealing that most Germans would not fight is not the disease—it is a symptom. The deeper cause is a slow, steady erosion of civic responsibility, national pride, and willingness to sacrifice for something larger than oneself. These are not problems that can be fixed by budgets or bureaucracy. They are the result of decades of peace, prosperity, and the comforts of modern life dulling a once-vital national spirit.</p>



<p>And not just in Germany.</p>



<p>If Glubb was right, Germany is now deep into its Age of Decadence. And if the warnings of Mack, Luttwak, and Peters are any guide, then the danger is real: a rich, powerful country that may fall not from invasion alone, but from the inside out—because its people no longer see anything worth fighting for.</p>



<p>Whether Germany can rediscover that purpose remains to be seen. But the clock is ticking. And history has shown that when wealthy nations lose the will to defend themselves, no amount of weapons or money can save them. </p>

Poll: 60% of Germans Would Not Fight if Invaded – A Symptom of Societal Decay?
