A majority of people in all countries which are part of NATO would vote to stay in the military alliance if they were given the option, with 70 percent of respondents advising they would vote in favor of NATO membership, compared with 17 percent who don't know, and 14 percent who would vote to leave. According to this survey which was conducted in 2024, NATO membership is most popular in Albania and Poland, with 98 percent and 91 percent indicating they would vote for NATO membership, and least popular in Slovenia, with just a slight majority of people there supporting membership.

In 2025, the United States had the largest number of active military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost *** million troops. The country with the second-largest number of military personnel was Türkiye, at around ******* active personnel. Additionally, the U.S. has by far the most armored vehicles in NATO, as well as the largest Navy and Air Force. NATO in brief NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. At its formation, NATO began with 12 member countries, which by 2024 had increased to 32. NATO was originally formed to deter Soviet expansion into Europe, with member countries expected to come to each other’s defense in case of an attack. Member countries are also obliged to commit to spending two percent of their respective GDPs on defense, although many states have recently fallen far short of this target. NATO in the contemporary world Some questioned the purpose of NATO after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union a few years later. In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron even called the organization 'brain-dead' amid dissatisfaction with the leadership of the U.S. President at the time, Donald Trump. NATO has, however, seen a revival after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Following the invasion, Sweden and Finland both abandoned decades of military neutrality and applied to join the alliance, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

Opinion on questions concerning security policy. East-West comparison.

Topics: Satisfaction with the standard of living; attitude to France, Great Britain, Italy, USA, USSR, Red China and West Germany; preferred East-West-orientation of one´s own country and correspondence of national interests with the interests of selected countries; judgement on the American, Soviet and Red Chinese peace efforts; judgement on the foreign policy of the USA and the USSR; trust in the foreign policy capabilities of the USA; the most powerful country in the world, currently and in the future; comparison of the USA with the USSR concerning economic and military strength, nuclear weapons and the areas of culture, science, space research, education as well as the economic prospects for the average citizen; significance of a landing on the moon; Soviet citizen or American as first on the moon; assumed significance of space research for military development; attitude to a united Europe and Great Britain´s joining the Common Market; preferred relation of a united Europe to the United States; fair share of the pleasant things of life; lack of effort or fate as reasons for poverty; general contentment with life; perceived growth rate of the country´s population and preference for population growth; attitude to the growth of the population of the world; preferred measures against over-population; attitude to a birth control program in the developing countries and in one´s own country; present politician idols in Europe and in the rest of the world; attitude to disarmament; trust in the alliance partners; degree of familiarity with the NATO and assessment of its present strength; attitude to a European nuclear force; desired and estimated loyalty of the Americans to the NATO alliance partners; evaluation of the development of the UN; equal voice for all members of the UN; desired distribution of the UN financial burdens; attitude to an acceptance of Red China in the United Nations; knowledge about battles in Vietnam; attitude to the Vietnam war; attitude to the behavior of America, Red China and the Soviet Union in this conflict; attitude to the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam and preferred attitude of one´s own country in this conflict and in case of a conflict with Red China; opinion on the treatment of colored people in Great Britain, America and the Soviet Union; judgement on the American Federal Government and on the American population regarding the equality of Negros; degree of familiarity with the Chinese nuclear tests; effects of this test on the military strength of Red China; attitude to American private investments in the Federal Republic; the most influential groups and organizations in the country; party preference; religiousness.

Interviewer rating: social class of respondent.

Additionally encoded were: number of contact attempts; date of interview.

Einstellung zum arabisch-israelischen Konflikt, zur Wirtschaftspolitik,zur Europäischen Union, zur Ausländerpolitik und Einwanderung, zuinternationalen Beziehungen, zum Irak-Krieg, zu Militärinterventionen,zur nationalen Sicherheit, zur NATO, zu Atomwaffen, zur politischenEinflussnahme, zum Terrorismus und zu den Vereinten Nationen. Themen: Befürwortung der Übernahme einer aktiven Rolle des Landes inder internationalen Politik; Einstellung zur globalen Führungsrolle derUSA; Präferenz für eine europäische oder amerikanischeSupermachtstellung; Ablehnung des Supermachtstatus der EU wegen einer zuerwartenden Erhöhung von Militärausgaben; wünschenswerte Stärkung derEU, um zu einem besseren Wettstreit mit den USA zu kommen; Einstellungzur Höhe der Verteidigungsausgaben des Landes; Einstufung potentiellerBedrohungen der Interessen Europas durch den islamischenFundamentalismus, den internationalen Terrorismus, die hohe Zahl vonEinwanderern und Flüchtlingen in Europa, den militärischen Konfliktzwischen Israel und seinen arabischen Nachbarn, die weltweiteAusbreitung von AIDS, den wirtschaftlichen Abschwung sowie einenterroristischen Angriff mit Massenvernichtungswaffen; Einstellung zu denVereinten Nationen; Sympathie-Skalometer (100-stufige Skala) für dieUSA, Russland, Israel, die Europäische Union, die Palästinenser,Nordkorea, die Türkei, China, den Iran, Saudi-Arabien, Frankreich undDeutschland; Einstellung zur internationalen Politik der amerikanischenRegierung unter George W. Bush; Existenz gemeinsamer Wertvorstellungenzwischen den USA und der EU; Europäische Union oder USA als wichtigsterPartner des eigenen Landes; Einschätzung der Entwicklung der Nähezwischen Europa und den USA; Wunsch nach engerer Partnerschaft zwischenden USA und der EU (Split: allgemein und in Anbetracht desIrak-Krieges); Bedeutung der NATO für die Sicherheit; Einstellung zueinem Einsatz des nationalen Militärs zur Vereitelung einesterroristischen Anschlags, zur Versorgung von Kriegsopfern mitNahrungsmitteln und medizinischer Hilfe, zur Beendigung der Kämpfe ineinem Bürgerkrieg, zur Sicherung der Ölversorgung, zur Bereitstellungvon Friedenstruppen nach Beendigung eines Bürgerkrieges, zur Entmachtungeiner menschenrechtsverletzenden Regierung, zur Verhinderung derVerbreitung von Atomwaffen sowie zur Verteidigung einesNATO-Mitgliedslandes; Einstellung zur Stationierung von Truppen deseigenen Landes in Afghanistan; Preis für den Irak-Krieg zu hoch (Split:allgemein und unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Befreiung des irakischenVolkes); Einstellung zur Entscheidung der nationalen Regierung, Truppenbzw. keine Truppen in den Irak zu entsenden; Einstellung zur Entsendungvon Landestruppen in den Irak im Falle der Zustimmung der UN (Split:allgemein und unter US-Kommando); Auswirkung der Militäraktion im Irakauf die Bedrohung durch den weltweiten Terrorismus; Einstellung zurNotwendigkeit, sich vor der Anwendung militärischer Gewalt derUnterstützung der UN (dreifacher Split: NATO bzw. der wichtigsteneuropäischen Verbündeten) zu versichern; Einstellung zu einerMitgliedschaft der Türkei in der EU; Hauptgrund für eine Befürwortungbzw. Ablehnung einer Mitgliedschaft der Türkei in der EU; Einstellung zueinem Militäreinsatz der Landestruppen in einem anderen Land zurBeseitigung eines drohenden Terrorangriffs (Split: einem Bürgerkrieg inAfrika) nach Zustimmung der UN (dreifacher Split: der NATO bzw. derwichtigsten europäischen Verbündeten); Unterstützung eines solchenMilitäreinsatzes trotz fehlender Zustimmung der UN, der NATO bzw. derwichtigsten europäischen Verbündeten; wirtschaftliche oder militärischeMacht als wichtigste Grundlage zur Beeinflussung des Weltgeschehens;Einstellung zur Notwendigkeit eines Krieges und zum Übergehen der UN;militärische Stärke als Friedensgarant; Maßnahmen zur nationalenSicherheit nur mit den Bündnispartnern ergreifen; Unabhängigkeit derEuropäer von den USA durch militärische Stärke; Militäraktionen oderErhöhung des Lebensstandards als bester Weg zur Terrorismusbekämpfung. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; höchster Schulabschluss;Parteipräferenz (Sonntagsfrage); wichtigste Issues für eigeneWahlentscheidung bei der nächsten Wahl; Einstufung auf einemLinks-Rechts-Kontinuum; Schulbildung, Beruf, Haushaltsgröße; Wohnorttyp;(in den USA zusätzlich: Migrationshintergrund; Land). Attitudes towards the Arab/Israeli conflict, economic policy, theEuropean Union, immigration, international relations, the Iraq war,military interventions, national security, NATO, nuclear weapons, theuse of political power, terrorism, and the United Nations. Topics: support for an active role of own country in internationalpolitics; attitude towards strong leadership in world affairs by theUSA; personal preference for superpower status of the European Unionand/or the USA; against superpower status for the European Unionbecause of higher military spending; support for a politicalstrengthening of the European Union to better compete with the USA orto better cooperate with the USA; assessment of own country´s amount ofmilitary expenditure; assessment of potential international threats toEurope/the USA: Islamic fundamentalism, large numbers of immigrants andrefugees, international terrorism, the military conflict between Israeland its Arab neighbors, the global spread of AIDS (HIV), a majoreconomic downturn, a terrorist attack on own country using weapons ofmass destruction; attitude towards the United Nations in general;100-point sympathy temperature scale for the USA, Russia, Israel, theEuropean Union, the Palestinians, North Korea, Turkey, China, Iran,Saudi Arabia, France, and Germany; assessment of the George W. Bushadministration´s handling of foreign policy; European Union and USAhave enough common values to cooperate; European Union or the USA moreimportant for vital interests of own country; assessment of thedevelopment of transatlantic relations in recent years; support forcloser partnership between the European Union and the USA in general(split A) and especially considering the developments in Iraq (splitB); opinion on NATO´s importance for own country´s security; attitudetowards the use of own country´s military to prevent an imminentterrorist attack, to provide humanitarian assistance to victims of war,to stop civil wars, to ensure the supply of oil, for peacekeepingmissions, to remove governments that abuse human rights, to preventnuclear proliferation, and to defend a NATO ally under attack;assessment of costs in lives and money for Iraq war (split A) andespecially considering the liberation of the Iraqi people (split B);attitude towards presence of own country´s troops in Iraq (exceptFrance, Germany, Spain, Turkey); attitude towards decision not to sendtroops to Iraq (only France, Germany, Turkey); attitude towardsdecision to remove troops from Iraq (only Spain); attitude towards owncountry´s troops in Iraq if supported by United Nations mandate (splitA) or if led by the USA under United Nations mandate (split B);assessment of Iraq war´s influence on the threat of internationalterrorism; attitude towards the need to ensure support for militaryaction similar to Iraq war by the United Nations (split A), by theEuropean Union (split B) or by the most important European allies(split C); attitude towards European Union membership of Turkey; mainreasons for rejecting/supporting Turkish EU membership; support formilitary action to prevent an imminent terror attack if sanctioned bythe United Nations (split A), NATO (split B), the most importantEuropean allies (split C); support for military action to end a civilwar in Africa if sanctioned by the United Nations (split A), NATO(split B), the most important European allies (split C); support formilitary action without mandate by the United Nations (split A), NATO(split B), the most important European allies (split C); economicstrength more important than military strength in world affairs;attitude towards the necessity of war to fight injustice; attitudetowards ignoring the United Nations if vital interests of country areconcerned; military strength is best way to secure peace; importance ofcooperating with allies on national security issues; need for Europe tostrengthen military to reduce dependence on USA; regarding globalissues USA does not need European support; combating terrorismmilitarily is best; raising living standards in foreign countries isbest way to combat terrorism; political affiliation (USA only). Demography: sex; age; highest level of education received; age whenfinished full-time education; current occupation; voting intention(Sonntagsfrage); most important political issues in decision to vote;self-placement on a left-right continuum, size of household; ethnicbackground (US only). Additional variables: country, region, degree of urbanity. Weights: redressment weight for age, gender and education (USA: racenot considered); redressment weight for age, gender and education (USA:race considered); population weight for all European countries;population weight for European countries except Slovakia, Turkey andSpain; population weight for European countries except Turkey.

In 2024, the United States spent an estimated ***** U.S. dollars per capita on defence, compared with the NATO average of ***** per head.

As of 2025,the combined forces of NATO had approximately 3.44 million active military personnel, compared with 1.32 million active military personnel in the Russian military. The collective military capabilities of the 32 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 22,377 to 4,957, and in naval power, with 1,143 military ships, to 419. In terms of ground combat vehicles, NATO had an estimated 11,495 main battle tanks, to Russia's 5,750. The combined nuclear arsenal of the United States, United Kingdom, and France amounted to 5,559 nuclear warheads, compared with Russia's 5,580. NATO military spending In 2024, the combined military expenditure of NATO states amounted to approximately 1.47 trillion U.S. dollars, with the United States responsible for the majority of this spending, as the U.S. military budget amounted to 967.7 billion dollars that year. The current U.S. President, Donald Trump has frequently taken aim at other NATO allies for not spending as much on defense as America. NATO member states are expected to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense, although the U.S. has recently pushed for an even higher target. As of 2024, the U.S. spent around 3.38 percent of its GDP on defense, the third-highest in the alliance, with Estonia just ahead on 3.43 percent, and Poland spending the highest share at 4.12 percent. US aid to Ukraine The pause in aid to Ukraine from the United States at the start of March 2025 marks a significant policy change from Ukraine's most powerful ally. Throughout the War in Ukraine, military aid from America has been crucial to the Ukrainian cause. In Trump's first term in office, America sent a high number of anti-tank Javelins, with this aid scaling up to more advanced equipment after Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. The donation of around 40 HIMARs rocket-artillery system, for example, has proven to be one of Ukraine's most effective offensive weapons against Russia. Defensive systems such as advanced Patriot air defense units have also helped protect Ukraine from aerial assaults. Although European countries have also provided significant aid, it is unclear if they will be able to fill the hole left by America should the pause in aid goes on indefinitely.

Attitude towards the EU and EU enlargement.

Topics: life satisfaction; subjective rating of the development of the general life situation, the economic situation, the financial situation of the household, personal job situation, national labor market situation and the personal professional outlook in the coming year; native language; knowledge of foreign languages; frequency of political discussions with friends; self-rated opinion leadership; frequency of news consumption (television, newspaper and radio); interest in following news topics: local and national politics, social issues, EU, economics, sports, the environment, foreign politics, culture; spontaneous associations with the EU; general attitude towards the EU; knowledge of international institutions and trust into these institutions: UN, UNESCO, NATO, EU, European Parliament, European Commission, OSCE, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, International Court of Justice; Self-rated knowledge about the EU (scale); awareness of application for EU membership by own country; accession to EU of own country as a good thing; approval of EU membership of own country if a referendum was held; advantageousness of EU accession for the own country, the own person and following groups: people with and without foreign language skills, entrepreneurs, politicians, professionals such as doctors or lawyers, young people, children, employees, industrial workers, medium-sized businesses, teachers, civil servants, middle-aged people, farmers, the rural population, the unemployed, pensioners, elderly, population of the capital, cultural, religious and other minorities; some regions benefit more than others, all population groups; agreement with the following statements: accession of the own country would be beneficial for the EU, increasing size of EU increases security and peace, would promote the national economy, increase the influence of the own country in Europe, satisfaction of the national government accession policy, increasing influence of the EU in the world if number of members increases, historical and geographical legitimacy of EU membership of the country, increased cultural wealth and standard of living, rising unemployment due to EU enlargement; expected and desired EU accession year of the own country; consent to possible EU accession of Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey; EU or own country as preferred decision-making authority for the following policies: defense, environmental protection, currency, Humanitarian Aid, health and welfare, broadcasting and press, poverty reduction, combating unemployment, agriculture and fisheries, regional compensation, education, science and technology, information on EU , non-European foreign policy, culture, immigration, asylum, fighting against organized crime, police, justice, refugee resettlement, combat of youth delinquency, urban crime and human trafficking, the fight against drugs; preferred source of information about the EU; desire for additional information on the following topics: history of the EU, the EU institutions, European Economic and Monetary Union, Euro, European economy, European single market, further financial / economic issues, agriculture in the EU, European Foreign and Security Policy, international relations of the EU; regional policy of the EU, the European budget, European research and development policy, education policy, cultural policy, youth policy, EU citizenship, consumer protection and environmental protection in the EU, European social policy.

Demography: nationality; family situation; age at end of education; gender; age; occupation; professional position; degree of urbanization; household size; possession of durable goods, role of respondent in the household: main breadwinner, responsible for purchases and household maintenance, religious affiliation, frequency of church attendance, household income

This statistic shows the total population of the Netherlands from 2020 to 2024, with projections up until 2030. In 2024, the total population of the Netherlands was around 17.94 million people. Population of the Netherlands Despite its small size, the Netherlands is the twenty-third smallest nation in the European Union, and it is one of the most important nations in Europe and the world. The Netherlands is a founding member of the European Union, a member of the Group of Ten, and NATO. The total population of the Netherlands has rapidly increased over the past decade. Between 2004 and 2014, the total population increased by around 600 thousand people, currently estimated to be around 16.9 million altogether. The biggest cities in the Netherlands include Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague, with Amsterdam alone being home to almost 800 thousand residents. Among other factors, the Netherlands' increasing population is due to high life expectancy, economic growth and job opportunities. In 2011, the population of the Netherlands grew by around 0.47 percent in comparison to 2010. That same year, life expectancy at birth in the Netherlands was a little over 81 years, the highest recorded life expectancy since 2001. In addition, the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is one of the lowest unemployment rates in all of Europe.

For this survey, opinions were sought from respondents across Europe and the United States on several topics of national and international interest. These topics included: (1) the European Union (EU) and the United States as superpowers, threats facing the global community, (2) the United Nations (UN), (3) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), (4) general opinions of various countries, institutions, and people, (5) actions taken by the George W. Bush Administration, (6) intervention policy, (7) Turkey's (potential) membership in the EU, (8) Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, (9) China's human rights record, and (10) political preferences and voter intentions. Regarding the EU and the United States as superpowers, respondents were asked whether it was desirable for the EU or the United States to exert strong leadership in the world, whether the EU or the United States or neither should be superpowers, if the motive for opposing the EU becoming a superpower was increased military expenditure, whether increased military expenditure was necessary for the EU to become a superpower, whether the EU should concentrate on becoming an economic power, and if a more powerful EU should cooperate with the United States. Respondents were asked about threats facing the world such as Islamic fundamentalism, immigration, international terrorism, global warming, the spread of diseases such as AIDS, a major economic downturn, and the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether they expected to be affected by any of them in the next ten years. With respect to the United Nations, respondents were asked their overall opinion of the UN, whether they believed UN involvement legitimized the use of military force, whether the UN could help manage the world's problems better than a single country could, and whether the UN helps to distribute the costs of international actions. Regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), respondents were asked whether NATO could help share the United States military burden, whether NATO was an essential part of national security, if NATO involvement legitimized the use of military force, if NATO was dominated by the United States, and whether Europe should maintain a defensive alliance independent of the United States. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups: the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. In regard to the Bush Administration, respondents were asked whether relations between the United States and Europe were better or worse, whether Bush's efforts to improve relations between the United States and Europe were successful, what the future of relations between the United States and Europe would be because of Bush's efforts, and whether or not Europe should be more independent from the United States with respect to issues of security and diplomacy. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Bush's handling of international policies. With respect to intervention policy, the following questions were asked: should the EU help establish democracies, should the EU be involved in monitoring elections, would the respondent be in favor of the EU supporting trade unions, human rights associations, and religious groups in an effort to promote freedom, and should the EU support political dissidents and impose political and economic sanctions in opposition to an authoritarian regime. Respondents were asked several questions regarding Turkey's membership in the EU, including whether Turkey's membership in the EU could help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, if Turkey's membership in the EU would be good for the EU in economic terms, whether a predominately Muslim country belonged in the EU, if Turkey was too populous to become a member of the EU, and whether Turkey was too poor to be admitted into the EU. Respondents were also asked what they felt was the best way to put pressure on Iran in light of its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and whether or not the EU should limit its relations with China due to China's human rights violations. Respondents were also asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote. The dat

Opinion on questions concerning security policy. East-West comparison. Topics: Satisfaction with the standard of living; attitude to France, Great Britain, Italy, USA, USSR, Red China and West Germany; preferred East-West-orientation of one´s own country and correspondence of national interests with the interests of selected countries; judgement on the American, Soviet and Red Chinese peace efforts; judgement on the foreign policy of the USA and the USSR; trust in the foreign policy capabilities of the USA; the most powerful country in the world, currently and in the future; comparison of the USA with the USSR concerning economic and military strength, nuclear weapons and the areas of culture, science, space research, education as well as the economic prospects for the average citizen; significance of a landing on the moon; Soviet citizen or American as first on the moon; assumed significance of space research for military development; attitude to a united Europe and Great Britain´s joining the Common Market; preferred relation of a united Europe to the United States; fair share of the pleasant things of life; lack of effort or fate as reasons for poverty; general contentment with life; perceived growth rate of the country´s population and preference for population growth; attitude to the growth of the population of the world; preferred measures against over-population; attitude to a birth control program in the developing countries and in one´s own country; present politician idols in Europe and in the rest of the world; attitude to disarmament; trust in the alliance partners; degree of familiarity with the NATO and assessment of its present strength; attitude to a European nuclear force; desired and estimated loyalty of the Americans to the NATO alliance partners; evaluation of the development of the UN; equal voice for all members of the UN; desired distribution of the UN financial burdens; attitude to an acceptance of Red China in the United Nations; knowledge about battles in Vietnam; attitude to the Vietnam war; attitude to the behavior of America, Red China and the Soviet Union in this conflict; attitude to the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam and preferred attitude of one´s own country in this conflict and in case of a conflict with Red China; opinion on the treatment of colored people in Great Britain, America and the Soviet Union; judgement on the American Federal Government and on the American population regarding the equality of Negros; degree of familiarity with the Chinese nuclear tests; effects of this test on the military strength of Red China; attitude to American private investments in the Federal Republic; the most influential groups and organizations in the country; party preference; religiousness. Interviewer rating: social class of respondent. Additionally encoded were: number of contact attempts; date of interview. Beurteilung von Sicherheitsfragen. Ost-West-Vergleich. Themen: Zufriedenheit mit dem Lebensstandard; Einstellung zu Frankreich, Großbritannien, Italien, USA, UdSSR, Rotchina, Westdeutschland; präferierte Ost-West-Orientierung des eigenen Landes und Übereinstimmung der Landesinteressen mit den Interessen ausgewählter Länder; Beurteilung der Friedensbemühungen Amerikas, der Sowjetunion und Rotchinas; Beurteilung der Außenpolitik der USA und der UdSSR; Vertrauen in die außenpolitischen Fähigkeiten der USA; mächtigstes Land der Erde, derzeit und zukünftig; Vergleich der USA mit der UdSSR bezüglich der militärischen und wirtschaftlichen Stärke, der Atomwaffen und auf den Gebieten Kultur, Wissenschaft, Weltraumforschung, Bildung sowie der wirtschaftlichen Aussichten für den Durchschnittsbürger; Bedeutung einer Mondlandung; Sowjetbürger oder Amerikaner als erster auf dem Mond; vermutete Bedeutung der Weltraumforschung für die militärische Entwicklung; Einstellung zu einem vereinten Europa und zu einem Beitritt Großbritanniens zum Gemeinsamen Markt; präferierte Beziehung eines vereinten Europas zu den Vereinigten Staaten; gerechter Anteil an den angenehmen Dingen des Lebens; fehlende Anstrengung oder Schicksal als Gründe für Armut; allgemeine Lebenszufriedenheit; perzipierte Zuwachsrate der Bevölkerung im Lande und Präferenz für Bevölkerungszuwachs; Einstellung zu einem Anwachsen der Weltbevölkerung; präferierte Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung einer Überbevölkerung; Einstellung zu einem Geburtenkontrollprogramm in den Entwicklungsländern und im eigenen Lande; gegenwärtige Politikeridole in Europa und in der übrigen Welt; Einstellung zur Abrüstung; Vertrauen in die Bündnispartner; Bekanntheitsgrad der Nato und Einschätzung ihrer derzeitigen Stärke; Einstellung zu einer europäischen Atomstreitmacht; gewünschte und eingeschätzte Loyalität der Amerikaner gegenüber den Nato-Bündnispartnern; Einschätzung der Entwicklung der UNO; gleiches Mitspracherecht für alle UNO-Mitglieder; gewünschte Verteilung der UNO-Finanzlasten; Einstellung zu einer Aufnahme Rotchinas in die Vereinten Nationen; Kenntnisse über Kämpfe in Vietnam; Einstellung zum Vietnamkrieg; Einstellung zum Verhalten Amerikas, Rotchinas und der Sowjetunion in diesem Konflikt; Einstellung zum Rückzug amerikanischer Truppen aus Vietnam und präferierte Haltung des eigenen Landes in diesem Konflikt und im Falle eines Konfliktes mit Rotchina; Beurteilung der Behandlung von Farbigen in Großbritannien, Amerika und der Sowjetunion; Beurteilung der amerikanischen Bundesregierung und der amerikanischen Bevölkerung in bezug auf die Gleichberechtigung für Neger; Bekanntheitsgrad der chinesischen Atombombenversuche; Auswirkungen dieses Versuchs auf die militärische Stärke Rotchinas; Einstellung zu amerikanischen Privatinvestitionen in der Bundesrepublik; einflußreichste Gruppen und Organisationen im Lande; Parteipräferenz; Religiosität. Interviewerrating: Schichtzugehörigkeit des Befragten. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Anzahl der Kontaktversuche; Interviewdatum.

The purpose of the study: assess knowledge of the German population about Lithuania and its inhabitants. Major investigated questions: respondents were asked whether they heard about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, whether they know much about these countries and could name their capitals, and finally whether they would like to visit these countries. Further, the questions were only related to Lithuania. It was wanted to know how much the respondents know about Lithuania and with which region they would most likely associate this country. Those who think that Lithuania is not worth a trip or who have doubts about visiting Lithuania were asked to give their reasons in group of questions. After a group of questions, respondents that formerly visited Lithuania were asked to answer what made them visit Lithuania, what they liked and what they did not like about the country. When asked to imagine that they were planning to visit a European country, and after being asked a group of questions, it was wanted to know what would have the most influence on such a decision. Respondents were asked to rate whether Lithuania's membership in the EU, NATO and the OECD was a positive or negative thing. Next, respondents rated the groups of statements about Lithuania. It was clarified whether they had seen the campaign "Lithuania. Real is beautiful". They were asked to answer which of the listed tourist attractions or activities would be interesting for them if they were to visit another country. It was investigated which positive and negative descriptions best describe Lithuanians. At the end of the survey, questions were asked about how often respondents travel abroad (including all types of travel: work, weekends, holidays) and who usually travels abroad with them. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, place of residence, education, household income, occupation.

This study sought opinions from respondents across Europe and the United States on various topics pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primary topics included: (1) the state of relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States, (2) the George W. Bush Administration's handling of global affairs, (3) the functioning of the European Union (EU), (4) the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), (5) general opinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups, (6) perception of potential international threats, (7) China as an emerging power, (8) Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, (9) civil liberties and national security, (10) the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and (11) the role of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy. Respondents were asked about relations between the United States and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU to exert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of the United States exerting strong leadership in the world, whether relations between the United States and Europe had improved or gotten worse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regarding security and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future. Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way George W. Bush was handling international policies. There were several questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such as (1) whether the EU should have its own foreign minister, (2) whether military or economic power is more important when dealing with international problems, (3) whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power, (4) what effect Turkey's membership would have on the EU, and (5) how further enlargement would change the EU's role in world affairs and its ability to promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believed NATO was still essential to their country's national security. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (very cold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe and the United States such as international terrorism, the inflow of immigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread of diseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, the growing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, and Islamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceived these threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect to Iran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worst options for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether military action should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran from obtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited for handling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained a series of questions relating to national security and civil liberties. Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support the government taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internet communication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam and democracy including whether the values of the two institutions were compatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed in Islam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition, respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should help establish democracy in other countries, whether this help should be dependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely to oppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and United States should monitor elections in new democracies, support independent groups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economic sanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy. Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for

Summary: opinions across Europe and the United States on several topics of national and international interest. These topics included: the European Union (EU) and the United States as superpowers, threats facing the global community, the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), general opinions of various countries, institutions, and people, actions taken by the George W. Bush Administration, intervention policy, Turkey´s (potential) membership in the EU, Iran´s pursuit of nuclear weapons, China´s human rights record, and political preferences and voter intentions.

Topics: Regarding the EU and the United States as superpowers, respondents were asked whether it was desirable for the EU or the United States to exert strong leadership in the world, whether the EU or the United States or neither should be superpowers, if the motive for opposing the EU becoming a superpower was increased military expenditure, whether increased military expenditure was necessary for the EU to become a superpower, whether the EU should concentrate on becoming an economic power, and if a more powerful EU should cooperate with the United States. Respondents were asked about threats facing the world such as Islamic fundamentalism, immigration, international terrorism, global warming, the spread of diseases such as AIDS, a major economic downturn, and the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether they expected to be affected by any of them in the next ten years. With respect to the United Nations, respondents were asked their overall opinion of the UN, whether they believed UN involvement legitimized the use of military force, whether the UN could help manage the world´s problems better than a single country could, and whether the UN helps to distribute the costs of international actions. Regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), respondents were asked whether NATO could help share the United States military burden, whether NATO was an essential part of national security, if NATO involvement legitimized the use of military force, if NATO was dominated by the United States, and whether Europe should maintain a defensive alliance independent of the United States. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups: the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. In regard to the Bush Administration, respondents were asked whether relations between the United States and Europe were better or worse, whether Bush´s efforts to improve relations between the United States and Europe were successful, what the future of relations between the United States and Europe would be because of Bush´s efforts, and whether or not Europe should be more independent from the United States with respect to issues of security and diplomacy. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Bush´s handling of international policies. With respect to intervention policy, the following questions were asked: should the EU help establish democracies, should the EU be involved in monitoring elections, would the respondent be in favor of the EU supporting trade unions, human rights associations, and religious groups in an effort to promote freedom, and should the EU support political dissidents and impose political and economic sanctions in opposition to an authoritarian regime. Respondents were asked several questions regarding Turkey´s membership in the EU, including whether Turkey´s membership in the EU could help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, if Turkey´s membership in the EU would be good for the EU in economic terms, whether a predominately Muslim country belonged in the EU, if Turkey was too populous to become a member of the EU, and whether Turkey was too poor to be admitted into the EU. Respondents were also asked what they felt was the best way to put pressure on Iran in light of its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and whether or not the EU should limit its relations with China due to China´s human rights violations. Respondents were also asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote.

Demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, household size, region, and ethnicity (United States only).

Opinions across Europe and the United States on various topics pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primary topics included: the state of relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States, the George W. Bush Administration´s handling of global affairs,) the functioning of the European Union (EU), the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), general opinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups, perception of potential international threats, China as an emerging power, Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, civil liberties and national security, the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and the role of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy.

Topics: Respondents were asked about relations between the United States and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU to exert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of the United States exerting strong leadership in the world, whether relations between the United States and Europe had improved or gotten worse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regarding security and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future. Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way George W. Bush was handling international policies. There were several questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such as whether the EU should have its own foreign minister, whether military or economic power is more important when dealing with international problems, whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power, what effect Turkey´s membership would have on the EU, and how further enlargement would change the EU´s role in world affairs and its ability to promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believed NATO was still essential to their country´s national security. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (very cold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe and the United States such as international terrorism, the inflow of immigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread of diseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, the growing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, and Islamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceived these threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect to Iran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worst options for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether military action should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran from obtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited for handling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained a series of questions relating to national security and civil liberties. Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support the government taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internet communication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam and democracy including whether the values of the two institutions were compatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed in Islam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition, respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should help establish democracy in other countries, whether this help should be dependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely to oppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and United States should monitor elections in new democracies, support independent groups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economic sanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy. Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote.

demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, household size, region, and ...

Judgement on American and Soviet foreign policy. Attitude to selected countries and NATO. Topics: Most important problems of the country; attitude to France, Germany, Great Britain, the USSR and the USA as well as perceived changes in the last few years; assumed reputation of one´s own country abroad; trust in the USA and the USSR to solve world problems; judgement on the agreement of words and deeds in foreign policy as well as the seriousness of the peace efforts of the two great powers; the USSR or the USA as current and as future world power in the military and scientific area as well as in space research; benefit of space travel; attitude to a strengthening of space flight efforts; knowledge about the landing on the moon; necessity of NATO; trust in NATO; judgement on the contribution of one´s own country to NATO; preference for acceptance of political functions by NATO; attitude to a reduction in US soldiers stationed in Western Europe; expected reductions of American obligations in Europe; probability of European unification; desired activities of government in the direction of European unification; preference for a European nuclear force; judgement on the disarmament negotiations between the USA and the USSR; expected benefit of such negotiations for one´s own country and expected consideration of European interests; increased danger of war from the new missile defense systems; prospects of the so-called Budapest recommendation; attitude to the American Vietnam policy; negotiating party that can be held responsible for the failure of the Paris talks; sympathy for Arabs or Israelis in the Middle East Conflict; preference for withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories; attitude to an increase in the total population in one´s country and in the whole world; attitude to birth control in one´s country; attitude to economic aid for lesser developed countries; judgement on the influence and advantageousness of American investments as well as American way of life for one´s own country; autostereotype and description of the American character by means of the same list of characteristics (stereotype); general attitude to American culture; perceived increase in American prosperity; trust in the ability of American politics to solve their own economic and social problems; judgement on the treatment of blacks in the USA and determined changes; proportion of poor in the USA; comparison of proportion of violence or crime in the USA with one´s own country; general judgement on the youth in one´s country in comparison to the USA; assessment of the persuasiveness of the American or Soviet view; religiousness; city size. Also encoded was: length of interview; number of contact attempts; presence of other persons during the interview; willingness of respondent to cooperate; understanding difficulties of respondent. Beurteilung der amerikanischen und sowjetischen Außenpolitik. Einstellung zu ausgewählten Ländern und zur Nato. Themen: Wichtigste Probleme des Landes; Einstellung zu Frankreich, Deutschland, Großbritannien, UdSSR und USA sowie wahrgenommene Veränderungen in den letzten Jahren; vermutetes Ansehen des eigenen Landes im Ausland; Vertrauen in die USA und die UdSSR zur Lösung der Weltprobleme; Beurteilung der Übereinstimmung von Worten und Taten in der Außenpolitik sowie der Ernsthaftigkeit der Friedensbemühungen der beiden Großmächte; UdSSR oder USA als derzeitige und als künftige Weltmacht im militärischen, wissenschaftlichen Bereich sowie in der Weltraumforschung; Nutzen der Weltraumfahrt; Einstellung zu einer Verstärkung von Raumfahrtanstrengungen; Kenntnisse über die Mondlandung; Notwendigkeit der Nato; Vertrauen in die Nato; Beurteilung des Beitrags des eigenen Landes zur Nato; Präferenz für die Übernahme politischer Funktionen durch die Nato; Einstellung zu einer Verringerung der stationierten US-Soldaten in Westeuropa; erwartete Einschränkungen der amerikanischen Verpflichtungen in Europa; Wahrscheinlichkeit einer europäischen Vereinigung; gewünschte Aktivitäten der Regierung in Richtung europäische Einigung; Präferenz für eine europäische Atomstreitmacht; Beurteilung der Abrüstungsverhandlungen zwischen den USA und der UdSSR; erwarteter Nutzen solcher Verhandlungen für das eigene Land und erwartete Berücksichtigung der europäischen Interessen; erhöhte Kriegsgefahr durch die neuen Raketenabwehrsysteme; Aussichten des sogenannten Budapest-Vorschlags; Einstellung zur amerikanischen Vietnam-Politik; Verhandlungspartei, der die Mißerfolge der Pariser Gespräche zugeschrieben werden; Sympathie für die Araber oder Israelis im Nahost-Konflikt; Präferenz für einen Abzug der Israelis aus den besetzten Gebieten; Einstellung zu einer Erhöhung der Bevölkerungszahl im eigenen Land und auf der ganzen Welt; Einstellung zu einer Geburtenkontrolle im eigenen Land; Einstellung zur Wirtschaftshilfe an weniger entwickelte Länder; Beurteilung des Einflusses und der Vorteilhaftigkeit amerikanischer Investitionen sowie amerikanischer Lebensart für das eigene Land; Autostereotyp und Beschreibung des amerikanischen Charakters anhand der gleichen Eigenschaftsliste (Stereotyp); allgemeine Einstellung zur amerikanischen Kultur; wahrgenommene Steigerung des amerikanischen Wohlstands; Vertrauen in die Kompetenz amerikanischer Politik zur Lösung ihrer eigenen wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Probleme; Beurteilung der Behandlung von Schwarzen in den USA und festgestellte Veränderungen; Armenanteil in den USA; Vergleich des Gewaltanteils bzw. der Kriminalität in den USA mit dem eigenen Land; allgemeine Beurteilung der Jugend im eigenen Land im Vergleich zu den USA; Einschätzung der Überzeugungskraft amerikanischer bzw. sowjetischer Anschauung; Religiosität; Ortsgröße. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Interviewdauer; Anzahl der Kontaktversuche; Anwesenheit anderer Personen beim Interview; Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten; Verständnisschwierigkeiten des Befragten.

The purpose of the study: assess knowledge of the French population about Lithuania and its inhabitants. Major investigated questions: respondents were asked whether they heard about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, whether they know much about these countries and could name their capitals, and finally whether they would like to visit these countries. Further, the questions were only related to Lithuania. It was wanted to know how much the respondents know about Lithuania and with which region they would most likely associate this country. Those who think that Lithuania is not worth a trip or who have doubts about visiting Lithuania were asked to give their reasons in group of questions. After a group of questions, respondents that formerly visited Lithuania were asked to answer what made them visit Lithuania, what they liked and what they did not like about the country. When asked to imagine that they were planning to visit a European country, and after being asked a group of questions, it was wanted to know what would have the most influence on such a decision. Respondents were asked to rate whether Lithuania's membership in the EU, NATO and the OECD was a positive or negative thing. Next, respondents rated the groups of statements about Lithuania. It was clarified whether they had seen the campaign "Lithuania. Real is beautiful". They were asked to answer which of the listed tourist attractions or activities would be interesting for them if they were to visit another country. It was investigated which positive and negative descriptions best describe Lithuanians. At the end of the survey, questions were asked about how often respondents travel abroad (including all types of travel: work, weekends, holidays) and who usually travels abroad with them. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, place of residence, education, household income, occupation.

Since 1996, the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (ZMSBw) has conducted a representative survey of the German population on defense and security policy issues on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Defense. In 1996, this study was continued. For this purpose, N = 2568 persons were interviewed on various issues. The present survey focused in particular on Security and threat perception, attitudes toward security policy, foreign deployments of the Federal Armed Forces, tasks of the Federal Armed Forces, the role of conscription, and military cooperation in Europe. Perception of security and threats: personal feeling of security; personal significance of various aspects of security (e.g. job security, military security, social security, security of income, ecological security, etc.) Interest in politics in general, in foreign policy, in security and defence policy as well as interest in the Federal Armed Forces; security policy interest at the beginning of the 1980s; security policy strategy of ´deterrence´ as a guarantee for peace in Europe, necessary Realpolitik or a threat to humanity; advocacy or rejection of military force; change in personal attitude towards military force; Reasons for change of attitude; reasons for not changing attitudes; personal relationship to the peace movement in the early 1980s and today; opinion on pacifism; opinion on the extent of public debate on security policy issues and on the Federal Armed Forces; future development of the number of international conflicts after the end of the Cold War; likelihood of a military threat to Germany; feeling threatened by: environmental destruction, violence, hatred, crime, unemployment, world wars, right-wing extremism, financial problems, new technologies, diseases and population growth; threat to world peace from various countries and regions (Islamic states, Third World, Russia, Central/Eastern Europe, USA, Western Europe, Germany, Middle East, China); current that will prevail worldwide in the future (national or nationalist thinking vs. voluntary cooperation and interdependence); assessment of nationalist thinking; assessment of voluntary cooperation; suitability of various institutions and instruments to protect Germany against military risks (NATO membership, other/ new treaties with neighbouring countries, United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), Federal Armed Forces, European Army, general disarmament, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)). 2. Security policy attitudes, foreign missions of the Federal Armed Forces: Germany´s role in the world: preference for a rather active vs. rather passive international policy of Germany; approved or rejected measures for Germany´s international action (e.g. aid with food and medicine, aid of a financial and economic nature, technical aid by civil organisations, peacekeeping mission of the Federal Armed Forces within the framework of a UN mission, etc.); opinion on the peace-keeping mission of the Federal Armed Forces in various countries and regions (Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, South-East Asia, Africa, NATO states, Western Europe; opinion on the future role of a state´s military power; opinion on the future staffing level of the Federal Armed Forces; assessment of Germany´s defence expenditure; general attitude towards the Federal Armed Forces. 3. Evaluation of public institutions: Institutional trust (Federal Constitutional Court, other courts, police, Bundesrat, state government, Federal Armed Forces, Bundestag, television, press, churches, trade unions, federal government, education, political parties); reliance on the Federal Armed Forces. 4. Attitude towards compulsory military service: Military service or alternative civilian service more important for society; decision for or against various community services (care of the sick, care of the elderly, military service/defence, care of the disabled, environmental protection/remedy of environmental damage, care of children in need of help, service with the police, border guards or fire brigade); community service which the interviewee would be most likely to opt for social service most likely to be refused; general attitude towards military service; opinion on the right to conscientious objection; frequency of different reasons for conscientious objection (religious reasons, military service as time lost, political reasons, military service not compatible with conscience, civilian service as a more convenient way, economic reasons, civilian service with greater benefit to society); general compulsory military service retained vs. conversion into a voluntary army; future of the Federal Armed Forces (Federal Armed Forces should be abolished, citizen´s army based on the Swiss model, purely voluntary army, current mix of conscripts, professional and temporary soldiers should be retained, fewer professional and temporary soldiers more military exercises for former soldiers); preference for the future of the Federal Armed Forces. 5. Tasks of the Federal Armed Forces: Preferences with regard to the tasks of the Federal Armed Forces (tasks of international arms control, fight against international terrorism, fight against international drug trafficking, border security against illegal immigrants, tasks in the field of environmental protection, international disaster relief, humanitarian aid and rescue services, reconstruction and development aid, international military advice, Combat operations on behalf of and under the control of the UN or other international organisations, peacekeeping operations on behalf of and under the control of the UN or international organisations, protection of the constitutional order in Germany, participation in celebrations and ceremonies, education and character building, defence of Germany, defence of allies, aid for threatened friendly nations); evaluation of the deployment of German soldiers in various UN missions with regard to: care of the suffering population, promotion of the international community, integration of Germany, strengthening of German national interests, stabilisation of world peace, strengthening of the reputation of the Federal Armed Forces, enforcement of human rights, establishment of democracy in the country of deployment, protection of the population in the country of deployment; assessment of the armament and equipment of the Federal Armed Forces; assessment of leadership training in the Federal Armed Forces; assessment of ´soldiering´ as a profession; personal acquaintance with a Federal Armed Forces soldier; personal advice to a relative or friend when considering volunteering for the Federal Armed Forces; importance of co-determination in civilian enterprises; importance of co-determination for soldiers in peacetime; preferences for voluntary service by women in the Federal Armed Forces (women do not belong in the Federal Armed Forces, only in unarmed service, all uses should be open to women); opinion on the complete withdrawal of US troops from Germany; opinion on the complete withdrawal of the Federal Armed Forces from the region; agreement on various possibilities for a new German security policy (extension of NATO security guarantees to Eastern Europe, common European foreign and security policy, restructuring of the military, return to national German interests, strengthening of political cooperation); the importance for Germany of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council; attitudes towards citizens of various neighbouring countries (Belgians, Danes, French, Dutch, Austrians, Poles, Swiss, Czechs and Luxemburgers); the most positive attitudes and the most negative attitudes towards neighbours; a feeling of belonging as West Germans, East Germans, Germans, Europeans or world citizens. 6. Military cooperation in Europe: familiarity of various associations with soldiers from different nations (e.g. German-French Brigade, Eurocorps, German-American Corps, German-Dutch Corps); opinion on military cooperation with various countries (USA, France, Netherlands, England, Belgium, Denmark, Italy); opinion on the creation of a European army; opinion on the political unification of Europe; opinion on the introduction of a common European currency, the Euro; evaluation of the performance of the Federal Armed Forces with regard to reunification in comparison to other institutions (trade unions, churches, political parties, employers´ associations, sports associations and media); opinion on the future NATO deployment of Federal Armed Forces combat troops. Demography: Sex; age (year of birth); education; additional vocational training; occupation; occupational group; net household income; marital status; denomination; residential environment (degree of urbanisation); city size; federal state; household size; number of persons in household aged 16 and over; Left-Right Self-Placement. Additionally coded: Respondent ID; age (categorised); West/East; weight.

Bewertung globaler Bedrohungen. Einstellung zur Führungsrolle der USAbzw. der EU. Einstellung zum Nuklearstreit mit dem Iran, zu staatlichenBefugnissen zur Terrorabwehr und zur Demokratieförderung. Einschätzungdes wachsenden Machtpotentials Chinas. Themen: Häufigkeit politischer Gespräche im Freundeskreis; politischeMeinungsführerschaft; Einstellung zur globalen Führungsrolle der USAsowie der Europäischen Union; Einschätzung der Beziehung zwischen denUSA und Europa; Einstellung zur Partnerschaft zwischen den USA und derEU in der Sicherheits- und Außenpolitik; Beurteilung derinternationalen Politik der amerikanischen Regierung unter George W.Bush; Einstellung zur Stärkung der internationalen Rolle der EU (Skala:eigener Außenminister, Militäreinsätze, wirtschaftliche Stärke,Stärkung der Streitkräfte); Einstellung zur EU-Mitgliedschaft derTürkei; Einstellung zur Ausweitung der EU als Mittel zur Stärkung derinternationalen Bedeutung, zur Förderung von Frieden und Demokratie,als Hinderungsgrund für eine gemeinsame europäische Identität;Bedeutung der NATO für die nationale Sicherheit; Einstellung zu denVereinten Nationen; Sympathie-Skalometer (100-Punkte-Skala) für dieUSA, Russland, Israel, die Europäische Union, die Palästinenser,Italien, die Türkei, China, den Iran, das Vereinigte Königreich,Frankreich, Deutschland und Spanien; Einstufung der potentiellenBedrohung Europas und der USA durch den internationalen Terrorismus,die hohe Zahl von Einwanderern und Flüchtlingen nach Europa, den Erwerbvon Atomwaffen durch den Iran, die weltweite Ausbreitung von Seuchenwie der Vogelgrippe, eine Konjunkturdämpfung, die globale Erderwärmung,die wachsende Macht Chinas, Gewalt und Instabilität im Irak sowie denislamischen Fundamentalismus (Split: Vorgabe unterschiedlicherAntwortkategorien); Einschätzung des Bedrohungspotentials durch diewachsende Wirtschaft bzw. Militärmacht Chinas; präferierteVorgehensweise der Europäischen Union und der USA im Nuklearstreit mitdem Iran: Duldung des Erwerbs von Atomwaffen durch den Iran oderweitere Bemühungen, den Iran davon abzuhalten; präferierte sowiebesonders abgelehnte Vorgehensweise, um den Iran vom Atomwaffenerwerbabzuhalten; Einstellung zu einem Militäreinsatz gegen den Iran;kompetenteste Verhandlungspartner zur Lösung des Irankonflikts(Vereinte Nationen, NATO, die USA oder die Europäische Gemeinschaft);Einstellung zu staatlichen Befugnissen zur Terrorabwehr: Überwachungvon Telefongesprächen, der Kommunikation im Internet und desGeldtransfers bei Banken sowie die Installation von Überwachungskamerasauf öffentlichen Plätzen; Einstellung zur Vereinbarkeit der Werte desIslam mit der Demokratie des eigenen Landes; Islam allgemein oderbestimmte islamische Gruppierungen als Grund für dieNichtvereinbarkeit; Einstellung zur Rolle der Europäischen Union bzw.der USA beim Demokratisierungsprozess in anderen Ländern; Festhalten ander Demokratisierungsabsicht auch bei Protesten dieser Länder gegendiese europäische bzw. amerikanische Politik und bei der Wahl islamischfundamentalistischer Führer; befürwortete Maßnahmen zurDemokratieförderung in autoritären Regimes durch: die Beobachtung vonWahlen, die Unterstützung von unabhängigen Gruppen wie Gewerkschaften,humanitäre Hilfsorganisationen und religiöse Gruppen sowie vonRegimekritikern oder Verhängen politischer und wirtschaftlicherSanktionen sowie militärische Intervention; wirtschaftliche odermilitärische Macht als präferierte Grundlage zur Beeinflussung desWeltgeschehens; Einstellung zur Notwendigkeit von Krieg; Einstellungzur Orientierung an den Alliierten in Sicherheitsfragen;Selbsteinschätzung der politischen Orientierung. Demographie: Parteipräferenz; Parteipräferenz bei der nächstenPräsidentschaftswahl; Selbsteinstufung auf einemLinks-Rechts-Kontinuum; Konfession; Geschlecht; Alter; höchsterSchulabschluss; Beruf; Migrationshintergrund; Haushaltsgröße; Land;Urbanisierungsgrad. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Gewichtung. Opinions across Europe and the United States on various topicspertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primarytopics included: the state of relations between the European Union (EU)and the United States, the George W. Bush Administration´s handling ofglobal affairs,) the functioning of the European Union (EU), therelevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), generalopinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups,perception of potential international threats, China as an emergingpower, Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, civil liberties andnational security, the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and therole of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy. Topics: Respondents were asked about relations between the UnitedStates and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU toexert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of theUnited States exerting strong leadership in the world, whetherrelations between the United States and Europe had improved or gottenworse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regardingsecurity and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future.Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of theway George W. Bush was handling international policies. There wereseveral questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such aswhether the EU should have its own foreign minister, whether militaryor economic power is more important when dealing with internationalproblems, whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power,what effect Turkey´s membership would have on the EU, and how furtherenlargement would change the EU´s role in world affairs and its abilityto promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believedNATO was still essential to their country´s national security.Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the followingcountries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (verycold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): theUnited States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy,Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain.Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe andthe United States such as international terrorism, the inflow ofimmigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread ofdiseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, thegrowing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, andIslamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceivedthese threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect toIran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to preventit from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worstoptions for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether militaryaction should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran fromobtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited forhandling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained aseries of questions relating to national security and civil liberties.Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support thegovernment taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internetcommunication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in thename of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam anddemocracy including whether the values of the two institutions werecompatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed inIslam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition,respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should helpestablish democracy in other countries, whether this help should bedependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely tooppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and UnitedStates should monitor elections in new democracies, support independentgroups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economicsanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy.Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for thenext elections and what factors they took into consideration whendeciding for which party to vote. demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, householdsize, region, and ethnicity.

The purpose of the study: assess knowledge of the Norwegian population about Lithuania and its inhabitants. Major investigated questions: respondents were asked whether they heard about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, whether they know much about these countries and could name their capitals, and finally whether they would like to visit these countries. Further, the questions were only related to Lithuania. It was wanted to know how much the respondents know about Lithuania and with which region they would most likely associate this country. Those who think that Lithuania is not worth a trip or who have doubts about visiting Lithuania were asked to give their reasons in group of questions. After a group of questions, respondents that formerly visited Lithuania were asked to answer what made them visit Lithuania, what they liked and what they did not like about the country. When asked to imagine that they were planning to visit a European country, and after being asked a group of questions, it was wanted to know what would have the most influence on such a decision. Respondents were asked to rate whether Lithuania's membership in the EU, NATO and the OECD was a positive or negative thing. Next, respondents rated the groups of statements about Lithuania. It was clarified whether they had seen the campaign "Lithuania. Real is beautiful". They were asked to answer which of the listed tourist attractions or activities would be interesting for them if they were to visit another country. It was investigated which positive and negative descriptions best describe Lithuanians. At the end of the survey, questions were asked about how often respondents travel abroad (including all types of travel: work, weekends, holidays) and who usually travels abroad with them. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, place of residence, education, household income, occupation.

The purpose of the study: assess knowledge of the Polish population about Lithuania and its inhabitants. Major investigated questions: respondents were asked whether they heard about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, whether they know much about these countries and could name their capitals, and finally whether they would like to visit these countries. Further, the questions were only related to Lithuania. It was wanted to know how much the respondents know about Lithuania and with which region they would most likely associate this country. Those who think that Lithuania is not worth a trip or who have doubts about visiting Lithuania were asked to give their reasons in group of questions. After a group of questions, respondents that formerly visited Lithuania were asked to answer what made them visit Lithuania, what they liked and what they did not like about the country. When asked to imagine that they were planning to visit a European country, and after being asked a group of questions, it was wanted to know what would have the most influence on such a decision. Respondents were asked to rate whether Lithuania's membership in the EU, NATO and the OECD was a positive or negative thing. Next, respondents rated the groups of statements about Lithuania. It was clarified whether they had seen the campaign "Lithuania. Real is beautiful". They were asked to answer which of the listed tourist attractions or activities would be interesting for them if they were to visit another country. It was investigated which positive and negative descriptions best describe Lithuanians. At the end of the survey, questions were asked about how often respondents travel abroad (including all types of travel: work, weekends, holidays) and who usually travels abroad with them. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, place of residence, education, household income, occupation.