Yeah, I was aware of the organisation's mission, and didn't think it worthy of mentioning explicitly. That in itself is not something that concerns me - I'm not concerned by the lack of authorship on the article(s) either, as people who speak out against Turkey can face personal consequences.
Obviously I'm concerned by not linking sources for what the articles are saying (I can't imagine why you wouldn't). Perhaps most of all, I'm concerned that YouGov.de said they couldn't communicate the results of the survey to me directly, and apparently, couldn't even link me to the frieden-geht.de page that does give the results. This makes me wonder if results have only been selectively reported. There's even potential for frieden-geht.de to present false results as it looks like YouGov.de can't be bothered checking up on what they're saying - however, I think the risks involved in doing this would be too great for frieden-geht.de. Looks like frieden-geht.de wanted to hedge their bets, and have the option of keeping the survey results to themselves had they not been favorable.
Wow dude, you've taken this pretty far. I'm legitimately impressed, I appreciate that.
That said, as @unruly mentioned, I'd still question the legitimacy of a survey about exporting arms to a specific country commissioned by an organization that is expressly against exporting arms to anywhere. Yeah, the people they surveyed don't want arms going to Turkey but they're probably just as opposed to sending arms almost anywhere else in a current state of war, too.
It's a judgement call to me--not that I have a dog in this fight to begin with.
Translation courtesy of Google Translate:
EDIT: To be clear, I'd agree with the sentiment. I'm just arguing journalistic integrity. We both seem to agree on that at different levels regardless.