Germany has a major demographic problem and like us Ponzi pension, welfare and health systems. They are now solving this by boosting their population by 800,000 or 1% by taking in large numbers of refugees. They could be doing much worse than taking in middle class Syrians. Liebour preferred to target uneducated, unskilled illiterates for immirgration as they are more likely to be lifelong Liebour voters. If you look at how the several 100,000's of middle class Ugandan Asians Amin kicked out and we accepted in the early 1980's, they have integrated well with earnings above average. Australia got it right with their points based system.
Any decent family man will do the best he can for his family and if that means fleeing rather than having to dodge regular gas attacks (chlorine gas) and helicopter dropped barrel bombs where Assad is deliberately targeting civilian areas then he is sensible to do so.
If you are going to flee do you aim for another sh*thole country or the best you can manage in terms prospects for a good life for you and your family? I personally don't have a problem with taking people if they are prepared to fit in and we can accommodate them with houses and jobs and they in return contribute through hard work and good citizenship to our society.
Conversely, about 200,000 British leave the UK every year primarily for Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, where they can create a better life for themselves in these countries. Migration is something humans (along with many other animals) have naturally done right from the earliest times. It is only from the 20th century onwards that many countries have had immigration policies, before that anybody could pretty much move and live anywhere.
You talk to any civilian who is caught up in a war zone and they will tell you one thing, anything and everything is better than being in a warzone. Joining the army and fighting is fine for some people, but not for many others, as not everybody is an alpha-male warrior.