Sacrifice and such




 
--
 
March 14th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 

Topic: Sacrifice and such


I wonder why there aren't and have never been a military that would actually fight to the death and still pay heed to the rules of war for the most part. The Russians during WW2 should have never outlasted the Nazis. The only reason they outlasted the Nazis is because the Communists had absolutely no regard for human life. Humans were just as much a resource as guns and ammunition. They would send as many troops as they had to stop the Nazis even if they were being massacred. The Russian officers wouldn't let the troops retreat either or else they would meet Russian bullets. So the Russians went ahead and took the damage for the sake of outlasting the Nazis. I wouldn't put it past Stalin if he had run completely out of guns and ammo to give every soldier a knife and tell them to rush the Nazis. The only reason the Nazis didn't win was because of the stubborness of the Communist leaders. They would have been better off surrendering after the first 5 million deaths and then although they would have been Nazi occupied they would have 15 million+ more people around than before. If the Nazis had attacked America or Britain to the extent they attacked the Russians our leaders would have surrendered much quicker than the Russians because they have more concern for the civilians. But my question is why can't an army exist that would willingly sacrifice and persist as much as the Russians did? Why can't there be an army that would rather die than surrender and not have to worry about retreating back into "friendly fire"? Why can't there be an army that would hold a position or attack until every last life is gone if that is what the officer orders? Why can't they do it willingly, unselfishly and boldly? Is it so much to ask of anyone that they do EVERYTHING in their power to accomplish a task a superior told them to do? Martin Luther King Jr once said, "If you have nothing worth dying for, you have nothing to live for." Some people in the military have nothing to live for, many of them do. Most politicians have nothing to live for. Most humans everywhere have nothing to live for. So then why do so many of us exist? I can't understand why the human race has grown so weak. Anyways I just want your thoughts on the topic in general as far as military perspective and world perspective.
March 14th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
This is going to open a can of worms.
March 14th, 2004  
dragon_master_gunner
 
Or a Pandora's Box...

(Sits back to watch the fireworks)
--
March 14th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 

Topic: Re: Sacrifice and such


Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
This is going to open a can of worms.
Ok, here we go..
(I'll try to be gentle...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by diplomatic_means
But my question is why can't an army exist that would willingly sacrifice and persist as much as the Russians did? Why can't there be an army that would rather die than surrender and not have to worry about retreating back into "friendly fire"? Why can't there be an army that would hold a position or attack until every last life is gone if that is what the officer orders? Why can't they do it willingly, unselfishly and boldly?
Why should there be such an Army???
Would you do this???

Many would probably say that they would more than willingly sacrifice their life for their country.
But it's easy to say such things if you never have been in a war/conflict zone....

And I must say that even if it may sound very heroic and romatic to fight to the death to defend your country, it can be a quite stupid thing to do......
If you are wounded and go back to seek medical attention, your Army can have a (almost) brand new/fresh soldier after you have recovered.
But if you choose to continue to fight, regardless of your wounds (in some cases this may be the only option), your Army would probably just loose another soldier that they could need later.

There are several examples of units who have fought with this "Death befor Dishonor" philosophy.
Kamikaze, suicide bomb units, some Vietnamese soldiers, Berserkers etc..
But I think that you never can get an entire Army to fight like this.
They could be a fierce opponent, but they could just as easy be an easy match...
March 14th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: not much to promise


Not to step too deeply into the nud of this discussion, i'd say some units are capable of doing this, but entire armys arnt.
March 15th, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
What about the Alamo? Can't beat them Texans

Oh yea one more thing. Gen. Douglas MacArthur said the same thing some years before.

Quote:
Part of the American dream is to live long and die young. Only those Americans who are willing to die for their country are fit to live.
- General Douglas MacArthur
March 31st, 2004  
Snauhi
 
Russians are the most brave soldiers have you ever heard about 6th Psovk VDV division?
March 31st, 2004  
cryhavoc
 
You ever hear "live to fight another day". Being dead does not accomplish much. Besides if you have an enemy who abides by the Geneva Convention you are much more help being captured instead of dead. Someone has to transport you from the front lines, guard you, feed and quarter you. Kind of along the same thought that wounding the enemy is sometimes better than killing him. (someone has to treat and carry him out)
March 31st, 2004  
Snauhi
 
not if you fight Checens
March 31st, 2004  
cryhavoc
 
If you want to read about brave soldiers read the book "The Medal". Or talk to some WWII veterans sometime. Not the first wave veterans but the 2nd or 3rd wave veterans of an assault, those were brave men. Watching the first wave chewed to bits it took a lot of guts just to stand up and move forward.