Sacrifice and such

[diplomatic_means]

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.

 

[RnderSafe]

This is going to open a can of worms.

 

[dragon_master_gunner]

Or a Pandora's Box...

(Sits back to watch the fireworks)

 

[Redleg]

This is going to open a can of worms.

Ok, here we go..
(I'll try to be gentle...)

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...

 

[SHERMAN]

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.

 

[FutureRANGER]

What about the Alamo? Can't beat them Texans :cowb:

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

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

 

[Snauhi]

Russians are the most brave soldiers have you ever heard about 6th Psovk VDV division?

 

[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)

 

[Snauhi]

not if you fight Checens

 

[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.

 

[Snauhi]

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.

yeah they were tought :rambo:

 

[silent driller]

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. -Patton

 

[Marksman]

Well hitkers boys were loonies,on them it was an great honor to die for hitler and germany,i know thats the right way but it was fanaticly wicked

 

[C/2nd Lt Robot]

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. -Patton

damn straight

 

[Big_Z]

Ever heard of the 82nd or 101st? [paratroopers] They would be dropped in the MIDDLE of the enemy, with no med stations or backlines. I dont think even death itself could say you are more willing to die for your country then that. There was a part in band of brothers when i believe it was the 3rdID was pulling out of bastougne, 101st was sent in to hold the line with hardly any ammo, food, or winter clothes. A 3rdID guy was coming back from the line and says "its a massacre, you will be surrounded" Dick Winters [CO] says "We're paratroopers, we're supposed to be surrounded"

 

[Locke]

there was an army that fought, even when death was immenent (sp) they continued to fight.
the spartan king Leonidis let an army of 400 against the invading persian army, which was 20 as big as the spartan army. they fought guerilla warfare, and slowed thier progress into greece. they ultimately were confronted at Thermopolye, and were surrounded. they were offered to surrender, but declined and were ultimately killed by the persian archers, who were a safe distance from the spartans whe were fierce close combat figters. they could have opted for a ceasefire, but that was contrary to thier docrine, so they stood, and died

 

[1217]

Heroic, but I doubt if it's a very smart thing to do........

 

[Redneck]

there was an army that fought, even when death was immenent (sp) they continued to fight.

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=815

Scroll down.

And actually, strategically, holding at all costs was very much the right thing to do, it gave the Greeks enough time to amasse their troops and prepare for what became the battle of Marathon, as well as dealing a crippling psychological blow to Xerxes and the Persians.

 

[1217]

there was an army that fought, even when death was immenent (sp) they continued to fight.

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=815

Scroll down.

Tnx Redneck, I knew I read that somewere on the forum, but I couldn't find it right away, and was to lazy to continue looking for it.

And actually, strategically, holding at all costs was very much the right thing to do, it gave the Greeks enough time to amasse their troops and prepare for what became the battle of Marathon, as well as dealing a crippling psychological blow to Xerxes and the Persians.

In this case it wasn't completely useless, but still I wonder if they couldn't have surrendered at the end. Live to fight another day, I mean. Of course I don't know if the persian army would've let them live, but to be shot by archers without being able to do anything about it?

 

[Redneck]

In this case it wasn't completely useless, but still I wonder if they couldn't have surrendered at the end. Live to fight another day, I mean. Of course I don't know if the persian army would've let them live, but to be shot by archers without being able to do anything about it?

:lol: I know sure as shooting that I would not have surrendered to anybody back then, you'd be liable to lose your head and your innards in no particular order, I'd take the porcupine way out over that any day.