NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course, it is hard to say whether one will surrender or fight to the death without actually being in a battlefield situation, but what do you guys think?

Personally, for me, it depends on what enemy. If the enemy is known for mistreating prisoners (japanese in world war II) then i'd fight to the death.. i think. But im not sure.

How do you feel?

Like you said...it depends on if I'd have a chance of getting out afterwards. Also, if I was fighting, I doubt I'd betray my cause...but you can never be sure until you're there.

as a soldier i think you would be abandoning your duty to surrender

personally not as a soldier, it would depend on the reason for conflict rather than the sevarity of the punishment

If the enemy is known for mistreating prisoners (japanese in world war II).
Or the Americans in Iraq.

Surrendering may allow the fight to continue e.g. escape attempts causing disruption in prison camps or to allowthe gathering of information. Also, there is a chance that on release you could live to rejoin the fight.

In Iraq, I would kill myself before letting them behead me.

Or the Americans in Iraq.

Yes such brutal torture. Not much more then extreme hazing. The rest of the world has no room to talk about torture. Like those friendly Krauts, and those peaceful Vietnamese. Yeah standing there with dog collars on naked prisoners is so brutal. I haven't seen where we've cut the heads off of prisoners and then posted it on the internet.

I made it a point to myself that I had my name on the last round in my 38 while in Vietnam. I'd take those NVA and cong with me before I let them capture me as I was a flyer.

It depends alot on the circumstances. If you mean in a war, then chances are I'd fight to the death, unless commanded by a ranking officer (who is also being captured apparently) to not resist... chain of command and all.

Yes such brutal torture. Not much more then extreme hazing. The rest of the world has no room to talk about torture. Like those friendly Krauts, and those peaceful Vietnamese. Yeah standing there with dog collars on naked prisoners is so brutal. I haven't seen where we've cut the heads off of prisoners and then posted it on the internet.

I made it a point to myself that I had my name on the last round in my 38 while in Vietnam. I'd take those NVA and cong with me before I let them capture me as I was a flyer.
Yeah. It's realy not that bad. Cause others did worse things. Aren't Americans just the most lovebal people ever? Always so full of logic.

As a soldier, I'd probably be 50-50. On one hand, you're supposed to fight as a soldier. On the other hand, base instincts kick in.

As a civilian, I have no idea why I'd be in a battlefield but whoever wins, my arms areup and I'm in line fast as possible. Unless the enemy is known for torture, in which case I'd run- likely get shot while running, but hey, that's better.

The US is the only nation ever to use nukes. It then condemns other nations for having nukes.

If I was fighting against the NVA/VC- the most brutal sadists in the history of our planet- I'd definitely fight to the death. Hell, if I had to choose between suicide or surrender, I'd choose suicide (many ARVN generals did the day Saigon fell).

The US is the only nation ever to use nukes. It then condemns other nations for having nukes.
Cause free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. :D

Fight to the death, every single time. Actually, on second thought, I'd go rambo and mow down the entire opposing army without getting hit once. So when you think about it, neither would happen to me. :P

bump

Yes such brutal torture. Not much more then extreme hazing. The rest of the world has no room to talk about torture. Like those friendly Krauts, and those peaceful Vietnamese. Yeah standing there with dog collars on naked prisoners is so brutal. I haven't seen where we've cut the heads off of prisoners and then posted it on the internet.

I made it a point to myself that I had my name on the last round in my 38 while in Vietnam. I'd take those NVA and cong with me before I let them capture me as I was a flyer.

Agreed. I'll give a few examples of a typical VC atrocity:

Once, they went to a school where the teacher had secretly been teaching classes on religion at night. They dragged the teacher and the seven students he had been secretly teaching out to the courtyard. They had one communist holding each student. After screaming at the kids and accusing them of treason, they shoved chopsticks so deeply into their ears that their eardrums burst, so they would never again listen to the teacher. The children, whose hands were tied behind their backs, were eventually able to dislodge the chopsticks by scraping their heads across the ground. As for the teacher, they pulled his tongue out as far as they could with a crude pair of pliers and cut off the tip. He could not even scream. The whole courtyard reeked of blood.

In another instance, a village chief had his tongue cut off and then had his genitals cut off and sewn inside his bloody mouth. Then, his pregnant wife had her womb slashed open. The chief's three sons- all younger than ten- had bamboo spears shoved through one ear and out the other.

They also beat a three year old girl nearly to death with rifle butts.

They frequently decapitated and disemboweled people, and impaled their corpses through poles for all to see.

They liked to rip out fingernails and toe nails, one by one, and then break every finger.

In total, they killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Need I say more?

bump

I would NEVER surrender.

Agreed.

bump

Yes such brutal torture. Not much more then extreme hazing. The rest of the world has no room to talk about torture. Like those friendly Krauts, and those peaceful Vietnamese. Yeah standing there with dog collars on naked prisoners is so brutal. I haven't seen where we've cut the heads off of prisoners and then posted it on the internet.

I made it a point to myself that I had my name on the last round in my 38 while in Vietnam. I'd take those NVA and cong with me before I let them capture me as I was a flyer.
What an asshole thing to say. You think that you are justified merely because you come above the worst abusers of human right? Welcome to the league of ordinary nations.

I would NEVER surrender.
Cos you're a hardass, shitkicking, US Honouring commando marine type, right? As opposed to a geek who's combat experience comes from playing Medal Of Honour: Frontline?

bump

Cos you're a hardass, shitkicking, US Honouring commando marine type, right? As opposed to a geek who's combat experience comes from playing Medal Of Honour: Frontline?

Uh, dude, try to cut the flaming, okay? (Puts on fireproof armor, runs like hell)

I'd like to think I'd fight until I could physically be unable to fight any longer... but not being a combat vet, I can only guess and hope.

Uh, dude, try to cut the flaming, okay? (Puts on fireproof armor, runs like hell)I'm just saying, it's the dumbest topic ever to ask the question "Surrender or die?" on a board which demographics suggest is filled with male hormonal teenage meglomaniacs.

+ apology for flaming.

Fight to the death. Always.

In a great many cases, the decision as to whether to surrender or otherwise is not one made by the infantryman. During the fall of Singapore, 1942, for example, there were thousands of soldiers who wanted to keep fighting, and yet were countermanded by higher authorities within there own army. Also, there are huge differences between cold surrender and hot surrender. Try to surrender while battle rages and passions are high is VERY risky, and, paradoxically, not one for the faint of heart. It's also worth remembering that, statistically, most casualties occur in the rout phase of a battle, when forces abandon cover and presents their backs to their opposition.

Australian defence policy on surrender is very flexible. Exceptionally so. Generally, if you doubt the veracity of the person surrendering, shoot them. Just be prepared to justify your actions before a courts martial if there is the slightest hint of wrong doing.

The policy on us surrendering is... unusual. There isn't one. At all.

(pause)

(hastily skims through DFDA Vol. 1...)

There are no specified penalties for surrender, unless you tried to call it desertion...

(Vol. 2...)

And nothing at all here...

And, now that I think of it... there hasn't been an Australian soldier or officer captured since Vietnam...

I'm just saying, it's the dumbest topic ever to ask the question "Surrender or die?" on a board which demographics suggest is filled with male hormonal teenage meglomaniacs.

Hm...good point.

I probably would piss my pants. That's the truth.

In a great many cases, the decision as to whether to surrender or otherwise is not one made by the infantryman. During the fall of Singapore, 1942, for example, there were thousands of soldiers who wanted to keep fighting, and yet were countermanded by higher authorities within there own army. Also, there are huge differences between cold surrender and hot surrender. Try to surrender while battle rages and passions are high is VERY risky, and, paradoxically, not one for the faint of heart. It's also worth remembering that, statistically, most casualties occur in the rout phase of a battle, when forces abandon cover and presents their backs to their opposition.

Australian defence policy on surrender is very flexible. Exceptionally so. Generally, if you doubt the veracity of the person surrendering, shoot them. Just be prepared to justify your actions before a courts martial if there is the slightest hint of wrong doing.

The policy on us surrendering is... unusual. There isn't one. At all.

(pause)

(hastily skims through DFDA Vol. 1...)

There are no specified penalties for surrender, unless you tried to call it desertion...

(Vol. 2...)

And nothing at all here...

And, now that I think of it... there hasn't been an Australian soldier or officer captured since Vietnam...

Heh, indeed...routs also result of course in by far the largest number of prisoners, because units will surrender en masse, so fighting to the death is usually not of your own choice, it depends on what the officer in command thinks, be it the Phillipines in 1942, Tannenberg in 1914, Kiev or the other massive encirclements in 1941...usually its the officers who give in. Only rarely do you have units that are surrounded fight until unable to fight, Stalingrad for example...the Soviets encircled an estimated 250,000 Germans... not including those killed or captured in the encircling process itself... and the Germans fought until there were only 91,000 left, and most of those were support troops or too frozen to lift their rifles.. The Japanese well...they were "fight to the death" to the point where it was wasteful and the kill ratio racked up by the US was 10-1

What an asshole thing to say. You think that you are justified merely because you come above the worst abusers of human right? Welcome to the league of ordinary nations.

Yes we are justified.You need to get a life. Nice amount of posts by the way.

I'm just saying, it's the dumbest topic ever to ask the question "Surrender or die?" on a board which demographics suggest is filled with male hormonal teenage meglomaniacs.
It's certainly in the top 5.

And just like most of the hypothetical situations posed on this board, it's way too vague to have any meaningful discussion. Give me a set of situations, and I can give you a possible answer.

Yes we are justified.You need to get a life. Nice amount of posts by the way.
Ooh, hitting me where it hurts, my postcount!

Lol.

... Anyways, for me it would depend on the situation ^^ If my home country was being invaded. Yes I would fight to the death, if I was some pawn in a politcal game with no intentions of 'winning' the battle, then no chance...

bump