Europeans, Pacificsm and Desertion

[Jaron]

I think I would be willing to die (or kill) for a cause I believe in - but it would certainly not be a war like the WW1.

WWI was for many participants an effort to prevent foreign control over part or all of their citizenry and territory.  If that's not a cause worth fighting for, what is?

Certainly this, in itself, is not a concept worth fighting for.

Sure, if the foreign regime you are defending against is evil and/or oppressive, or would discriminate against my ethnic group, then yes, but I couldn't care less otherwise whether the territory I live in is governed from Warsaw, Berlin or London, as long as I have a democratic say in its governance.

Just to be clear: a defensive war is where there is a foreign armed group of people intent on forcing their authority on you. I understand you personally enjoy submission, but most people find the idea appaling.

Except your people, who just wait to see which way the wind starts blowing when a war starts and hold on for the ride.

[Martinus]

Are you saying if Germany invaded your homeland tomorrow, attempted to take it over by force, but offered you say in the governance when they were done, you would be okay with it?

Happily. Germany today is much more civilized than Poland.

Self-determination of nations (understood as ethnic groups) is one of the biggest bullshits of modern history. The important part is whether the government is democratic and civilized, not whether it speaks any specific language or follows any specific culture.

I'm surprised people here seem to be happy agreeing with what I just said when it comes to countries like South Africa or Pakistan, but when it comes to their personal shitholes (e.g. Hungary) suddenly they get all nationalistic.

[Martinus]

I think I would be willing to die (or kill) for a cause I believe in - but it would certainly not be a war like the WW1.

WWI was for many participants an effort to prevent foreign control over part or all of their citizenry and territory.  If that's not a cause worth fighting for, what is?

Certainly this, in itself, is not a concept worth fighting for.

Sure, if the foreign regime you are defending against is evil and/or oppressive, or would discriminate against my ethnic group, then yes, but I couldn't care less otherwise whether the territory I live in is governed from Warsaw, Berlin or London, as long as I have a democratic say in its governance.

Just to be clear: a defensive war is where there is a foreign armed group of people intent on forcing their authority on you. I understand you personally enjoy submission, but most people find the idea appaling.

Just look at your poor joke of a country. It would be much better under Austrian rule.

[Jaron]

No, you are dead wrong here. Government needs cultural and patriotic ties to its people to be effective. That is why there is no central EU government. Even in Europe, you're all too different to be ruled by one power. Your problem is you were never raised to have pride in what you are and you've spent too many years hiding yourself from the world. You go to these little pride marches, but you don't know what pride is. They should call those parades "Please accept us and don't kill us" parades, because it sure as hell isn't about being proud of what you are.

[Tamas]

Game, set, match: Jaron

[Martinus]

Game, set, match: Jaron

Yeah, good going, gyppo. How does it feel to be on the same side as Jaron, Neil, lettow and Martim Silva? I can see how you can consider them your betters, though.

[Tamas]

Game, set, match: Jaron

Yeah, good going, gyppo. How does it feel to be on the same side as Jaron, Neil, lettow and Martim Silva? I can see how you can consider them your betters, though.

throwing insults around is admitting defeat

[Tamas]

I just have this mental picture of a bunch of Russian soldiers showing up at the house of Marty's parents intent on looting, and him saying: "alright if I can still vote on stuff after you are done, go ahead"

[Zanza]

Self-determination of nations (understood as ethnic groups) is one of the biggest bullshits of modern history. The important part is whether the government is democratic and civilized, not whether it speaks any specific language or follows any specific culture.

I have to disagree here. The nation state is still a very powerful social cohesion mechanism. Just see Belgium where it is currently breaking down. Policy measures to distribute wealth will only be accepted if you feel a certain relationship with those people that you support with your money. For most people, sharing a common language and culture, i.e. being part of a nation, is such a relationship. Having a government speak a different language will exclude you from a civil service career, which is unfair. I remember a thread about a judge in Canada who couldn't go to the Supreme Court or whatever because he didn't speak French. So language matters too.
History shows us that empires where one nation dominates the political process are inherently unfair to the rest of the population.

Actually, the EU doesn't have that problem as everybody just speaks English and the British barely take part so they can't dominate.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

national selfdetermination (a.k.a. nationalism) has gotten a bad reputation during mainly the second half of the 20th century but it is undeniable that this same striving has resulted in the emancipation of countless millions of people all over the world, and continues to do so.
Not without hiccups but then nothing goes smoothly anyways.

[Martinus]

I just have this mental picture of a bunch of Russian soldiers showing up at the house of Marty's parents intent on looting, and him saying: "alright if I can still vote on stuff after you are done, go ahead"

Well, you are a retard then. My responses clearly explain, imo, why I would fight against a Russian invasion.

[The Larch]

I think it is really misguided to center the debate on the single scenario in which a noble and fair nation is resorted to defend itself agains an evil unfair invader, as it's so dismally black and white that arguments are too skewed and emotional. There are so many scenarios for desertion, some of them even enshrined in international law through the Nuremberg principles, that to cast a blanket condemnation over them is foolish. My personal take is that, at the end of the day and in the extremely stressful situation of war, with all the constraints it causes, you can't blame a guy for wanting to survive

BTW, after doing some minimal research, I found that there are already several monuments to deserters, such as the Shot at Dawn memorial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_at_Dawn_Memorial) in the UK for WWI soldiers executed for desertion and cowardice, and several more monuments in Germany in honour of Wehrmacht's WWII deserters.

Edit: Also, I tihnk that a basic distinction has to be made between professional soldiers and conscripts. They can't in any reasonable way be held to the same standards.

[Grey Fox]

Game, set, match: Jaron

Yeah, good going, gyppo. How does it feel to be on the same side as Jaron, Neil, lettow and Martim Silva? I can see how you can consider them your betters, though.

throwing insults around is admitting defeat

He starts most of his post by "You are retarded". 

[Tamas]

Game, set, match: Jaron

Yeah, good going, gyppo. How does it feel to be on the same side as Jaron, Neil, lettow and Martim Silva? I can see how you can consider them your betters, though.

throwing insults around is admitting defeat

He starts most of his post by "You are retarded". 

And he loses most arguments

[grumbler]

Regarding Soviet stance on retreats in WW2: ALL the memoirs of Hungarian WW2 officers I have read mentioned cases when the attacking soviet unit they forced to retreat were machine gunned down by their own people.

That is still, however, a crazy thing to do.

Oh, there is not question but what this did happen.  It was not, though, the default orders.  The Soviets did, in fact, employ the concept of retreat in their military doctrine (unlike the Japanese) and used it to great effect in 1942.

Justice could only be made on an individual basis, but the default stance should disgrace for deserters.
Pointless war or not, it is a war, and the only reason the hinterland the deserter is running to is safer than the front line is that the comrades he is leaving behind keep fighting and not letting the enemy in.

Agreed, and well-put.

Retreat, surrender, hell even mutiny are understandable. Desertion is not.

Desertion is perfectly understandable.    "Honorable desertion" is a bit more difficult, but cases do exist: the Frenchmen  who deserted their units when Murat led his army against Napoleon in 1814, for example.