:bleeding:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5e7d422a-0f30-4ec5-aeb7-5fd7f92abaa0&p=1
Quote
Fleeing Moment
by Michael B. Oren
A cultural history of desertion.
Post Date Wednesday, June 17, 2009
About 400,000 people, many of them children, annually tour the battlegrounds of Ypres, near the French border in Western Belgium, the scene of some of history's most savage combat. Millions of troops fought here during World War I; more than 600,000 of them died. Sightseers can view the numerous monuments extolling the bravery of the dead or visit the museum named for John McCrae's haunting threnody, "In Flanders Fields." And now, they can see something else, something unusual for a battlefield turned tourist destination--a memorial not to those who fought, but, instead, to those who didn't.
The new monument comprises a single pole, reminiscent of those to which convicted deserters were tied and shot, set in a courtyard outside the cells in which the condemned awaited execution. Roughly 1,000 men on both sides met that fate during the war, killed not for their beliefs--very few were conscientious objectors--but for shirking the burdens of national defense.
In earlier times, such a monument would undoubtedly have sparked outrage from veterans groups. But the Great War's survivors have nearly all died off, and European governments have embraced the memorial. The deserters, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told an Armistice Day ceremony last fall, according to The New York Times, "were not dishonored, nor were they cowards," but, rather, had been driven "to the extreme limits of their strength." The British government has gone even further than the Belgians, erecting its own monument to those who were shot and pardoning them posthumously.
What should we make of this practice of immortalizing deserters? Morally speaking, it is a complicated matter. World War I was in many respects a dubious enterprise, and those who desert from unjust wars might correctly be regarded with sympathy. The issue grows murkier, however, when an admiration for deserters from particular wars bleeds into an admiration for desertion as a general practice. There is reason to worry that this is precisely what is happening--to fear that the monuments in Belgium and Britain are symptoms of European attitudes toward not just World War I soldiers but toward all soldiers, even those who fight in just causes. And, if that is true, one might well ask: Can a society that valorizes its deserters long survive?
Questions about the Great War's greatness emerged almost as soon as the war was over. They surfaced first in the agonized poems of Wilfred Owen, killed a week before the armistice, and also in the writings of veterans Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves, and Erich Maria Remarque. Christopher Nevinson and Otto Dix later exposed thewar's horrors on canvas, and Jean Renoir, Abel Gance, and Raymond Bernard portrayed all its senselessness in film. But only with the Second World War was the central moral claim attached to the first--that it would be a "war to end all wars"--finally discredited. Thereafter, World War I in European memory became the unjust war par excellence, a metaphor for the irrationality of all modern conflict, if not of modernity itself--"the ultimate origin of the insane contemporary scene," in historian Paul Fussell's description, "where the irony and the absurdity began."
Sponsored By:
Click here to find out more!
Escaping such madness could hardly be deemed cowardice. On the contrary, it might seem preeminently sober, even heroic. That is the premise of French author Sebastien Japrisot's exhilarating 1991 novel, A Very Long Engagement, about five soldiers condemned to death for deliberately wounding themselves in order to escape the trenches, and about one woman's search for their fate. Those who fought were boorish, in Japrisot's telling, even savage, while those who fled were human. His bookwon the Prix Interallie, one of France's highest literary honors, and was later adapted into a critically celebrated film.
The process of de-glorifying World War I and sanctifying its deserters was not restricted to Europe, however. In the United States, as well, the war had scarcely concluded when artists began stripping away its patina. Two of Hollywood's earliest blockbusters--King Vidor's Big Parade (1925) and Raoul Walsh's What Price Glory? (1926)--deflated the notion of heroism in the trenches. Similar themes animated A Farewell to Arms, Hemingway's 1929 tragedy, in which the American protagonist shoots one deserter, is nearly executed--unjustly--himself, and then flees the war to Switzerland. As in Europe, World War II served to complete the debunking of its predecessor. American audiences had no difficulty identifying the heroes of Stanley Kubrick's 1957 classic Paths of Glory, about four poilus arbitrarily accused of cowardice and shot to cover up the French army's shortcomings. By the 1960s and early 1970s, movies set in World War I, such as Oh, What a Lovely War and Johnny Got His Gun, were being mustered by the antiwar movement to protest the U.S. entanglement in Vietnam.
That conflict, much like the Great War in Europe, prompted many Americans to question generationally held taboos about deserters. Between 1966 and 1973, the Pentagon registered 500,000 cases of desertion, and popular culture in the United States was quick to lionize those who slipped over the Canadian border or who, like Tim O'Brien's spooked grunts in Going After Cacciato, simply walked away from the jungle. In time, the dispensation for deserters from World War I and Vietnam would be extended to those who fled from other conflicts widely perceived as immoral. W.P. Inman, protagonist of Charles Frazier's novel Cold Mountain, is heroic because he runs away from the Confederacy; Sgt. Brandon King, the focus of Kimberly Peirce's 2008 film Stop-Loss, is laudable because he refuses to return to Iraq.
Still, it is difficult to imagine any but the most dovish Americans idolizing a soldier who bolted from the fight to liberate African American slaves--Union soldiers in fact deserted at higher rates than Confederates--or the 6 percent of GIs who deserted in 1944.Stephen Crane's hero, Henry Fleming, abandons the Union Army but later rallies and earns his red badge of courage, as does James Jones's Private Witt, who goes awol in the1962 novel The Thin Red Line, only to rejoin his unit and die on Guadalcanal. There are exceptions to this pattern--the movie Patton (1970) condemned the punishment of soldiers emotionally unsuited for combat during World War II, as did The Execution of Private Slovik(1974)--but Americans have generally seemed inclined to draw a distinction between desertion from unjust wars and desertion from just causes.
Is a similar understanding exhibited by Europeans? In contrast to the United States, fortunate to have fought most of its wars overseas, Europe was host to two twentieth-century apocalypses that left it depopulated and permanently traumatized. Torn between ravaging communist and fascist tides, many on the continent came to see war as an inherently no-win, illegitimate endeavor. Consequently, desertion could be conceived as logical, even honorable--and not only from the killing fields of Ypres.
The revulsion to any war, irrespective of its merits, is especially evident today among the European left. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero, for example, appointed a self-professed pacifist to head his defense ministry. Meanwhile, German leftist leader Oskar Lafontaine, a former minister of finance, recently accused his nation's army of being "indirectly involved in terrorist actions" for conducting reconnaissance flights in Afghanistan.
Such extreme positions do not characterize the policies of most European governments, several of which are centrist or even right-leaning. But some conservative European politicians are also reluctant to employ military means-- even in the service of obviously just efforts, such as keeping peace in the Middle East or standing up to the Taliban. Though empowered by the U.N. Security Council in 2006 to forcibly interdict Hezbollah from rearming and reestablishing its presence close to the Israeli border, the Italian, French, and German forces in Southern Lebanon have ignored their mandate and permitted Hezbollah to increase its stockpile of missiles. That same year, European Union observers fled their posts at a Gaza border crossing rather than confront Palestinian violence. And, in Afghanistan, European nato members have consistently resisted U.S. requests for additional troops while restricting the scope of their soldiers' operations. Deployed in relatively quiet sectors, German troops can only patrol from inside armored vehicles and cannot leave their bases at night.
For some Europeans, the aversion to military force is insufficient; they want Americans to lay down their arms as well. The Wall Street Journal recently profiled U.S. Army Specialist Andre Shepherd, a deserter living in Germany. Shepherd, with assistance from German peace activists, is seeking to stay in the country under an EU directive offering asylum to soldiers who refuse to fight in illegal wars. The German government has been paying for Shepherd's room and board. "It's just amazing here," he told the Journal.
The connection between courage and survival has been acknowledged since earliest antiquity, along with the dangers posed by desertion. "When soldiers break and run," warned the Iliad's Agamemnon, "goodbye glory, goodbye all defenses." Beowulf promised an "unpleasant fate, by any measuring of it" to those who abandoned the field, and Buddha, renowned for his placidness, forbade soldiers from deserting, even to become monks. Few leaders understood the problem better than George Washington, who, during the horrendous winter of 1777, feared that "our new Army will scarcely be raised before it will dwindle and waste away" due to unchecked desertion.
Washington stemmed this hemorrhaging by punishing the slackers among his troops, and Americans have never extolled them. Yet the question remains whether Europe's eagerness to immortalize deserters will reverberate elsewhere. It sounds far-fetched, but it is impossible not to wonder: Will visitors to Valley Forge someday see a single pole?
Michael B. Oren, author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, has been nominated to serve as Israel's ambassador to the United States. Simone Gold contributed to the research of this article.
So? Why the bleeding eyes? Ever watched "Paths of Glory"?
Tendrás que perdonarlo, el pobre Timoteo aún vive en el mundo de la piruleta.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 20, 2009, 02:40:47 PM
Tendrás que perdonarlo, el pobre Timoteo aún vive en el mundo de la piruleta.
Piruleta? :unsure:
I find the establishment of such a monument extremely offensive, it spits on the sacrifices of all the brave men who fought and died in that war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2009, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 20, 2009, 02:40:47 PM
Tendrás que perdonarlo, el pobre Timoteo aún vive en el mundo de la piruleta.
Piruleta? :unsure:
Lollipop.
QuoteI find the establishment of such a monument extremely offensive, it spits on the sacrifices of all the brave men who fought and died in that war.
Again, ever seen "Paths of Glory"?
I think my grandfather deserted sometime in 1945 and fled from the advancing Soviets. Can't say I blame him considering the destiny of those captured and shipped to Siberia.
EDIT: A cousin (or something) of my grandmother was shot for consciencious objection during the war. I certainly don't blame him either.
Tim, you are such a two dimensional thinker. Everything is black and white, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jaron on June 20, 2009, 02:55:00 PM
Tim, you are such a two dimensional thinker. Everything is black and white, isn't it? :rolleyes:
You stole my two dimensional line. :mad:
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 20, 2009, 02:54:44 PM
I think my grandfather deserted sometime in 1945 and fled from the advancing Soviets. Can't say I blame him considering the destiny of those captured and shipped to Siberia.
EDIT: A cousin (or something) of my grandmother was shot for consciencious objection during the war. I certainly don't blame him either.
We're not talking about celebrating those who deserted the army of a totalitarian state. We're talking about the English and French armies of World War I.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2009, 03:03:40 PMWe're not talking about celebrating those who deserted the army of a totalitarian state. We're talking about the English and French armies of World War I.
Your own article states that there is a difference in perception between Europeans and Americans.
And when my grandfather fled in 1945, the fight on the Eastern Front was for a good part about protecting fleeing German civilians - arguably a worthy cause that a soldier should fight for. Yet, he felt his own survival was more important. I can't blame him for that.
It's interesting that usually Americans are more individualistic than Europeans, but when it comes to military matters they seem to be more collectivistic.
My paternal grandfather hated seeing me play with toy guns. War made him a pacifist. During the SCW, he was smart enough to secure a position away from the front (he had useful skills). A couple of Republican Chatos almost managed to get him once near a farm, though. Apparently they burnt alive part of his group instead (IIRC they were hidden among dry straw, I guess tracers lit it up). I understand that wasn't pretty.
Tim expects you to die in an orderly way.
It's really two seperate issues, isn't it? Refusal to participate in an unjust war, and refusal to participate in a pointless operation that will likely result in your death.
It's nice to see the Europeans shed their warlike ways, what with all the bloodshed of the past several centuries they were responsible for.
Shame they can't get that anti-semitic monkey off their back like they can when it comes to shooting each other.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 03:19:25 PM
It's really two seperate issues, isn't it? Refusal to participate in an unjust war, and refusal to participate in a pointless operation that will likely result in your death.
Yes, but desertion is the logical way out of both.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 20, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Yes, but desertion is the logical way out of both.
But the moral component is different.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2009, 03:18:03 PM
Tim expects you to die in an orderly way.
My people were born to steal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 03:26:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 20, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Yes, but desertion is the logical way out of both.
But the moral component is different.
At the end of the day, is self preservation both ways. Either not wanting to die for something you don't believe in/are against to or not wanting to die in a boneheaded operation with no chance or survival. Yes, morals are different, but the bottom line is not wanting to die for something you don't see a meaning to.
QuoteWhat should we make of this practice of immortalizing deserters? Morally speaking, it is a complicated matter. World War I was in many respects a dubious enterprise, and those who desert from unjust wars might correctly be regarded with sympathy. The issue grows murkier, however, when an admiration for deserters from particular wars bleeds into an admiration for desertion as a general practice. There is reason to worry that this is precisely what is happening--to fear that the monuments in Belgium and Britain are symptoms of European attitudes toward not just World War I soldiers but toward all soldiers, even those who fight in just causes. And, if that is true, one might well ask: Can a society that valorizes its deserters long survive?
:ike:
Yes, we should worry about this problem. For it is huge.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2009, 03:37:24 PM
QuoteWhat should we make of this practice of immortalizing deserters? Morally speaking, it is a complicated matter. World War I was in many respects a dubious enterprise, and those who desert from unjust wars might correctly be regarded with sympathy. The issue grows murkier, however, when an admiration for deserters from particular wars bleeds into an admiration for desertion as a general practice. There is reason to worry that this is precisely what is happening--to fear that the monuments in Belgium and Britain are symptoms of European attitudes toward not just World War I soldiers but toward all soldiers, even those who fight in just causes. And, if that is true, one might well ask: Can a society that valorizes its deserters long survive?
:ike:
Yes, we should worry about this problem. For it is huge.
Would you shut the fuck up? You're not funny. Man-child.
Quote from: Jaron on June 20, 2009, 03:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2009, 03:37:24 PM
QuoteWhat should we make of this practice of immortalizing deserters? Morally speaking, it is a complicated matter. World War I was in many respects a dubious enterprise, and those who desert from unjust wars might correctly be regarded with sympathy. The issue grows murkier, however, when an admiration for deserters from particular wars bleeds into an admiration for desertion as a general practice. There is reason to worry that this is precisely what is happening--to fear that the monuments in Belgium and Britain are symptoms of European attitudes toward not just World War I soldiers but toward all soldiers, even those who fight in just causes. And, if that is true, one might well ask: Can a society that valorizes its deserters long survive?
:ike:
Yes, we should worry about this problem. For it is huge.
Would you shut the fuck up? You're not funny. Man-child.
You are fickle and prone to mood swings. :(
It is disappointing that, given such a fascinating subject, the author chooses to bang a political 'euroweeinie' drum. No real mention of the incredible psychological trauma these men went through. No discussion of the real issue of the fact that some men, decent a godfearing, simply cannot cope with the terrible circumstances they find themselves in. Do you think the conscript asked to be in the hell of the trenches?
Of course people like Tim, whose experience of war is limited to a computer screen may find it disgusting to remember those who were caught in the madness and were found wanting. And perhaps Mr Oren could try to undestand why the Germans have a pacifist attitude pretty much by design.
Of course his point about Afghanistan is odd considering the contributions in blood of the British, Dutch and others.
Oren means impure in Swedish. I rest my case.
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 03:35:42 PM
At the end of the day, is self preservation both ways. Either not wanting to die for something you don't believe in/are against to or not wanting to die in a boneheaded operation with no chance or survival. Yes, morals are different, but the bottom line is not wanting to die for something you don't see a meaning to.
Self preservation is not a terribly praise-worthy motivation.
Quote from: Warspite on June 20, 2009, 03:41:57 PM
Of course people like Tim, whose experience of war is limited to a computer screen
What a shameless cheapshot! :o
I have also watched movies and read books on the subject. -_-
I will trust Siege on this like I do an all matters of war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 03:35:42 PM
At the end of the day, is self preservation both ways. Either not wanting to die for something you don't believe in/are against to or not wanting to die in a boneheaded operation with no chance or survival. Yes, morals are different, but the bottom line is not wanting to die for something you don't see a meaning to.
Self preservation is not a terribly praise-worthy motivation.
Neither is the quest for self annihilation :p
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 03:35:42 PM
At the end of the day, is self preservation both ways. Either not wanting to die for something you don't believe in/are against to or not wanting to die in a boneheaded operation with no chance or survival. Yes, morals are different, but the bottom line is not wanting to die for something you don't see a meaning to.
Self preservation is not a terribly praise-worthy motivation.
It's the most basic motivation of any animal, human or not, it's a primitive and indispensable instinct for survival, and people have been vilified for abiding to it.
Ive seen paths of glory, and I still think this is disgraceful. It's just not fitting to honour cowards. Why not honour war profiteers or those who were deliberately wounded to go home, while your at it?
My firm stance is to take whatever Tim and Lettow believe in and go the opposite direction.
Quote from: Warspite on June 20, 2009, 03:41:57 PM
It is disappointing that, given such a fascinating subject, the author chooses to bang a political 'euroweeinie' drum. No real mention of the incredible psychological trauma these men went through. No discussion of the real issue of the fact that some men, decent a godfearing, simply cannot cope with the terrible circumstances they find themselves in. Do you think the conscript asked to be in the hell of the trenches?
Of course people like Tim, whose experience of war is limited to a computer screen may find it disgusting to remember those who were caught in the madness and were found wanting. And perhaps Mr Oren could try to undestand why the Germans have a pacifist attitude pretty much by design.
Of course his point about Afghanistan is odd considering the contributions in blood of the British, Dutch and others.
We can remember them, but when we remember them we must also remember that what they did was shameful. Fighting a war was not voluntary.
Quote from: PDH on June 20, 2009, 04:04:25 PM
My firm stance is to take whatever Tim and Lettow believe in and go the opposite direction.
Good plan. Add Neil and Marti to the list, and you just about have it. Of course, Neil is just trolling, but I am pretty sure that the others usualy are not.
If you go to a British Commonwealth war cemetery there is a predominant atmosphere of loss and sacrifice, not one of military triumph, in fact triumph is almost wholly absent. These cemeteries are not exclusive btw, there are even graves for German war dead within the confines of many British Empire cemeteries. Within this context it makes sense to have a memorial to the small numbers of men executed for desertion in WW1, since the cemeteries are far more about loss than glory.
What The Larch and others seem to forget: it was not just the question of deserter as an individual deciding to get the hell out: his desertion put more risk on his unit, his comrades.
Sometimes, desertion can be the right answer (most notably: Germany 1945), but it should not be honored under any circumstances.
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
What The Larch and others seem to forget: it was not just the question of deserter as an individual deciding to get the hell out: his desertion put more risk on his unit, his comrades.
Sometimes, desertion can be the right answer (most notably: Germany 1945), but it should not be honored under any circumstances.
It's WWI what we're talking about, their whole units most probably were annihilated anyway in order to advance an inch of muddy ground for nothing at all.
Just read some of the transcripts of interviews from the Somme...there is not a lot of glory there, just a lot of dehumanization and loss.
I can't wait for Tim the teacher to get an essay from a student that runs through the conventional wisdom he holds so dear.
APPALLIG! F!
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 03:59:16 PM
It's the most basic motivation of any animal, human or not, it's a primitive and indispensable instinct for survival, and people have been vilified for abiding to it.
Because it can conflict with one's responsibility to the group.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
I can't wait for Tim the teacher to get an essay from a student that runs through the conventional wisdom he holds so dear.
APPALLIG! F!
<_<
I will grade all essays objectively. I had several professors whom I didn't agree with me that extended me that courtesy and I will do the same.
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
What The Larch and others seem to forget: it was not just the question of deserter as an individual deciding to get the hell out: his desertion put more risk on his unit, his comrades.
Indeed, and that is why desertion is, in fact, so rare.
QuoteSometimes, desertion can be the right answer (most notably: Germany 1945), but it should not be honored under any circumstances.
I don't think anyone except the pinhead who wrote the original article is arguing that anyone honors desertion under any circumstances. Like pretty much any issue, there are shades of grey about desertion, and it can only be condemned or accepted on a case-by-case basis. I don't know of anyone who actually admires it, though one certainly hopes that one's enemy's troops will desert.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 03:59:16 PM
It's the most basic motivation of any animal, human or not, it's a primitive and indispensable instinct for survival, and people have been vilified for abiding to it.
Because it can conflict with one's responsibility to the group.
I guess that when you feel that your own group doesn't protect your own interests (i.e. officers sending soldiers to certain death), and with people still closer to individualistic aims rather than communal ones, it's not reasonable to expect them to conform to the collective.
What I mean is that it's not unexpected to find people unable or unwilling to void their own personal interests on those circumstances. Non brainwashed, poorly trained, equipped and led soldiers aren't exactly the best at following orders all the time, and that turns even worse when the situation is dire.
Grumbler hits the nail on the head. Desertion, even in the face of an intolerable situation (think day 2 of the Somme), is rare. The unit, the comrades, the need to NOT turn tail and demean oneself...those are more compelling reasons to stay despite the insanity than the commissar with the pistol, the desertion pole (sometimes set up so that an enemy sniper can do the killing), or any other authoritarian means of keeping soldiers in line.
The guy is nuts I find it incredibly unlikely even in European Armies that a volunteer professional soldier would desert his post. That is at least understandable in conscript armies.
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 02:36:56 PM
So? Why the bleeding eyes? Ever watched "Paths of Glory"?
That movie is not so much about desertion than about mutiny and refusing seemingly suicidal orders.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2009, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
I can't wait for Tim the teacher to get an essay from a student that runs through the conventional wisdom he holds so dear.
APPALLIG! F!
<_<
I will grade all essays objectively. I had several professors whom I didn't agree with me that extended me that courtesy and I will do the same.
*cough* Special education
:bleeding:
Bloody hell, and to think Tim wants to be a teacher. His ilk died out in the 50s over here, I dearly hope he's a special case in the US.
These were men dragged out of a pre-modern existence and thrown into hell on earth to die for no good reason. They deserve to be commemorated just as much as any other victim of the war.
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2009, 06:59:47 AM
:bleeding:
Bloody hell, and to think Tim wants to be a teacher. His ilk died out in the 50s over here, I dearly hope he's a special case in the US.
These were men dragged out of a pre-modern existence and thrown into hell on earth to die for no good reason. They deserve to be commemorated just as much as any other victim of the war.
Yup. Many of these men ended up being executed. Even more condemnable were executions of those soldiers who, after being shell-shocked, were sent back into combat and couldn't cope (but did not desert - simply refused to fight).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2009, 03:35:42 PM
At the end of the day, is self preservation both ways. Either not wanting to die for something you don't believe in/are against to or not wanting to die in a boneheaded operation with no chance or survival. Yes, morals are different, but the bottom line is not wanting to die for something you don't see a meaning to.
Self preservation is not a terribly praise-worthy motivation.
There is nothing particularly monument-worthy in being Jewish, Gypsy or gay, yet we build monuments for people who were killed or imprisoned because they were Jewish, Gypsy or gay, because we perceive such persecution as an injustice we want to redress, at least partially, by honoring the victims.
I see this monument as a similar exercise. It is not meant to praise desertion, but to honor those who were killed or imprisoned as a result of deserting/refusing to fight, as we now see such executions or imprisonments as unjust.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2009, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 20, 2009, 04:04:25 PM
My firm stance is to take whatever Tim and Lettow believe in and go the opposite direction.
Good plan. Add Neil and Marti to the list, and you just about have it. Of course, Neil is just trolling, but I am pretty sure that the others usualy are not.
Now that's not a very good rule, as usually I'm on the opposite end than the Neil-Tim-lettow circus trio. :(
That's a lie. They lived a modern existance. At any rate, I have a hard time condemning the powers that be of the time for enforcing the social contract.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 09:35:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2009, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 20, 2009, 04:04:25 PM
My firm stance is to take whatever Tim and Lettow believe in and go the opposite direction.
Good plan. Add Neil and Marti to the list, and you just about have it. Of course, Neil is just trolling, but I am pretty sure that the others usualy are not.
Now that's not a very good rule, as usually I'm on the opposite end than the Neil-Tim-lettow circus trio. :(
Then perhaps the answer lies in between somewhere, since you're invariably wrong.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:35:53 AM
That's a lie. They lived a modern existance.
Some did, not all.
I recently saw a semi-documentary film from the 30s called Man of Aran about life in part of western Ireland in the 1930s. People there lived a way of life unchanged for generations and they weren't the only ones. Many areas of France and the UK had still yet to fully catch up with the modern world.
City dwellers need commemorating too of course but it I could imagine it being far worse for those who had never even seen a tram or anything like that before being conscripted and thrown into the world of machine guns, artillery and gas.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:35:53 AMI have a hard time condemning the powers that be of the time for enforcing the social contract.
That's the beauty of relativism. You don't have to and can still commemorate the deserters.
Quote from: Warspite on June 20, 2009, 03:41:57 PM
Of course people like Tim, whose experience of war is limited to a computer screen may find it disgusting to remember those who were caught in the madness and were found wanting.(...)
Don't take Tim as an example. All the WWI vet organizations were dead against the celebration of deserters and THEY were in those battlefields - so the ones best suited to have a say on the issue opposed this. Which makes the sissified decisions of modern politicians even more of an insult to all those who sacrificed so much in the trenches.
Quote from: Martinus
I see this monument as a similar exercise. It is not meant to praise desertion, but to honor those who were killed or imprisoned as a result of deserting/refusing to fight, as we now see such executions or imprisonments as unjust.
Frankly, I see desertion in the face of the enemy by 0,0001% of the troops as not being worth celebrating. If the conditions were really that incredibly inhuman, why did 99,99% of the troops remained in their units?
The really bad situations and pointless offensives took place in 1917, and the soldiers of the time did what troops should do when faced with bad orders - insted of defecting, they refused to comply and presented their demands to the high-ranking commanders. It partially worked in the French Army. In Russia it exposed even more the fault of the aristocratic system and ensured the fall of the worthless Romanov and their crony nobles/businessmen.
That said, no nation survives by showing ANY kind of leniency towards those who put their safety above that of the country (or, for that matter, of their comrades in the unit).
One of the reasons why the Soviet Union survived the German onslaught of 1941 and 42 was due to its tough stance on these kinds of worthless cowards, thus ensuring the Soviet soldier fought ferociously. Retreats were usually punisheable by death, and desertion was sure to mean a painful demise from this world. It is the only way to deal with these I-only-care-to-save-my-wretched-hide people: to make sure that, while following orders may be very risky, NOT following them is a sure-way to get killed.
For that matter, surrendering is also treason. Why do you think that the Union never complained about the numbers of Soviet prisioners who died in German camps? Because it considered them all as traitors and, therefore, that they deserved everything they got.
As a result, whenever Soviet troops entered a German prisioner camp that had Soviet inmates, these were all immediately charged with treason for surrendering to the Nazis and sent packing to the work camps in the Union. Therefore, it matters little how many Soviet prisioners the Germans might have killed - a worse fate awaited the survivors after the war.
(Also sent as forced labourers to the Union were five million German troops and about 20,000 US and UK prisioners of war found in German camps. The Germans becuause they were guilty of conspiring to invade the Union, and the Allied ones because they were capitalists and thus probably up to no good against the Union anyway).
Can someone wake me up when anyone who isn't a troll, an idiot or both takes Neil's/Tim's/lettow's/MartimSilva's position on this issue? Thanks.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 09:31:33 AM
There is nothing particularly monument-worthy in being Jewish, Gypsy or gay, yet we build monuments for people who were killed or imprisoned because they were Jewish, Gypsy or gay, because we perceive such persecution as an injustice we want to redress, at least partially, by honoring the victims.
I see this monument as a similar exercise. It is not meant to praise desertion, but to honor those who were killed or imprisoned as a result of deserting/refusing to fight, as we now see such executions or imprisonments as unjust.
Are you suggesting that every single person executed for desertion was a victim of injustice?
In the wars of the future, soldiers who desert after being hit by the gay bomb will be given monuments as well.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 12:07:26 PM
Can someone wake me up when anyone who isn't a troll, an idiot or both takes Neil's/Tim's/lettow's/MartimSilva's position on this issue? Thanks.
Translation: I intend to desert should I ever get drafted to defend my country, since I don't want to risk myself in any way or form. And I want people to tell me that what I did was the right thing and to build a monument to honour me, not the dolts that will die to defend my hide. I will diss as an idiot anyone that expresses a different opinion.
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2009, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 12:07:26 PM
Can someone wake me up when anyone who isn't a troll, an idiot or both takes Neil's/Tim's/lettow's/MartimSilva's position on this issue? Thanks.
Translation: I intend to desert should I ever get drafted to defend my country, since I don't want to risk myself in any way or form. And I want people to tell me that what I did was the right thing and to build a monument to honour me, not the dolts that will die to defend my hide. I will diss as an idiot anyone that expresses a different opinion.
No, I just meant to say that you are a retard, as you have demonstrated consistently throughout your posting history.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2009, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 12:07:26 PM
Can someone wake me up when anyone who isn't a troll, an idiot or both takes Neil's/Tim's/lettow's/MartimSilva's position on this issue? Thanks.
Translation: I intend to desert should I ever get drafted to defend my country, since I don't want to risk myself in any way or form. And I want people to tell me that what I did was the right thing and to build a monument to honour me, not the dolts that will die to defend my hide. I will diss as an idiot anyone that expresses a different opinion.
No, I just meant to say that you are a retard, as you have demonstrated consistently throughout your posting history.
He does have a good point though: You are a contemptible coward.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2009, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 12:07:26 PM
Can someone wake me up when anyone who isn't a troll, an idiot or both takes Neil's/Tim's/lettow's/MartimSilva's position on this issue? Thanks.
Translation: I intend to desert should I ever get drafted to defend my country, since I don't want to risk myself in any way or form. And I want people to tell me that what I did was the right thing and to build a monument to honour me, not the dolts that will die to defend my hide. I will diss as an idiot anyone that expresses a different opinion.
No, I just meant to say that you are a retard, as you have demonstrated consistently throughout your posting history.
He does have a good point though: You are a contemptible coward.
Not really. I just find the concept of killing other people like me for some political gain for my arbitrarily-defined tribe to be rather pointless, not to mention morally abominable. 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.
The "my country right or wrong" kind of patriotism is not only repugnant to me - it's a mindnumbingly alien concept.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
Not really. I just find the concept of killing other people like me for some political gain for my arbitrarily-defined tribe to be rather pointless, not to mention morally abominable. 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.
It is the service you owe your tribe, which has provided for you your entire life, at little cost to yourself. After all, national identity is no more arbitrary than any other division of humans.
Besides, I find the concept of killing people like you to be rather pleasant.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
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?
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2009, 11:41:44 AM
Don't take Tim as an example. All the WWI vet organizations were dead against the celebration of deserters and THEY were in those battlefields - so the ones best suited to have a say on the issue opposed this. Which makes the sissified decisions of modern politicians even more of an insult to all those who sacrificed so much in the trenches.
More bullshit. There were no WW1 veterans organizations in the trenches, because the "veterans" were not veterans yet. Even if we allow that most veterans didn't want memorials to those exectuted for desertion (something I have seen no evidence to suggest), they are NOT the "ones best suited to have a say on the issue." They have no more say than any other individual in society.
QuoteFrankly, I see desertion in the face of the enemy by 0,0001% of the troops as not being worth celebrating. If the conditions were really that incredibly inhuman, why did 99,99% of the troops remained in their units?
Frankly, I think that, if you are just making up some numbers to support your "argument" (whatever it actually is), you should make up some credible numbers.
QuoteThe really bad situations and pointless offensives took place in 1917, and the soldiers of the time did what troops should do when faced with bad orders - insted of defecting, they refused to comply and presented their demands to the high-ranking commanders. It partially worked in the French Army. In Russia it exposed even more the fault of the aristocratic system and ensured the fall of the worthless Romanov and their crony nobles/businessmen.
Not sure what you mean by "defecting" here, and assume that you mean "deserting." In any case, mutiny is considered by all militaries to be a worse crime than desertion. It is amusing to see you arguing that mutiny is what troops "should do" whyen faced with impossible circumstances.
QuoteThat said, no nation survives by showing ANY kind of leniency towards those who put their safety above that of the country (or, for that matter, of their comrades in the unit).
That said, no nation survives by showing ANY kind of leniency towards mutiny, and doubly so should not assure its military that this is what they
should do under adverse circumstances.
QuoteOne of the reasons why the Soviet Union survived the German onslaught of 1941 and 42 was due to its tough stance on these kinds of worthless cowards, thus ensuring the Soviet soldier fought ferociously. Retreats were usually punisheable by death, and desertion was sure to mean a painful demise from this world. It is the only way to deal with these I-only-care-to-save-my-wretched-hide people: to make sure that, while following orders may be very risky, NOT following them is a sure-way to get killed.
I know that this is how it is presented in the movies and on TV, but this isn't true. The reason why the Soviets were not overrun in 1941 was because the Germans could not create a logistics network to keep their advanced units in supply if they moved as fast and far as possible. The worthless fuckups you praise here merely increased the disaster. Many units and men retreated without being put to death; the movie
Enemy at the Gates is fiction, not fact. In the real world, as you can discover from reading actual history books about the actual war, the Soviets not only survived, but triumphed, in 1942
precisely because they retreated. I mean, really, dude. Learn some history before you post again.
QuoteFor that matter, surrendering is also treason. Why do you think that the Union never complained about the numbers of Soviet prisioners who died in German camps? Because it considered them all as traitors and, therefore, that they deserved everything they got.
I'd say this is pretty much 100% bullshit ("never complained," and "deserved everything they got"). The USSR had always maintained that they would try those guilty of the mistreatment of their POWs as war crimes, and they did.
QuoteAs a result, whenever Soviet troops entered a German prisioner camp that had Soviet inmates, these were all immediately charged with treason for surrendering to the Nazis and sent packing to the work camps in the Union. Therefore, it matters little how many Soviet prisioners the Germans might have killed - a worse fate awaited the survivors after the war.
Completely incorrect. Some were charged with treason (generally officers who surrendered when still capable of fighting), and others of collaborating with the enemy (generally because they were taken from the camps and used for forced labor). According the
The Black Book of Communism, the former amounted to 8% (not 100% as you claim) and were the only ones sent to the Gulag. The latter amounted to another 14%, and they went into labor battalions. Most were re-drafted into the Army.
Quote(Also sent as forced labourers to the Union were five million German troops and about 20,000 US and UK prisioners of war found in German camps. The Germans becuause they were guilty of conspiring to invade the Union, and the Allied ones because they were capitalists and thus probably up to no good against the Union anyway).
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Care to give a cite for 20,000 UAS and UK former PoWs sent to the USSR as forced labor? Or is this just more shit you are making up as you go along?
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2009, 02:13:34 PM
Translation: I intend to desert should I ever get drafted to defend my country, since I don't want to risk myself in any way or form. And I want people to tell me that what I did was the right thing and to build a monument to honour me, not the dolts that will die to defend my hide. I will diss as an idiot anyone that expresses a different opinion.
Can you articulate why you feel this way, or is it just as incoherent as your knowledge of history?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
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?
Maybe that's how it's taught in the States. We're a lot more cynic over here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
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?
That's pretty much the excuse given for all wars. Nearly every leader claims to be fighting to "defend" something rather than attack something.
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
I just find the concept of killing other people like me for some political gain for my arbitrarily-defined tribe to be rather pointless, not to mention morally abominable.
I believe I speak for the majority of the board when I say the concept of killing other people like you is just fucking peachy by me.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 21, 2009, 03:56:52 PM
Maybe that's how it's taught in the States. We're a lot more cynic over here.
:blink: What does that mean. Are you taught that no territory changed hands during or after WWI?
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.
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.
Retreat, surrender, hell even mutiny are understandable. Desertion is not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 03:19:25 PM
It's really two seperate issues, isn't it? Refusal to participate in an unjust war, and refusal to participate in a pointless operation that will likely result in your death.
It should be two separate issues. But wars like WWI showed it aren't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
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?
First of all, this claim (about this being a cause for WW1) is patently untrue. Neither Britain nor France were in danger of having foreign control imposed over their territory or citizenry. The war was a pure political exercise (coupled with the fact that the pre-war diplomacy pushed all the great powers into a cul-de-sac).
But assuming for a moment your claim is true, certainly this, in itself, is not a cause 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.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:34:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
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.
:huh:
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?
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:34:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:38:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:34:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Jaron on June 22, 2009, 04:37:02 AM
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:38:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:34:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
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.
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.
Game, set, match: Jaron :thumbsup:
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:48:18 AM
Game, set, match: Jaron :thumbsup:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:51:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:48:18 AM
Game, set, match: Jaron :thumbsup:
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.
:rolleyes: throwing insults around is admitting defeat
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"
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:41:20 AMSelf-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. ;)
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:58:41 AM
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.
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 (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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:51:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:48:18 AM
Game, set, match: Jaron :thumbsup:
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.
:rolleyes: throwing insults around is admitting defeat
He starts most of his post by "You are retarded". :lmfao:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2009, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:51:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:48:18 AM
Game, set, match: Jaron :thumbsup:
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.
:rolleyes: throwing insults around is admitting defeat
He starts most of his post by "You are retarded". :lmfao:
And he loses most arguments ;)
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 02:37:10 AM
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.
QuoteJustice 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.
QuoteRetreat, surrender, hell even mutiny are understandable. Desertion is not.
Desertion is perfectly understandable. :huh: "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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 06:38:11 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2009, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 04:51:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2009, 04:48:18 AM
Game, set, match: Jaron :thumbsup:
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.
:rolleyes: throwing insults around is admitting defeat
He starts most of his post by "You are retarded". :lmfao:
And he loses most arguments ;)
Nonsense. :P
I think there's an interesting difference in views. Tim and others seem to think the purpose of monuments is to honour the sacrifices made; RH and others point out that in the UK, with WW1 especially, it's far more to remember the sacrifices.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2009, 05:56:17 PM
I think there's an interesting difference in views. Tim and others seem to think the purpose of monuments is to honour the sacrifices made; RH and others point out that in the UK, with WW1 especially, it's far more to remember the sacrifices.
Explain the difference.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2009, 08:11:25 PM
Explain the difference.
Honouring, to me, seems closer to justifying the war in a 'support our boys' way. Remembering is about just that, it's about remembering the sacrifices. I think anything to do with WW1 that were seen as supportive of the war would be weird in this country. It's had a huge cultural impact. Remembering the soldiers who fought in what's seen as a futile, incompetent, bloody and brutal war in which lions were led by donkeys is different because you can remember those who deserted and were shot, despite suffering from extreme shell-shock and you can remember the French mutineers who refused all offensive missions. Whereas I think Tim's right: if your goal is to honour, then how can you do it without dishonouring the rest?