Cowardice in battle
- Thread starter Vietcong
- Start date
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
I agree with your point (if it is indeed your point), that this kind of punishment for so called "cowardice" is just terrible for morale, and decrease the fighting force's effectiveness.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Yes, actually they almost conquered Europe a couple of times. Welcome to history.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
My question remains unanswered, Mr. Vietcong.
If you were drafted into an army for a capitalist country, would you fight for that power?
If you were drafted into an army for a capitalist country, would you fight for that power?
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Its not like there was a French Resistence or anything.
Anyway, you can blame France's quick defeat on bad leadership and strategy rather than cowardice, IMO. And you can't call the French cowards in WWI, they lost millions. And you can't call Napoleon a coward...and so on and so forth. I doubt the majority of people would call the French cowards before the War in Iraq.
Oh, and I love how everyone forgets how the French helped us gain our independence.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Originally posted by cgannon64
Its not like there was a French Resistence or anything.
This is very true. It was astoundingly poor generalship that caused France to lose WWII, as most of the men never even got a chance to fight on an even footing.
Syterion
Voodoo Economist
This is just sick. Are you saying that even if they have no chance of winning, they should still fight? This is the most absurd logic I've ever heard. Who would waste their life on a hopeless exercise for a cause they could help more by running away to fight again another day? If you believe that instead you can have honor and kill yourself, I'm not sure that is any better. You are encouraging someone to take their own life when they could save it. If you are in a battle with no chance of victory, I think I know what you would do.
I don't know why people should be required to literally commit suicide by walking into a place with no chance of victory, but if you felt you have to, I think you'd be the only sane person who would walk in.
Narz
keeping it real
I would never go to war in the first place. The only way I'd kill a man is if he was threatening MY life or the life of someone I LOVED (or maybe a busload of children). I used to think that I might fight if someone invaded the U.S. but who cares, I am not the U.S., I don't care what nationality my government is as long as they give me sufficient freedom and don't try to tax the internet.
If everyone had my attitude all war would end.
- Narz
If everyone had my attitude all war would end.
- Narz
Eastern Knight
Dragons!
Bad situation.
Situation 1: Traitors. Kill.
Situation 2: If they aren't traitors.
They shouldn't be shoot or killed. If they don't want to go to war in the first place then you don't have the right to kill them when you have foreced them. Why waste a good life? They didn't betray their country. Make better use of them, make them do labor work or something, for a month or so.
Situation 1: Traitors. Kill.
Situation 2: If they aren't traitors.
They shouldn't be shoot or killed. If they don't want to go to war in the first place then you don't have the right to kill them when you have foreced them. Why waste a good life? They didn't betray their country. Make better use of them, make them do labor work or something, for a month or so.
Knowze Gungk
NOT a mushroom
There is nothing to gain buy shooting a friendly coward, but their fleeing may draw the enemies attention for a couple of seconds.
However, there have been, & there always will be, situations where it is justly called for. Not because they deserve it, for they surly don't, but because they must serve as an example.
However, there have been, & there always will be, situations where it is justly called for. Not because they deserve it, for they surly don't, but because they must serve as an example.
EdwardTking
Deity
I agree. Running away is a natural response.
If war is organised insanity, then running away is sane.
As Padma says, until you are in the situation, you don't know how you are going to react.
I spent 20 years as a submariner in the U.S. Navy. I have been in some tense situations, but I've never been in combat. I don't know how I would react in combat.
Originally posted by Narz
I would never go to war in the first place. The only way I'd kill a man is if he was threatening MY life or the life of someone I LOVED (or maybe a busload of children). I used to think that I might fight if someone invaded the U.S. but who cares, I am not the U.S., I don't care what nationality my government is as long as they give me sufficient freedom and don't try to tax the internet.
If everyone had my attitude all war would end.
- Narz
Thats a good atitude Narz.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Hey,
I think a few posters are mixing the concept of cowards running away and smart soldiers withdrawing for long term advantage. We are talking about the first, and any intelligent officer or NCO (and granted, alot aren't) will know the difference.
Also, breaking down and collapsing from stress or comabt fatigue is different as well. If a unit is fresh in a tactical combat situation and the men break running, that is a totally different entity from a comminted and attriated unit in combat for days collapsing. Once again, moist recognize the difference unless they just don't care ie Soviets, late war Nazis.
And remember, while killing cowards may hurt moral, watching your friend run from the line and get away with it is probobly worse for combat effectiveness. Someone who just saw a coward get shot for running will still fight out of fear, regardless of what moral is. If he knows it is permissible to run, his moral will still be high on his way to the rear but combat effectiveness low, obviously. In the case of the Soviets they didn't care what your moral was as long as you fought.
As far as draftees, they should be treated like any private soldier, since they are citizens of that country and no matter what their personal views they owe a debt to the democray that lets them "desent" and have things like roads, schools, a stable food supply system, etc. That is the price of society, if you don't like move somewhere where you recieve no benefit form a government, so you won't owe it anything. Soldiers PRESSED (ie not citizens) into service should be shown mercy by democratic moral standards, but modern democracies don't press, and governments that do like the Soviets really don't care about those people so shooting them is not a moral problem.
The Roman comment about them not killing cowards, remember the term decimation
-Pat
I think a few posters are mixing the concept of cowards running away and smart soldiers withdrawing for long term advantage. We are talking about the first, and any intelligent officer or NCO (and granted, alot aren't) will know the difference.
Also, breaking down and collapsing from stress or comabt fatigue is different as well. If a unit is fresh in a tactical combat situation and the men break running, that is a totally different entity from a comminted and attriated unit in combat for days collapsing. Once again, moist recognize the difference unless they just don't care ie Soviets, late war Nazis.
And remember, while killing cowards may hurt moral, watching your friend run from the line and get away with it is probobly worse for combat effectiveness. Someone who just saw a coward get shot for running will still fight out of fear, regardless of what moral is. If he knows it is permissible to run, his moral will still be high on his way to the rear but combat effectiveness low, obviously. In the case of the Soviets they didn't care what your moral was as long as you fought.
As far as draftees, they should be treated like any private soldier, since they are citizens of that country and no matter what their personal views they owe a debt to the democray that lets them "desent" and have things like roads, schools, a stable food supply system, etc. That is the price of society, if you don't like move somewhere where you recieve no benefit form a government, so you won't owe it anything. Soldiers PRESSED (ie not citizens) into service should be shown mercy by democratic moral standards, but modern democracies don't press, and governments that do like the Soviets really don't care about those people so shooting them is not a moral problem.
The Roman comment about them not killing cowards, remember the term decimation
-Pat
Originally posted by Patroklos
The Roman comment about them not killing cowards, remember the term decimation
-Pat
who said that- I remind you that I said that a soldire should be more afraid of his commander the he is of the enemy
(and besides, when the inept commander put in charge by Crassus issued the order "run away" well, he had it coming to him- the worst thing to do in an ancient battle was to turn you back on the fight- he at least had it coming to him)
Shadylookin
master debater
retreating to gain better position or regroup shouldn't be punishable(even if against orders) in fact it's probably for the best instead of sending hordes of soldiers to commit suicide against a superior enemy. Plain desertion(runing away from the army) should be punished(not by a bullet in the back of his head though) unless it was some sort of horrible dictatorship they were forced to fight for. If your soldiers aren't properly motivated it is not the soldiers fault it is the generals besides planing how to attack they also have to know how to motivate people. My opinion on cowardness of running when being your odds are slim is a good run is better than a bad stand, and if there such cowards then let the people so motivated to start the war(politicians, generals, ect) fight along side them.
General Porkins
World Champ Mountain Man
Remember 'Enemy at the Gates'? Danilov said they needed 'examples to follow' meaning heroes instead of scapegoats shot for running
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
of course, that is 'soviet' style command, where the philosophy was "we can always get more". Czarist russia was in no better case.
Similar threads
