<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who's talking about US soldiers? You? Not me at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your talking about all soldiers except US soldiers? Nah, I'm just messin. Ok, your talking about soldiers in general; so be it. I was referring to US soldiers in my counters, as I don't know enough about other countries soldiers to comment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In that kind of situation you don't give a rats arse about your superiors or orders...mainly because your superioirs don't care a rats arse about regulations either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite the opposite; during such times is when it's most important to give a "rats arse" about your supreriors or orders. Thats the only way we were successfully able to wage war on such a large scale. Occurances may have increased, but thats simply because the scale of conflict is increased. If disipline falls apart just because it's more violent, it would fail. It did not in history because we did not end up failing. You are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you don't know if you are going to die now or the next day, you will loot and many will rape and break the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>YOU</i> may, but the cases I've seen are the exception rather than the rule. You are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the most organized armies looted and raided in WW2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you listening to yourself? You are saying that armies, not individuals here, not a few bad apples, but countless soldiers on a mass scale are all looting and raiding in blatent defiance to superiors due to the extreme violence in such a large scale war. If I misread you, then clarify, if I didn't misread, then good. You are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Disipline goes only so far. People want to live. When you have to choose between living and breaking orders, you run or surrender. That's what all people(all races, all religions and all countries) have done through all the ages and that's what they are going to do. Heroism is just a fairy tale. It's nothing compared to humans other instincts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If your saying that all soldiers would rather break orders than fight (even if it means certain death), then you are wrong. It's just that simple.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Somehow I believe that I know more about wars that you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We (coalition) fought the 4th largest army in 1991, and even though many ran, many still put up a fight.
So you took on an army that was around 3 decades behind you in terms of military technology. You could shoot down their aircraft without them even knowing you were there. You could bomb their anti-air defenses and fortified positions with impunity. Your tanks could kill their tanks in one shot, and at a range greater than they could even fire. Their armor weaponry couldn't even penetrate the armor on US tanks. I think it's small wonder Saddam's army did fight. Tribute to courage I guess.
If the US took on a foe that was 3 decades ahead of it in military technology I gureentee that US forces would break and run as well. This isn't ment to demean US forces at all, mearly an observation that when faced with a hopeless situation, many soldiers will likely run or surrender. Some will try and fight to the death against impossible odds. Doubtless some US soldiers would do that. I would think that many more would realise they couldn't win and try to survive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the US took on a foe that was 3 decades ahead of it in military technology I gureentee that US forces would break and run as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. Regardless of their technology, our strategic plan was sound and they would have been routed.
You forget, that we PLANNED it as if they COULD put up a fight. Expected casualties were much higher. Just because they didn't doesn't mean we just jerked around and went in haphazardly. This was planned with the mindset that our opponent knew what they were doing, had good morale, good disipline, and knew the weaknesses and strengths of their weapons and ours as well as how to exploit them.
Training and mindset are really the keys on how well soldiers work under pressure. They can be stereotyped.... japanese soldiers in WWII were notorious for fighting to the last man for example. Italian soldiers surrendered before really many shots were fired- so generalizing all soldiers by saying that most would break and run is a fallous argument. It all depends; some countries may have soldiers that would almost ALL stay. Some countries may have soldiers that would almost all leave.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 24 2003, 01:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 24 2003, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the US took on a foe that was 3 decades ahead of it in military technology I gureentee that US forces would break and run as well. This isn't ment to demean US forces at all, mearly an observation that when faced with a hopeless situation, many soldiers will likely run or surrender. Some will try and fight to the death against impossible odds. Doubtless some US soldiers would do that. I would think that many more would realise they couldn't win and try to survive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean like when we took on the Nazis, who arguably had military technology 5 decades ahead of the US? They invented production jet fighters, guided missiles, night vision, truly modern main battle tanks, most modern military small unit tactics, most modern operational theory, and pretty much are the creators of all US Army doctrine used to this very day. I used field manuals in the Marine Corps officer candidate course which had their printing references dating back to their original Wehrmacht sources, and were basically just english translations.
Did we all break and run due to our hopelessly outclassed equipment, training, and tactics? Or do you want to clarify your point a bit... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Maybe he should've added an "in substantional numbers" somewhere, but you've got to conceed the point that most human beings will choose to flee in front of enemies of overwhelmingly superior force.
(Damn, the first time I tackle one of MonsEs arguments since the reopening. Maybe I should print and frame this <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->)
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
The way that us computer people are motiviated and enjoy life are much different then the people who go out and fight
I have a friend of mine who is the alpha male in the social runnings of my school, when I asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up he said "kill things"
soldiers look at it from a different perspective, and they have something they want to fight for and do it
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 24 2003, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 24 2003, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Maybe he should've added an "in substantional numbers" somewhere, but you've got to conceed the point that most human beings will choose to flee in front of enemies of overwhelmingly superior force.
(Damn, the first time I tackle one of MonsEs arguments since the reopening. Maybe I should print and frame this <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> yes nem I would have to agree
anyone runs from a superior force and then will return to hassle them with gurrilla tactics, you see it all over the world
oh and Monse, when you say<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did <b>we</b> all break and run due to our hopelessly outclassed equipment, training, and tactics? ... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the age starts to show thru >_<
but it's okay, we all know your young at heart <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] meh, I'm a nub and had to correct my bad code [/edit]
I was expecting (and hoping for) that response <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> .
Only 120,000 US soldiers (and people forget that the majority of those were non-combat support and naval forces - the 3 combat divisions of the US Army and Marines total only about 35,000 combat troops) faced 400,000 Iraqi's. Are those odds (roughly 12 to 1, on the ground), not long enough? The US Army was certainly not 10 times larger than the Germans' in WW2.
I concede no such point as you make Nem. Go read about Agincourt, Sterling Bridge, Chosin Reservoir, Wake Island, Berlin, or any one of thousands of battles where smaller forces fought against larger ones until winning or eventually being attritted to death. It happens quite frequently.
Soldiers fight because they want to fight. That is the only reason. Soldiers that do not want to fight will typically not stand against any force. This is a fairly accepted military truism called esprit de corps. If you want to learn more about the psychology of it all, read some of the books by John Keegan, such as The Face of Battle, The Mask of Command, or the History of Warfare (all were Commandant-required reading in the Marine Corps - yes, we jarheads can read). Or you could enlist and find out for yourselves. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But honestly, seeing that the inferior forces in at least one of the battles you cited (Berlin) had the simple motivation that there was nowhere to run, I'd still wager that not few soldiers will choose the shame of retreat over almost certain death. Maybe I'm just not the right type for the job, though.
Oh pishposh, there were of course places to run - into the open arms of the British and US forces coming from the west. Which is exactly where most people who <i>wanted</i> to go, <i>did</i> go. The people that remained to defend Berlin were the ultra-fanatic - those that, yes, wanted to fight. It's not commonly known, but most of the final defenders of Berlin were not Germans - they were Nazi French, Danes, Dutch, Belgian, and other occupied lands that had volunteered to join the facist cause and were the most hardline of them all. But that's just a sidenote...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe he should've added an "in substantional numbers" somewhere<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, and I'm just giving him a hard time. It's a fairly important little detail to mention and I'm sure thats what he ment.
I hope.... if not, yeesh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but you've got to conceed the point that most human beings will choose to flee in front of enemies of overwhelmingly superior force.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the natural tendency, sure. In combat, most actually want to leave I would think. But the important thing is, most regular soldiers (counting out conscripts and rag-tag civilians with guns) CHOOSE to stay in spite of their natural tendency to flee. Sometimes they know that it means they will die for it. And most civilians (not all) just don't understand this. It doesn't make sense to them, but thats the way it is.
I stand in awe as Burncycle pwned all my arguments with the words "You are wrong". Truely amazing.
But all joking aside, I must defend my honor and hence m3h response follows:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite the opposite; during such times is when it's most important to give a "rats arse" about your supreriors or orders. Thats the only way we were successfully able to wage war on such a large scale. Occurances may have increased, but thats simply because the scale of conflict is increased. If disipline falls apart just because it's more violent, it would fail. It did not in history because we did not end up failing. You are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should have been more accurate on that. Of course if a General commanded that you have to invade an impenetrable fortress of Doom that is being defended by burning ninjas with really big knives, sure. Soldiers went and usually did it. However _big_ wars tend to get messy and in huge wars you can't control your soldiers as well as in smaller ones. Hence, many soldiers and even many officers did take a pack of cigarettes or the money from that Ninjas pocket after killing him. I'd say over 80% of the normal soldiers looted when ever possible, because plain and simple, it was necessary. I'm talking about world wars again. Not about Operation free Iraq or any other of those modern day wars where soldiers get food everyday and all that sissy stuff.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you don't know if you are going to die now or the next day, you will loot and many will rape and break the law.
YOU may, but the cases I've seen are the exception rather than the rule. You are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it wasn't an exception. Soldiers actually(omg gasp), broke the rules and took stuff from their enemies. That's called looting. And most of the soldiers did that. The thing is, that stealing or breaking a minor rule doesn't seem too bad when you take lives from human beings and watch how your friends brains get splattered all over your uniform. At least I wouldn't care and neither did the soldiers during WW2(which is my favourite subject, if you haven't noticed). Narcotics were strictly verboten, but many soldiers just couldn't take it and sit in a small hole while fire-bombs are dropping and you see people burning alive and running in agony around the street. They just needed something to get themselves messed, and I can't blame them. Look how many people need a pint after their day in job, and they call it stressful! Sorry for being so dramatic but I just want to give you the right impression of war. It is not pretty and no one gives a damn if you take a gold tooth from your enemies mouth to get a ride in a bordell next time you get in to town. And spare that tooth if you get in to enemy town where there are lots of women to pick and destroy(r*pe) after all those lonely months.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you listening to yourself? You are saying that armies, not individuals here, not a few bad apples, but countless soldiers on a mass scale are all looting and raiding in blatent defiance to superiors due to the extreme violence in such a large scale war. If I misread you, then clarify, if I didn't misread, then good. You are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both. You kind of misread and read right at the same time. Now of course the looting wasn't controlled or ordered by superioirs, but it was rather allowed, as a reward for your soldiers for taking an important enemy town or city. I said armies because most of the soldiers took all the possible joy they could get out of a city before leaving again, to be slaughtered by the enemy. So not few apples but _countless soldiers on a mass scale are all looting and raiding_, not in blatent defiance to superiors but because it kept them sane.
I think you are kind of defending here because you think I'm still talking about US army only. Well I'm not. Russians and Germans did it probably because they had the worst fights during WW2. Now the looting was at large in US army also, but not as bad as with Germans and Russians, who had been fighting in extremely grim circumstances for years. US/UK assault on the main land was probably more controlled and didn't last as long, but basically humans are alike. So any army who has to go through a living hell for years, will break the rules and do stuff that could be concidered bad. But that's war, it corrupts.
And MonsE, you are forgetting that US did not fight against Germans alone. Or did you happen to forget that <b>huge</b>(even bigger than your ego <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) red army marched from the east towards Berlin. Or the fact that Germans already had fought several other armies, such as Polands and France. Errrrr, bad example. But you get the point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Even though UK/US troops were lower 'quality' than Germans, combined USSR and US/UK and Italy etc. overpowered Germans.
Edit: You can't compare allied troops and German and Iraq and coalition. Allied were at least able to destroy german tanks and planes. Now Iraqis couldn't. Na-aah, no way. Messerschmitt Bf-109 is a beautiful plane, true, but still it wasn't THAT much ahead of allied planes. Now how many planes Iraqis dropped? 0? I remember only few air casualties and those were friendly-fire.
And jetplanes were not used very widely in WW2, because of Hitlers stupidity.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 24 2003, 04:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 24 2003, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And MonsE, you are forgetting that US did not fight against Germans alone. Or did you happen to forget that <b>huge</b>(even bigger than your ego <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) red army marched from the east towards Berlin. Or the fact that Germans already had fought several other armies, such as Polands and France. Errrrr, bad example. But you get the point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Naturally, as a veteran and a student of military history, I am not forgetting. Your point reinforces mine - a force greatly outnumbered but with superior equipment and training nearly fought each side to a standstill. <i>Soldiers fight because they have decided to fight.</i> I keep trying to answer the point of this thread and keep getting dragged OT.
As for your points on those army's looting habits - all major looting any army ever does is condoned by their leadership. I don't mean stealing a watch you find in a bombed out bedroom, or grabbing some apples of a tree. I mean large scale looting, like the Russians did against the Germans and vis versa. It was a calculated and controlled tactic by their leadership, and as soon as they decided it was no longer advantageous, they made it stop. Read more about the last days of Germany (I recommend The Fall of Berlin by Anthony Read) to learn more about this.
You are losing sight of your point I think; can you enlighten us on where you're going with all this (perhaps more succintly this time), and can we try and keep this more on topic? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 24 2003, 10:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 24 2003, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Naturally, as a veteran and a student of military history, I am not forgetting. Your point reinforces mine - a force greatly outnumbered but with superior equipment and training nearly fought each side to a standstill. <i>Soldiers fight because they have decided to fight.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm. Yeah sure, that's not what I was arguing about. I was just saying that Allied didn't win Germany because they were somehow empowered by the will to win the war, but because Germany was overpowered by all the surrounding nations. So I guess we don't have any quarrel about this?
So yes, some soldiers prefer to die before surrendering but a lot of german soldier also surrendered. Thousands in the same time at best.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are losing sight of your point I think; can you enlighten us on where you're going with all this (perhaps more succintly this time), and can we try and keep this more on topic? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ontopic? Now that wouldn't be any fun, would it? Sorry about dragging stuff but I just get carried away when I start talking about war. I kind of got mislead with Burncycle. I have to proove one thing that leads to prooving one other and soon we are prooving how many camels there are in antarctis.
But ontopic: Soldiers fight because a) They are forced b) They want to stand for some ideology/they are fanatic c) Because once they are there, they think they don't have any options and they just have to keep on going. They don't know what else to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 24 2003, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 24 2003, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But ontopic: Soldiers fight because a) They are forced b) They want to stand for some ideology/they are fanatic c) Because once they are there, they think they don't have any options and they just have to keep on going. They don't know what else to do.
I pick c. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As someone who has fought, I can point out that it is none of the above.
a) Soldiers cannot be forced to fight, and never are. They may try, but they simply surrendor immediately - witness as recently as a few months ago in Iraq, but countless times throughout history. b) Being a fanatic is just an extreme variation of my original point c) There is no such thing. This falls under either being forced.
The real answer is D) They fight because they want to. I cannot emphasise this enough. Lead some young soldiers and try to make one that has no wish to be there fight. You will understand.
The C) point you bring up also basically says that a soldier is just some mindless machine. Again, if you ever serve, you will see that this is your TV talking and has no real bearing on reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 24 2003, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 24 2003, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm. Yeah sure, that's not what I was arguing about. I was just saying that Allied didn't win Germany because they were somehow empowered by the will to win the war, but because Germany was overpowered by all the surrounding nations. So I guess we don't have any quarrel about this? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And so you are getting a bit mushy again. Are you saying that allies had no will to win the war, and only through overwhelming numbers did they defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan? This is untrue. Numbers were a factor. So was a will to win. Soldiers fight because they want to fight.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 24 2003, 04:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 24 2003, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 24 2003, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 24 2003, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But ontopic: Soldiers fight because a) They are forced b) They want to stand for some ideology/they are fanatic c) Because once they are there, they think they don't have any options and they just have to keep on going. They don't know what else to do.
I pick c. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As someone who has fought, I can point out that it is none of the above.
a) Soldiers cannot be forced to fight, and never are. They may try, but they simply surrendor immediately - witness as recently as a few months ago in Iraq, but countless times throughout history. b) Being a fanatic is just an extreme variation of my original point c) There is no such thing. This falls under either being forced.
The real answer is D) They fight because they want to. I cannot emphasise this enough. Lead some young soldiers and try to make one that has no wish to be there fight. You will understand.
The C) point you bring up also basically says that a soldier is just some mindless machine. Again, if you ever serve, you will see that this is your TV talking and has no real bearing on reality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I find it laughable Iraq was even considered military action. It was like spanking an unbehaving child. I understand lives we lost, and I'm not saying they aren't important. I disagree with it for the reasons most others disagree. I don't think each and every soldier believes in Bush's plan, or Clinton's plan during that whole thing. You fight because you want to. No other reason. This may entail because you believe its a just cause, you care, defender, etc. Nobody else makes that choice but YOU. Hell, even drafts aren't "Forced" Conciencious Obejector anyone? Hidden agendas, political corruption, powerhungry figureheads, and the like are the least of the worries a soldier has. I don't support our president, but I do support the troops. They are the young men and women fighting, not the wrinkled old men telling the boys where to die. But...thats another issue entirely.
To sum it up. The fight because they choose to fight. for some reason i agree with monse...oh yeah, because hes right. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think soldiers fight, because they feel it is their duty to fight.
I had a grampa who was in the Korean war and Vietnam war. I think he really had no choice, but to fight, because 1) If he didn't, he would be a coward. 2) He had no other choice, because the enemy would get him sooner or later. 3) He wanted to fight. In Vietnam, same thing, kill the enemy before he kills you. My other friend's dad also fought in the Vietnam war and sadly, one of his best friends got killed in combat, he went berserk and killed a many with his shotgun. This leads me to also believe that soliders, who have formed tightly knit bonds with soldiers they know, will fight to the death over their lives. I think training probably helps soldiers to put practice into reflex. The American Army from what I hear has one of the best training methods, they shoot live fire in combat and practice in almost real like situations.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 24 2003, 08:15 PM --></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 24 2003, 08:15 PM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it laughable Iraq was even considered military action. It was like spanking an unbehaving child. I understand lives we lost, and I'm not saying they aren't important. I disagree with it for the reasons most others disagree. I don't think each and every soldier believes in Bush's plan, or Clinton's plan during that whole thing. You fight because you want to. No other reason. This may entail because you believe its a just cause, you care, defender, etc. Nobody else makes that choice but YOU. Hell, even drafts aren't "Forced" Conciencious Obejector anyone? Hidden agendas, political corruption, powerhungry figureheads, and the like are the least of the worries a soldier has. I don't support our president, but I do support the troops. They are the young men and women fighting, not the wrinkled old men telling the boys where to die. But...thats another issue entirely.
To sum it up. The fight because they choose to fight. for some reason i agree with monse...oh yeah, because hes right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, they probably fight, because they want to. I think most soldiers are willing to do what Bush wants to do, because they respect him and his decsisions. Also, Iraq was military action, a lot of soldiers faced real combat, they were well trained and well armed to defeat the enemy. But yeah, what do I know? I wasn't even in the army. I think if I ever joined the army it would be for one reason, to play cops and robbers in reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Soldiers fight because they want to fight. That is the only reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess I agree; possibly not for the same reasons.
I have not served, but my impression of the military is that they virtually brainwash you with nationalist propaganda, so that you WANT to kill your 'enemies' -- you have no regard for their lives and think that if you don't kill them, your country is in danger.
Of course I assume you're trained to be brave in the heat of battle as well, and to respect unquestioningly your orders as well. Who can say if there's one 'main' reason why soldiers fight... it has to be a combination of nationalism, self-preservation, and training...
I really doubt many people go into the military WANTING to kill. The psych screenings are supposed to filter out the psychopaths, aren't they? No, you have to be normal to get into the military, then they MAKE you a bloodthirsty psychopath <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> but seriously, Joe is a poor dude who needs a job and an education. Joe enlists. Joe gets told how wonderful his country is and that he must risk death to defend it. Poor Joe has no choice but to believe them because he's had no education or guidance in life until now. Voila, a soldier is born...
Hmm, how to start this off. First of all I will stay on topic. You can't tell always why soldiers fight. Many want to defend the country, many are sometimes drafted to defend, many like to fight, etc. Sometimes, when things are desperate, they fight because their country is actually invaded without a good reason(i.e. they attacked first). Just imagine a guy who wants to live his life and be happy. He wants a family and kids and wants to have a normal happy life. When some technologically advanced country invades his country, what are his options. He can no longer fulfill this idea of his because there are people dropping bombs where he lives and people around him are dieing. His only option is to fight.
So the better question would be, why would a soldier want to invade a country and kill innocent people for his country? I have no idea, I am not a military person, but if I was, I would definately quit unless my country was actually being attacked by another country.
On a slightly more off-topic note, I don't remember the Germans using Massive AT-helicopters to take out our tanks. They might have had a slight advantage in technology, but we were still pretty equal.
Getting the viewpoint about soldiers from people who never even considered dying for something is mighty amusing. They always make three assumptions:
- Soldiers are ignorant extremists because they want to die for something. - Soldiers are forced to fight by society/government. - Soldiers are too stupid to think for their own good.
Of course, these assumptions are unreasonable, prejudiced, and contradictory to each other. Most soldiers fight because (and/or reasons):
- They believe in the cause they are fighting for. - They have a genuine love for their fellow soldier that makes them protective of each other. One might say this is a planned reaction to boot camp, but it is more likely that it is an outcome of what these ladies and gentlemen have to do, fight wars. - They have a genuine love for their country and family that surpasses the flaws, if there are any, in the cause they are fighting for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You mean like when we took on the Nazis, who arguably had military technology 5 decades ahead of the US? They invented production jet fighters, guided missiles, night vision, truly modern main battle tanks, most modern military small unit tactics, most modern operational theory,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters, a lot of the advanced technology developed by the Nazis was either very small scale (anti ship missiles, surface to air missiles, jet powered ariel radar aircraft) or not used properly, such as Hitler's order to use the ME-262 as a fighter-bomber instead of as a fighter. Futhurmore, the Soviet T-34 was a better medium battle tank than anything the Nazis could produce in large numbers. If, for example, the Nazis had developed the advanced technology they had to a high level, the battle for Germany would have probably been much longer. As it was, most of the high tech stuff they developed was produced on far too small a scale to influence the war, or never got past the experimental stage.
But I digress. When the US was invading through France into Germany, they were facing an opponant who had been exhasted by 4 years of warfare. The eastern front had sucked up Germany's best manpower and whilst Allied bombing raids were not having as large an impact on German industry as had been hoped, Germany was fast running out of raw materials such as rubber and oil. Many of the tanks defending Berlin ended up being used as stationary platforms because they had no fuel.
Thus if, in an alternate reality, the United States occupied the lands Russia occupied, and thus the US was invaded in 1941, I would say that US forces would have had a tough time. However it does bear mentioning that the Soviet T-34 even in 1941 was more than a match for a Panzer Mark III, which consisted of the majority of Germany's tank power in the invasion. What differed was tactics; the Germans were able to use their tanks to far greater effect despite technical shortcomings.
Even when the US and Germany did butt heads, the Germans did not enjoy a military advantage as large as the US enjoys over Iraq. In fact, if anything the Germans were at a military disadvantage, lacking manpower and resources, both of which the US had in bulk.
But we're getting dragged off topic here. I just can't refuse debating with Monse <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a) Soldiers cannot be forced to fight, and never are. They may try, but they simply surrendor immediately - witness as recently as a few months ago in Iraq, but countless times throughout history. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that's an interesting take. I must admit that I didn't really expect that one to come up. I'd like to look at a few examples from the 20th century did see how they match up to that. Firstly, WWI. In particular, the Battle of the Somme. During that battle, as I'm sure you are aware Monse, tens of thousands of British soldiers charged against German positions and were slaughtered. Now standing behind those British soldiers, pistols out and cocked, were British military police. Any man who would not go over the trench would be shot. Now is this forcing men to fight? A similar case in Stalingrad during WWII: any man attempting to each the eastern shore was shot and NKVD men swarmed throughout the city making sure that the Red Army soldiers would attack. Again, is this forcing men to fight who don't want to fight? If these men in both cases truely wanted to fight, wouldn't there have been no point to having police ready to shoot them?
I do though see where you are coming from. I just wonder how it applies to certain occurances throughout recent history.
Ryo made my point. During every war, there has been thousands of soldiers that were unwilling to die for their country, and yet they were forced. Fight or die, those are the options once you are onthe field. You maybe shocked at first but once you realize those two options, it's fight or die. And again I'm talking about world wars where being a soldier wasn't a decision like it's now, but mandatory. Listen to some WW2 veteran talking. Most of them, especially Germans and Russians who don't have to keep up any kind of 'hero' status, are going to say that theydidn't give a crap about the war or the ideologies behind it. They just wanted to stay alive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The real answer is D) They fight because they want to. I cannot emphasise this enough. Lead some young soldiers and try to make one that has no wish to be there fight. You will understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe now but some 60 years ago those young soldiers were forced to fight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The C) point you bring up also basically says that a soldier is just some mindless machine. Again, if you ever serve, you will see that this is your TV talking and has no real bearing on reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess I'll find that out in 10 months when my time of duty starts, but untill then... I guess all those veterans are liars then and are only writing that stuff because they want to boost up their book sales.
Now I see your point and I hope you'd see mine. In the year 2000, wars are comparably small. You may _want_ to fight as long as the war is still small and casualties stay down and moral stays up. However soldiers very quickly forget their eagerness after most of their comrades start dying and they haven't eaten in a week. That's the difference between me and you now, we are talking about different situations where humans behave differently. For example Germans wanted to fight in Poland. It was a piece of cake and enemy fell quicker than you could raise your gun. Everyone believed that German would conquer the whole world. In Russia after winter came, Germans moral went down. They were surrounded, falling back all the time, un-equipped, in low food and manpower. You see? Soldiers want to fight in certain situations, and in certain situations they just want to stay alive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And so you are getting a bit mushy again. Are you saying that allies had no will to win the war, and only through overwhelming numbers did they defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan? This is untrue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course allied wanted to win! I am just saying, that they didn't get any unhuman powers because they wanted to win. Their will to win wasn't as huge factor as you claim it was.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 25 2003, 03:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 25 2003, 03:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course allied wanted to win! I am just saying, that they didn't get any unhuman powers because they wanted to win. Their will to win wasn't as huge factor as you claim it was. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You, my friend, have never read any oral historys by Stephen Ambrose, and have never studied Marine landings in the Pacific. Otherwise you would know this last phrase is utter nonsense. I would highly suggest you do so, if only to expand your thinking a bit. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I knew you guys would bring up the concepts of isolated incidents where troops had machine guns at their backs, and were thusly 'forced' to fight. You can always find some times when this was considered necessary (by the Russians, in most people's limited reading), but overall, the great majority of troops (99.99999%) fought because they thought it was the right thing to do. You could not have forced the Russian army's millions of men to win the war against the Nazis - they wanted to. As it stands, the 'machine gun to your backs' theory does not work, as was proven in WW1. When the Tsarist officers tried it, the Russians rebelled and started the Civil War and the Bolshevik revolution. I'm afraid you will have to offer a lot more evidence here to contradict the facts as I see them, not just a couple undocumented tangential references.
But please, I wish to be convinced that what I saw serving for 8 years was an illusion. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh I know they're isolated incidents. I just wanted to know if you thought they were being forced to fight. And I agree; a common misconception is that the Soviets forced all their people to fight; in reality, whilst there was some "pressure" from the Soviet command, most Russians did fight because they wanted to.
I guess it's a hard thing to understand, at least from my perspective. Is that all that training boils down to, installing or evoking a desire to fight? Does a soldier who wants to fight enjoy his work, or does he consider it merely his duty? What does a soldier like about fighting? These are just some questions that, if answered, I feel I could better understand a soldier's "will to fight". Thankyou for the feedback everyone, it has been most enjoyable.
Just to add my own little 2 cents into this, there was someone at my secondary school (i think that would be 'middle school'; he was 16 at the time) who was nuts about the army. He went to army cadets, he constantly talked about guns and other army related topics, although this meant he was generally referred to as a t***er. (any English people will know what word belongs there <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
One day, in PSE (in which we basically just talked among ourselves while the teacher gave us a topic occasionally, like "are abortions right" for example), someone finally asked him "Why are you so obsessed with the army?"
And he replied "Because it's what i've always wanted to do, i've always wanted to be the best."
On the other hand, there were a group of boys (i'm sure you had some at your school) who wanted to join the army basically because it was "cool" to be in the army and kill stuff. It does not encourage me to know that the British army contains such people <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
And just to add a quote from an old SNES game which I can't remember the title of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I fight not for Justice, nor for personal gain, I fight because I am a soldier. For a soldier, fighting depends on fighting and killing the enemy"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 25 2003, 11:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 25 2003, 11:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess it's a hard thing to understand, at least from my perspective. Is that all that training boils down to, installing or evoking a desire to fight? Does a soldier who wants to fight enjoy his work, or does he consider it merely his duty? What does a soldier like about fighting? These are just some questions that, if answered, I feel I could better understand a soldier's "will to fight". Thankyou for the feedback everyone, it has been most enjoyable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh! In that case, let me in on a little secret of how it is done in the US Marine Corps: from day one of bootcamp, you are taught the long proud history of Marine battles starting in 1775 all the way to the present day. You are taught of the self-sacrifice, the courage against the odds, and the overwhelming list of victories against all foes. What it ingrains is basically that millions of Marines have done their duty and defeated their enemies, and YOU are not going to let down that tradition. This is one of the reasons I joined; to be part of a historical record of an elite corps and carry on those traditions. That set of traditions and history is part of what draws a particular kind of man to the Marine Corps, and leads to a self-fullfilling prophecy of tough, hard-fighting, elite, professional sea soldiers. It's also why no Marine commander has ever surrendered his troops, ever; a tradition to uphold where no one wants to be the first to disgrace the Corps.
Comments
So your talking about all soldiers except US soldiers? Nah, I'm just messin. Ok, your talking about soldiers in general; so be it. I was referring to US soldiers in my counters, as I don't know enough about other countries soldiers to comment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In that kind of situation you don't give a rats arse about your superiors or orders...mainly because your superioirs don't care a rats arse about regulations either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite the opposite; during such times is when it's most important to give a "rats arse" about your supreriors or orders. Thats the only way we were successfully able to wage war on such a large scale. Occurances may have increased, but thats simply because the scale of conflict is increased. If disipline falls apart just because it's more violent, it would fail. It did not in history because we did not end up failing. You are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you don't know if you are going to die now or the next day, you will loot and many will rape and break the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>YOU</i> may, but the cases I've seen are the exception rather than the rule. You are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the most organized armies looted and raided in WW2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you listening to yourself? You are saying that armies, not individuals here, not a few bad apples, but countless soldiers on a mass scale are all looting and raiding in blatent defiance to superiors due to the extreme violence in such a large scale war. If I misread you, then clarify, if I didn't misread, then good. You are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Disipline goes only so far. People want to live. When you have to choose between living and breaking orders, you run or surrender. That's what all people(all races, all religions and all countries) have done through all the ages and that's what they are going to do. Heroism is just a fairy tale. It's nothing compared to humans other instincts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If your saying that all soldiers would rather break orders than fight (even if it means certain death), then you are wrong. It's just that simple.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Somehow I believe that I know more about wars that you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what do we base this on?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you took on an army that was around 3 decades behind you in terms of military technology. You could shoot down their aircraft without them even knowing you were there. You could bomb their anti-air defenses and fortified positions with impunity. Your tanks could kill their tanks in one shot, and at a range greater than they could even fire. Their armor weaponry couldn't even penetrate the armor on US tanks. I think it's small wonder Saddam's army did fight. Tribute to courage I guess.
If the US took on a foe that was 3 decades ahead of it in military technology I gureentee that US forces would break and run as well. This isn't ment to demean US forces at all, mearly an observation that when faced with a hopeless situation, many soldiers will likely run or surrender. Some will try and fight to the death against impossible odds. Doubtless some US soldiers would do that. I would think that many more would realise they couldn't win and try to survive.
I disagree. Regardless of their technology, our strategic plan was sound and they would have been routed.
You forget, that we PLANNED it as if they COULD put up a fight. Expected casualties were much higher. Just because they didn't doesn't mean we just jerked around and went in haphazardly. This was planned with the mindset that our opponent knew what they were doing, had good morale, good disipline, and knew the weaknesses and strengths of their weapons and ours as well as how to exploit them.
Training and mindset are really the keys on how well soldiers work under pressure. They can be stereotyped.... japanese soldiers in WWII were notorious for fighting to the last man for example. Italian soldiers surrendered before really many shots were fired- so generalizing all soldiers by saying that most would break and run is a fallous argument. It all depends; some countries may have soldiers that would almost ALL stay. Some countries may have soldiers that would almost all leave.
You mean like when we took on the Nazis, who arguably had military technology 5 decades ahead of the US? They invented production jet fighters, guided missiles, night vision, truly modern main battle tanks, most modern military small unit tactics, most modern operational theory, and pretty much are the creators of all US Army doctrine used to this very day. I used field manuals in the Marine Corps officer candidate course which had their printing references dating back to their original Wehrmacht sources, and were basically just english translations.
Did we all break and run due to our hopelessly outclassed equipment, training, and tactics? Or do you want to clarify your point a bit... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
(Damn, the first time I tackle one of MonsEs arguments since the reopening. Maybe I should print and frame this <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->)
I have a friend of mine who is the alpha male in the social runnings of my school, when I asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up he said "kill things"
soldiers look at it from a different perspective, and they have something they want to fight for and do it
(Damn, the first time I tackle one of MonsEs arguments since the reopening. Maybe I should print and frame this <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes nem I would have to agree
anyone runs from a superior force and then will return to hassle them with gurrilla tactics, you see it all over the world
oh and Monse, when you say<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did <b>we</b> all break and run due to our hopelessly outclassed equipment, training, and tactics? ... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the age starts to show thru >_<
but it's okay, we all know your young at heart <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit]
meh, I'm a nub and had to correct my bad code
[/edit]
Only 120,000 US soldiers (and people forget that the majority of those were non-combat support and naval forces - the 3 combat divisions of the US Army and Marines total only about 35,000 combat troops) faced 400,000 Iraqi's. Are those odds (roughly 12 to 1, on the ground), not long enough? The US Army was certainly not 10 times larger than the Germans' in WW2.
I concede no such point as you make Nem. Go read about Agincourt, Sterling Bridge, Chosin Reservoir, Wake Island, Berlin, or any one of thousands of battles where smaller forces fought against larger ones until winning or eventually being attritted to death. It happens quite frequently.
Soldiers fight because they want to fight. That is the only reason. Soldiers that do not want to fight will typically not stand against any force. This is a fairly accepted military truism called esprit de corps. If you want to learn more about the psychology of it all, read some of the books by John Keegan, such as The Face of Battle, The Mask of Command, or the History of Warfare (all were Commandant-required reading in the Marine Corps - yes, we jarheads can read). Or you could enlist and find out for yourselves. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But honestly, seeing that the inferior forces in at least one of the battles you cited (Berlin) had the simple motivation that there was nowhere to run, I'd still wager that not few soldiers will choose the shame of retreat over almost certain death. Maybe I'm just not the right type for the job, though.
Indeed, and I'm just giving him a hard time. It's a fairly important little detail to mention and I'm sure thats what he ment.
I hope.... if not, yeesh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but you've got to conceed the point that most human beings will choose to flee in front of enemies of overwhelmingly superior force.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the natural tendency, sure. In combat, most actually want to leave I would think. But the important thing is, most regular soldiers (counting out conscripts and rag-tag civilians with guns) CHOOSE to stay in spite of their natural tendency to flee. Sometimes they know that it means they will die for it. And most civilians (not all) just don't understand this. It doesn't make sense to them, but thats the way it is.
But all joking aside, I must defend my honor and hence m3h response follows:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite the opposite; during such times is when it's most important to give a "rats arse" about your supreriors or orders. Thats the only way we were successfully able to wage war on such a large scale. Occurances may have increased, but thats simply because the scale of conflict is increased. If disipline falls apart just because it's more violent, it would fail. It did not in history because we did not end up failing. You are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should have been more accurate on that. Of course if a General commanded that you have to invade an impenetrable fortress of Doom that is being defended by burning ninjas with really big knives, sure. Soldiers went and usually did it. However _big_ wars tend to get messy and in huge wars you can't control your soldiers as well as in smaller ones. Hence, many soldiers and even many officers did take a pack of cigarettes or the money from that Ninjas pocket after killing him. I'd say over 80% of the normal soldiers looted when ever possible, because plain and simple, it was necessary. I'm talking about world wars again. Not about Operation free Iraq or any other of those modern day wars where soldiers get food everyday and all that sissy stuff.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you don't know if you are going to die now or the next day, you will loot and many will rape and break the law.
YOU may, but the cases I've seen are the exception rather than the rule. You are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it wasn't an exception. Soldiers actually(omg gasp), broke the rules and took stuff from their enemies. That's called looting. And most of the soldiers did that. The thing is, that stealing or breaking a minor rule doesn't seem too bad when you take lives from human beings and watch how your friends brains get splattered all over your uniform. At least I wouldn't care and neither did the soldiers during WW2(which is my favourite subject, if you haven't noticed). Narcotics were strictly verboten, but many soldiers just couldn't take it and sit in a small hole while fire-bombs are dropping and you see people burning alive and running in agony around the street. They just needed something to get themselves messed, and I can't blame them. Look how many people need a pint after their day in job, and they call it stressful! Sorry for being so dramatic but I just want to give you the right impression of war. It is not pretty and no one gives a damn if you take a gold tooth from your enemies mouth to get a ride in a bordell next time you get in to town. And spare that tooth if you get in to enemy town where there are lots of women to pick and destroy(r*pe) after all those lonely months.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you listening to yourself? You are saying that armies, not individuals here, not a few bad apples, but countless soldiers on a mass scale are all looting and raiding in blatent defiance to superiors due to the extreme violence in such a large scale war. If I misread you, then clarify, if I didn't misread, then good. You are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both. You kind of misread and read right at the same time. Now of course the looting wasn't controlled or ordered by superioirs, but it was rather allowed, as a reward for your soldiers for taking an important enemy town or city. I said armies because most of the soldiers took all the possible joy they could get out of a city before leaving again, to be slaughtered by the enemy. So not few apples but _countless soldiers on a mass scale are all looting and raiding_, not in blatent defiance to superiors but because it kept them sane.
I think you are kind of defending here because you think I'm still talking about US army only. Well I'm not. Russians and Germans did it probably because they had the worst fights during WW2. Now the looting was at large in US army also, but not as bad as with Germans and Russians, who had been fighting in extremely grim circumstances for years. US/UK assault on the main land was probably more controlled and didn't last as long, but basically humans are alike. So any army who has to go through a living hell for years, will break the rules and do stuff that could be concidered bad. But that's war, it corrupts.
And MonsE, you are forgetting that US did not fight against Germans alone. Or did you happen to forget that <b>huge</b>(even bigger than your ego <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) red army marched from the east towards Berlin. Or the fact that Germans already had fought several other armies, such as Polands and France. Errrrr, bad example. But you get the point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Even though UK/US troops were lower 'quality' than Germans, combined USSR and US/UK and Italy etc. overpowered Germans.
Edit: You can't compare allied troops and German and Iraq and coalition. Allied were at least able to destroy german tanks and planes. Now Iraqis couldn't. Na-aah, no way. Messerschmitt Bf-109 is a beautiful plane, true, but still it wasn't THAT much ahead of allied planes. Now how many planes Iraqis dropped? 0? I remember only few air casualties and those were friendly-fire.
And jetplanes were not used very widely in WW2, because of Hitlers stupidity.
Naturally, as a veteran and a student of military history, I am not forgetting. Your point reinforces mine - a force greatly outnumbered but with superior equipment and training nearly fought each side to a standstill. <i>Soldiers fight because they have decided to fight.</i> I keep trying to answer the point of this thread and keep getting dragged OT.
As for your points on those army's looting habits - all major looting any army ever does is condoned by their leadership. I don't mean stealing a watch you find in a bombed out bedroom, or grabbing some apples of a tree. I mean large scale looting, like the Russians did against the Germans and vis versa. It was a calculated and controlled tactic by their leadership, and as soon as they decided it was no longer advantageous, they made it stop. Read more about the last days of Germany (I recommend The Fall of Berlin by Anthony Read) to learn more about this.
You are losing sight of your point I think; can you enlighten us on where you're going with all this (perhaps more succintly this time), and can we try and keep this more on topic? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hmm. Yeah sure, that's not what I was arguing about. I was just saying that Allied didn't win Germany because they were somehow empowered by the will to win the war, but because Germany was overpowered by all the surrounding nations. So I guess we don't have any quarrel about this?
So yes, some soldiers prefer to die before surrendering but a lot of german soldier also surrendered. Thousands in the same time at best.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are losing sight of your point I think; can you enlighten us on where you're going with all this (perhaps more succintly this time), and can we try and keep this more on topic? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ontopic? Now that wouldn't be any fun, would it? Sorry about dragging stuff but I just get carried away when I start talking about war. I kind of got mislead with Burncycle. I have to proove one thing that leads to prooving one other and soon we are prooving how many camels there are in antarctis.
But ontopic: Soldiers fight because
a) They are forced
b) They want to stand for some ideology/they are fanatic
c) Because once they are there, they think they don't have any options and they just have to keep on going. They don't know what else to do.
I pick c.
a) They are forced
b) They want to stand for some ideology/they are fanatic
c) Because once they are there, they think they don't have any options and they just have to keep on going. They don't know what else to do.
I pick c. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As someone who has fought, I can point out that it is none of the above.
a) Soldiers cannot be forced to fight, and never are. They may try, but they simply surrendor immediately - witness as recently as a few months ago in Iraq, but countless times throughout history.
b) Being a fanatic is just an extreme variation of my original point
c) There is no such thing. This falls under either being forced.
The real answer is D) They fight because they want to. I cannot emphasise this enough. Lead some young soldiers and try to make one that has no wish to be there fight. You will understand.
The C) point you bring up also basically says that a soldier is just some mindless machine. Again, if you ever serve, you will see that this is your TV talking and has no real bearing on reality.
And so you are getting a bit mushy again. Are you saying that allies had no will to win the war, and only through overwhelming numbers did they defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan? This is untrue. Numbers were a factor. So was a will to win. Soldiers fight because they want to fight.
a) They are forced
b) They want to stand for some ideology/they are fanatic
c) Because once they are there, they think they don't have any options and they just have to keep on going. They don't know what else to do.
I pick c. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As someone who has fought, I can point out that it is none of the above.
a) Soldiers cannot be forced to fight, and never are. They may try, but they simply surrendor immediately - witness as recently as a few months ago in Iraq, but countless times throughout history.
b) Being a fanatic is just an extreme variation of my original point
c) There is no such thing. This falls under either being forced.
The real answer is D) They fight because they want to. I cannot emphasise this enough. Lead some young soldiers and try to make one that has no wish to be there fight. You will understand.
The C) point you bring up also basically says that a soldier is just some mindless machine. Again, if you ever serve, you will see that this is your TV talking and has no real bearing on reality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it laughable Iraq was even considered military action. It was like spanking an unbehaving child. I understand lives we lost, and I'm not saying they aren't important. I disagree with it for the reasons most others disagree. I don't think each and every soldier believes in Bush's plan, or Clinton's plan during that whole thing. You fight because you want to. No other reason. This may entail because you believe its a just cause, you care, defender, etc. Nobody else makes that choice but YOU. Hell, even drafts aren't "Forced" Conciencious Obejector anyone? Hidden agendas, political corruption, powerhungry figureheads, and the like are the least of the worries a soldier has. I don't support our president, but I do support the troops. They are the young men and women fighting, not the wrinkled old men telling the boys where to die. But...thats another issue entirely.
To sum it up. The fight because they choose to fight. for some reason i agree with monse...oh yeah, because hes right. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I had a grampa who was in the Korean war and Vietnam war. I think he really had no choice, but to fight, because 1) If he didn't, he would be a coward. 2) He had no other choice, because the enemy would get him sooner or later. 3) He wanted to fight. In Vietnam, same thing, kill the enemy before he kills you. My other friend's dad also fought in the Vietnam war and sadly, one of his best friends got killed in combat, he went berserk and killed a many with his shotgun. This leads me to also believe that soliders, who have formed tightly knit bonds with soldiers they know, will fight to the death over their lives.
I think training probably helps soldiers to put practice into reflex. The American Army from what I hear has one of the best training methods, they shoot live fire in combat and practice in almost real like situations.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 24 2003, 08:15 PM --></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 24 2003, 08:15 PM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it laughable Iraq was even considered military action. It was like spanking an unbehaving child. I understand lives we lost, and I'm not saying they aren't important. I disagree with it for the reasons most others disagree. I don't think each and every soldier believes in Bush's plan, or Clinton's plan during that whole thing. You fight because you want to. No other reason. This may entail because you believe its a just cause, you care, defender, etc. Nobody else makes that choice but YOU. Hell, even drafts aren't "Forced" Conciencious Obejector anyone? Hidden agendas, political corruption, powerhungry figureheads, and the like are the least of the worries a soldier has. I don't support our president, but I do support the troops. They are the young men and women fighting, not the wrinkled old men telling the boys where to die. But...thats another issue entirely.
To sum it up. The fight because they choose to fight. for some reason i agree with monse...oh yeah, because hes right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, they probably fight, because they want to. I think most soldiers are willing to do what Bush wants to do, because they respect him and his decsisions. Also, Iraq was military action, a lot of soldiers faced real combat, they were well trained and well armed to defeat the enemy. But yeah, what do I know? I wasn't even in the army. I think if I ever joined the army it would be for one reason, to play cops and robbers in reality.
Thats sort of the same, why do it?
It interests me, I want to do it, I dont like unfairness. I think crime is unfair in that it deprives and persecutes others.
Why should I let this stand? Why shoudlt I be able to take a proactive measure to stop it.
It simply interests me so I choose to do it.
I guess I agree; possibly not for the same reasons.
I have not served, but my impression of the military is that they virtually brainwash you with nationalist propaganda, so that you WANT to kill your 'enemies' -- you have no regard for their lives and think that if you don't kill them, your country is in danger.
Of course I assume you're trained to be brave in the heat of battle as well, and to respect unquestioningly your orders as well. Who can say if there's one 'main' reason why soldiers fight... it has to be a combination of nationalism, self-preservation, and training...
I really doubt many people go into the military WANTING to kill. The psych screenings are supposed to filter out the psychopaths, aren't they? No, you have to be normal to get into the military, then they MAKE you a bloodthirsty psychopath <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> but seriously, Joe is a poor dude who needs a job and an education. Joe enlists. Joe gets told how wonderful his country is and that he must risk death to defend it. Poor Joe has no choice but to believe them because he's had no education or guidance in life until now. Voila, a soldier is born...
So the better question would be, why would a soldier want to invade a country and kill innocent people for his country? I have no idea, I am not a military person, but if I was, I would definately quit unless my country was actually being attacked by another country.
On a slightly more off-topic note, I don't remember the Germans using Massive AT-helicopters to take out our tanks. They might have had a slight advantage in technology, but we were still pretty equal.
- Soldiers are ignorant extremists because they want to die for something.
- Soldiers are forced to fight by society/government.
- Soldiers are too stupid to think for their own good.
Of course, these assumptions are unreasonable, prejudiced, and contradictory to each other. Most soldiers fight because (and/or reasons):
- They believe in the cause they are fighting for.
- They have a genuine love for their fellow soldier that makes them protective of each other. One might say this is a planned reaction to boot camp, but it is more likely that it is an outcome of what these ladies and gentlemen have to do, fight wars.
- They have a genuine love for their country and family that surpasses the flaws, if there are any, in the cause they are fighting for.
For starters, a lot of the advanced technology developed by the Nazis was either very small scale (anti ship missiles, surface to air missiles, jet powered ariel radar aircraft) or not used properly, such as Hitler's order to use the ME-262 as a fighter-bomber instead of as a fighter. Futhurmore, the Soviet T-34 was a better medium battle tank than anything the Nazis could produce in large numbers. If, for example, the Nazis had developed the advanced technology they had to a high level, the battle for Germany would have probably been much longer. As it was, most of the high tech stuff they developed was produced on far too small a scale to influence the war, or never got past the experimental stage.
But I digress. When the US was invading through France into Germany, they were facing an opponant who had been exhasted by 4 years of warfare. The eastern front had sucked up Germany's best manpower and whilst Allied bombing raids were not having as large an impact on German industry as had been hoped, Germany was fast running out of raw materials such as rubber and oil. Many of the tanks defending Berlin ended up being used as stationary platforms because they had no fuel.
Thus if, in an alternate reality, the United States occupied the lands Russia occupied, and thus the US was invaded in 1941, I would say that US forces would have had a tough time. However it does bear mentioning that the Soviet T-34 even in 1941 was more than a match for a Panzer Mark III, which consisted of the majority of Germany's tank power in the invasion. What differed was tactics; the Germans were able to use their tanks to far greater effect despite technical shortcomings.
Even when the US and Germany did butt heads, the Germans did not enjoy a military advantage as large as the US enjoys over Iraq. In fact, if anything the Germans were at a military disadvantage, lacking manpower and resources, both of which the US had in bulk.
But we're getting dragged off topic here. I just can't refuse debating with Monse <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a) Soldiers cannot be forced to fight, and never are. They may try, but they simply surrendor immediately - witness as recently as a few months ago in Iraq, but countless times throughout history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that's an interesting take. I must admit that I didn't really expect that one to come up. I'd like to look at a few examples from the 20th century did see how they match up to that. Firstly, WWI. In particular, the Battle of the Somme. During that battle, as I'm sure you are aware Monse, tens of thousands of British soldiers charged against German positions and were slaughtered. Now standing behind those British soldiers, pistols out and cocked, were British military police. Any man who would not go over the trench would be shot. Now is this forcing men to fight? A similar case in Stalingrad during WWII: any man attempting to each the eastern shore was shot and NKVD men swarmed throughout the city making sure that the Red Army soldiers would attack. Again, is this forcing men to fight who don't want to fight? If these men in both cases truely wanted to fight, wouldn't there have been no point to having police ready to shoot them?
I do though see where you are coming from. I just wonder how it applies to certain occurances throughout recent history.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The real answer is D) They fight because they want to. I cannot emphasise this enough. Lead some young soldiers and try to make one that has no wish to be there fight. You will understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe now but some 60 years ago those young soldiers were forced to fight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The C) point you bring up also basically says that a soldier is just some mindless machine. Again, if you ever serve, you will see that this is your TV talking and has no real bearing on reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I'll find that out in 10 months when my time of duty starts, but untill then...
I guess all those veterans are liars then and are only writing that stuff because they want to boost up their book sales.
Now I see your point and I hope you'd see mine. In the year 2000, wars are comparably small. You may _want_ to fight as long as the war is still small and casualties stay down and moral stays up. However soldiers very quickly forget their eagerness after most of their comrades start dying and they haven't eaten in a week. That's the difference between me and you now, we are talking about different situations where humans behave differently. For example Germans wanted to fight in Poland. It was a piece of cake and enemy fell quicker than you could raise your gun. Everyone believed that German would conquer the whole world. In Russia after winter came, Germans moral went down. They were surrounded, falling back all the time, un-equipped, in low food and manpower. You see? Soldiers want to fight in certain situations, and in certain situations they just want to stay alive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And so you are getting a bit mushy again. Are you saying that allies had no will to win the war, and only through overwhelming numbers did they defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan? This is untrue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course allied wanted to win! I am just saying, that they didn't get any unhuman powers because they wanted to win. Their will to win wasn't as huge factor as you claim it was.
You, my friend, have never read any oral historys by Stephen Ambrose, and have never studied Marine landings in the Pacific. Otherwise you would know this last phrase is utter nonsense. I would highly suggest you do so, if only to expand your thinking a bit. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I knew you guys would bring up the concepts of isolated incidents where troops had machine guns at their backs, and were thusly 'forced' to fight. You can always find some times when this was considered necessary (by the Russians, in most people's limited reading), but overall, the great majority of troops (99.99999%) fought because they thought it was the right thing to do. You could not have forced the Russian army's millions of men to win the war against the Nazis - they wanted to. As it stands, the 'machine gun to your backs' theory does not work, as was proven in WW1. When the Tsarist officers tried it, the Russians rebelled and started the Civil War and the Bolshevik revolution. I'm afraid you will have to offer a lot more evidence here to contradict the facts as I see them, not just a couple undocumented tangential references.
But please, I wish to be convinced that what I saw serving for 8 years was an illusion. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I guess it's a hard thing to understand, at least from my perspective. Is that all that training boils down to, installing or evoking a desire to fight? Does a soldier who wants to fight enjoy his work, or does he consider it merely his duty? What does a soldier like about fighting? These are just some questions that, if answered, I feel I could better understand a soldier's "will to fight". Thankyou for the feedback everyone, it has been most enjoyable.
One day, in PSE (in which we basically just talked among ourselves while the teacher gave us a topic occasionally, like "are abortions right" for example), someone finally asked him "Why are you so obsessed with the army?"
And he replied "Because it's what i've always wanted to do, i've always wanted to be the best."
On the other hand, there were a group of boys (i'm sure you had some at your school) who wanted to join the army basically because it was "cool" to be in the army and kill stuff. It does not encourage me to know that the British army contains such people <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
And just to add a quote from an old SNES game which I can't remember the title of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I fight not for Justice, nor for personal gain, I fight because I am a soldier. For a soldier, fighting depends on fighting and killing the enemy"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh! In that case, let me in on a little secret of how it is done in the US Marine Corps: from day one of bootcamp, you are taught the long proud history of Marine battles starting in 1775 all the way to the present day. You are taught of the self-sacrifice, the courage against the odds, and the overwhelming list of victories against all foes. What it ingrains is basically that millions of Marines have done their duty and defeated their enemies, and YOU are not going to let down that tradition. This is one of the reasons I joined; to be part of a historical record of an elite corps and carry on those traditions. That set of traditions and history is part of what draws a particular kind of man to the Marine Corps, and leads to a self-fullfilling prophecy of tough, hard-fighting, elite, professional sea soldiers. It's also why no Marine commander has ever surrendered his troops, ever; a tradition to uphold where no one wants to be the first to disgrace the Corps.
That's the USMC take on things...