Results 281 to 300 of 465
I see you object to killing fleeing soldiers and deserters, but apparently not - or at least not at the same level - to killing "soldiers who engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as robbery, revenge against civilians, rape, arson, murder of unarmed POWs and civilians". Don't they deserve your empathy? Why not?
Luís Henrique
I haven't commented on anything like that, so where you got that assumption is beyond my knowledge.
Everyone deserves empathy. I would once again, not shoot those men dead.
No! Under no circumstances should someone be executed! I do support life imprisonment though.
Last edited by Goblin; 6th April 2013 at 03:23.
If it retreats in good order, to ensure the defence of a position, why?
If it abandons the other units, putting them at risk, then you try the commander who gave the order; if there is no reasonable justification for the mistake, you might at least demote and/or jail him or her (because in this situation you will likely not be as pressured by urgency as in the case of individual defectors in live battle). The soldiers and subordinate officers are evidently innocent, as they were following orders, so there is absolutely no point in justicing them.
The retreat of one unit usually doesn't result in panic in other units, so there is no rationale for the same kind of harshness as in the case of individual soldiers.
Luís Henrique
So you mean your unit takes a village, some of your soldiers go on a rampage and rape a few peasant girls and shoot dead a few peasant boys who try to defend them, and you will not have those soldiers shot? What would you do, instead?
Luís Henrique
I agree with this. It's one thing to oppose the death penalty under "normal conditions" but when you're out in the field in a revolution for example? The rules are different. I don't think there should be any doubt about that.
Keep playing your fantasy what if situations. Even being a deity I do not have an immediate answer for everything as every situation is unique and deserves a unique response. I cannot say under which specific conditions repercussions must be taken, or what those repercussions should be.
All I'm saying is be aware that you are talking about ending a life, not something that should in ANY situation be taken lightly.
Not sure where the humanity in that lies. I'd gladly take a bullet to the head over spending the rest of my life in a prison.
Seriously what the fuck are you talking about? Fantasy? This is no matter of fantasy, this is something that has happened in practically every war, ever. On top of this if you think it won't happen in any future revolutionary situations, then you are incredibly naive. The lack of strict discipline in such a situation can endanger the very livelihood of the revolution; the revolution which seeks to overturn the present state of things. To overthrow a system that despite abundance, allows a person to starve death by the time you finish reading this sentence. And one more by the time you finish reading this one. So if things which are unpleasant and 'barbaric,' prove to be necessary during revolutionary upsurges (as they always have been through history) then so be it; it pales in comparison to the alternative.
The fantasy situation is this future revolution you keep referring to. It has not yet happened and nobody knows if or when it will, so by talking about what would happen in that situation you are playing a what if game with me.
Ahh yes so I guess that as pro-revolutionaries, we must make no plans what so ever! I'm sure the October revolution would have went absolutely swimmingly had the Bolsheviks not had any ideas about what to do once taking power and then preceded to get invaded by half the world. Cause that will work out great, for future revolutions, once the situation does arise. Give me a break, cause this is honestly laughable.
This is a recipe to disaster.
Rules must be clear, people have the right to know what to expect if they take this or that action. I am all for case-by-case responses - when you have the time and the ease to analyse things in depth and weigh all courses of action - which means, in times of peace. In wartime, there is no such luxury; decisions must be immediate, people - our soldiers, our enemies, civilians - must know what we are going to do. If our soldiers realise that rape or revenge might go unpunished - or "punished" by measures that can easily be seen as a prize, such as those that imply being sent away from the front lines - then they will rape and plunder. If civilians realise that our army does not punish immediately and sternly rapists, thieves, and arsonists, they will never trust us. If enemy soldiers know that our soldiers commit atrocities and go unpunished, they will retaliate, and might even get the approval of their officers.
An army must be disciplined to be effective in battle. Allowing for debauche undermines discipline, destroys morals, puts each individual soldier's life at greater risk, and makes an army unable to fight properly.
We will be shooting at the enemy, and killing them - ending their lives. Does this mean that we are taking such issue lightly?
Luís Henrique
Just shoot deserters enough times that they drop down and cease their action. If they survive their would be little need to kill them and they can be detained to be given the appropriate punishment.
I'm not above revenge. If a person did unspeakable things (torture/sexual assault) to my family then murdered them I would want revenge. I would want them dead. I'll not act as if I'm above it and that would be my motivation (revenge). I don't think we should kill people to show that killing people is wrong I would simply want pure unadulterated revenge. Should the state be a tool used for revenge? I think not, but, if a person tortured and murdered your entire family what would you want to do to them? Moral grandstanding aside. I for one would not want any state, communist or capitalist, to have institutionalized power over life and death but I would also like the opportunity for revenge.
As far as executing 'counterrevolutionaries' and military deserters I in no way shape or form want to repeat CHEKA type conditions or Russian Bolshevik terror. This includes oppression of workers which the state and or CHEKA apparatus deemed to be counterrevolutionary.
l'EnferméWhat would people be fighting for if not themselves? If people won't voluntarily fight for communism then the people aren't ready for it. The Russian population was not ready for communism. Look at the Durruti Column in Spain, no executions for desertion there, in fact, people came to join from all over the world to fight for a just cause. Anyhow, modern wars aren't fought on battlefields like WW1 and WW2. Military technology makes it possible for less troops to command a dominating presence. If Marxists took over the state in any advanced capitalist nation some sort of 'communist draft' would be unnecessary as would a full on war fought in WW1 battlefield conditions. Killing deserters in our modern age is pointless. Military technology is key. Without it in the hands of Marxists/Anarchists communism will never happen. I wouldn't want to see communism arise from hundreds of millions of troops being gunned downed by capitalist armies at the threat of execution back home.
Back to revenge, I would expect a sort of revenge scenario to exist during a revolution as Hemingway described peasants killing fascists in the town of Ronda. This wasn't centralized state power systemically rounding people up, placing them in labor camps or against the wall; it was victim's of fascism taking revenge. In his description of the Spanish war Hemingway also taps into the mind frame of the revolutionary, how war can bring disillusionment with ideas and form, over time, a goal of self preservation above all else (the charterer Pablo) . This desire to live should not be punished by death nor should a fighting force for communism be held together by the threat of death. In many regards many aspects of Spain show us the way not Lenin's Russia. Shall we have an army by and of the people or any army 'for the peoples own good' formed by those who 'know better' with the threat of death keeping it together? If desertion was such a problem that it halted the possibility of communism then people would not be ready for communism. This is how kings and capitalists have forced people to fight against their own interests, via threat of death. Communists shouldn't be in the business of propping up new kings and capitalists.
Taking the enemies lives would also not be something to take lightly. They are, believe it or not, still people.
Yeah, they are. Absolutely no doubt here. People just like us. People with family, friends, dreams, etc - everything that makes people people.
Luís Henrique
I know you like to separate scenarios and conditions between "normal society" and "revolution" or "war", but theses actions are the very ones which are used to shape a new society. You can pride yourself all you want on the good cause that justified your actions, but you've cited these very same actions to discredit your enemies. It's precisely because your enemies engage in such behavior that you seek not to continue it, or at least have it take a different form.
I'm not saying "support criminals" simply out of some goodness of my heart. It's also because of the kinds of enemies you eliminate. People are more complex than the ideology we acscribe to them
It's barbaric and childish, and if people for it would at least own up to that fact, It'd earn back some respect.
Says the person ascribing to 'religious socialism'.
Which is a red herring/strawman statement that doesn't make what I said any less true.Says the person ascribing to 'religious socialism'
