Ukraine: would you fight or run?
Poll: Ukraine: would you fight or run?
Total Members Polled: 238
Discussion
Gargamel said:
I mean the willful ignorance of this post is incredible.
So the war is basically all Boris Johnson’s fault. Do you hear how ridiculous you sound.
+1So the war is basically all Boris Johnson’s fault. Do you hear how ridiculous you sound.
Gotta love conspiracy theorists.
If I could run, maybe, but the reliality is when Russia (or Germany) take over you get press ganged into their army to fight for the next objective. (The entire male population of the occupied areas of Ukraine are dead or maimed in a year or so becaise they were literally all press ganged. The poor sods manning the Atlantic Wall trying to stop D Day weren't German, apart from the officers. They were from the occupied areas.)
So there isn't really a "sitting it out" option. If you don't fight for your own side you end up fighting for the other side when they get to you.
Probably not very fashionable but I think that regardless of who is PM or why it happened if my way of life was under threat I would stand & fight.
We have made the mistake of equating a good life with a long life.
As a Merchant Navy officer I have had this question lingering in my thoughts most of my life, the Falklands conflict is exactly how war would come to me, I know I would not shirk.
We have made the mistake of equating a good life with a long life.
As a Merchant Navy officer I have had this question lingering in my thoughts most of my life, the Falklands conflict is exactly how war would come to me, I know I would not shirk.
Stick Legs said:
Probably not very fashionable but I think that regardless of who is PM or why it happened if my way of life was under threat I would stand & fight.
We have made the mistake of equating a good life with a long life.
As a Merchant Navy officer I have had this question lingering in my thoughts most of my life, the Falklands conflict is exactly how war would come to me, I know I would not shirk.
I agree with this.We have made the mistake of equating a good life with a long life.
As a Merchant Navy officer I have had this question lingering in my thoughts most of my life, the Falklands conflict is exactly how war would come to me, I know I would not shirk.
I wouldn't be fighting for a bunch of politicians. I'd be fighting for my niece and nephews and the families I hope they'll have.
And something I struggle to define but I think that Churchill referred to it when he spoke of 'Our Island Home'.
I'm a fat sedentary middle-aged man, I'd last about 5 minutes in the trenches before becoming an injured drain on resources; I could probably serve usefully in a support role as an engineer or other warm body role such as first aid, driving, blanket stacking etc. I've ticked yes but it's impossible to know how you'd react to an invasion of your country with the overt intention of exterminating your culture.
I originally chose don't know because it's almost an unimaginable situation to be in, having had a comfortable sheltered life on the whole. However, having given it quite a bit of thought I think I would fight. Not for any honourable reasons, just that how would you live with yourself if you ran? The shame would be immense, everyone would know you'd done a bunk and left your friends, family and compatriots to their fate.
Having followed the Ukraine war very closely, some of the combat videos on X are truly horrifying. I wouldn't last 2 minutes, and even if I did I'd be mentally ruined.
Most definitely NSFW or the faint hearted: https://twitter.com/mouw5284/status/17868635955291...
We need to press our leaders now to do everything necessary to ensure Ukraine prevail. If not we are another step closer to a wider war in Europe, and there'll come a point where we can't sit on the sidelines.
Having followed the Ukraine war very closely, some of the combat videos on X are truly horrifying. I wouldn't last 2 minutes, and even if I did I'd be mentally ruined.
Most definitely NSFW or the faint hearted: https://twitter.com/mouw5284/status/17868635955291...
We need to press our leaders now to do everything necessary to ensure Ukraine prevail. If not we are another step closer to a wider war in Europe, and there'll come a point where we can't sit on the sidelines.
I find the proportion of replies saying "No, because the politicians are all b
ds and the country's a sthole" very surprising. The idea that the choice to fight against a force (especially one of the ilk of present-day Russia) invading your country has anything to do with agreeing with the politicians just doesn't occur to me.
If you can find a copy of 'Three Corvettes', the war memoirs of Nicholas Monsarrat (he of 'The Cruel Sea' fame). He has an entire chapter entitled "Why Men Fight" and he closes each section of the book - what were originally the closing chapters of each volume when they were published contemporaneously in the 1940s - with long introspections about his thoughts, feelings, motivations and philosophy of The War and war in general. They run the closest I've ever encountered in writing to my own thoughts on the matter and, in my encounters with people in the military who have voiced theirs, with others who have made that decision.
I've lent my copy out so can't quote from it directly. But Monsarrat was a socialist and, before and after WW2, a pacifist. But he came to the conclusion that, in extreme cases, the cause of peace can only be meaningfully served by taking up arms and doing violence against a force and an ideology that seeks only to wring more force and harm and violence on the world than any war could.
He loathed the social and political system of pre-war Britain - the wretched poverty of the Great Depression, the self-serving class system, the rich who moralised about the condition of the poor while getting fat off their labour, the grifters and swindlers who saw rearmament and wartime as an excuse for profit. But he fought because a) fascism could only be worse in every respect and b) he saw fighting as a way for a generation to gain political and moral leverage to improve things. "We worked, fought, suffered, strove and died for six years...and we're not going back to the way things were".
I'm not sure anyone really, at the sharp end, 'fights for their country'. They fight (in no particular order) for themselves (to keep themselves alive, in extremis), the people next to them, for their family and friends back home and for certain values and things they hold dear.
Sticking with the naval theme, Sir Peter Scott wrote very eloquently about standing watch on the bridge of his destroyer as dawn broke over the English Channel and realising that, fundamentally, what he specifically and personally was fighting for, was the dark tree-lined river estuaries of the Devon coast, the creeks full of ducks and waders, the gurgling tide, the mud cracking and popping as it dried...and his freedom to enjoy them whenever the fancy took him. That is what the war was about for him - it encompassed a lot of much more high-minded things like liberty and history and individuality and nature but they were embodied in a landscape.
Do so many PHers really have nothing, at any level or scale, that they cherish enough to try and protect in the face of tanks rolling over the border to impose a regime and an ideology that threatens them?
War is hellish. Modern warfare is especially brutal in the scale and speed of destruction, and is particularly adept at wreaking a particular sort of psychological terror (having a cheap drone with a grenade sticky-taped to it following you around for hours before it either buzzes of or drops on you...and you don't know which. But could you live with yourself if you were physically safe but had given up on everything else you held dear?
I know this sounds very self-sure of me. None of us can truly know the answer until we are directly faced with it. But as a military reservist it's a matter I have pondered and I have clearly made my decision - which has to be 'Fight'.
ds and the country's a sthole" very surprising. The idea that the choice to fight against a force (especially one of the ilk of present-day Russia) invading your country has anything to do with agreeing with the politicians just doesn't occur to me. If you can find a copy of 'Three Corvettes', the war memoirs of Nicholas Monsarrat (he of 'The Cruel Sea' fame). He has an entire chapter entitled "Why Men Fight" and he closes each section of the book - what were originally the closing chapters of each volume when they were published contemporaneously in the 1940s - with long introspections about his thoughts, feelings, motivations and philosophy of The War and war in general. They run the closest I've ever encountered in writing to my own thoughts on the matter and, in my encounters with people in the military who have voiced theirs, with others who have made that decision.
I've lent my copy out so can't quote from it directly. But Monsarrat was a socialist and, before and after WW2, a pacifist. But he came to the conclusion that, in extreme cases, the cause of peace can only be meaningfully served by taking up arms and doing violence against a force and an ideology that seeks only to wring more force and harm and violence on the world than any war could.
He loathed the social and political system of pre-war Britain - the wretched poverty of the Great Depression, the self-serving class system, the rich who moralised about the condition of the poor while getting fat off their labour, the grifters and swindlers who saw rearmament and wartime as an excuse for profit. But he fought because a) fascism could only be worse in every respect and b) he saw fighting as a way for a generation to gain political and moral leverage to improve things. "We worked, fought, suffered, strove and died for six years...and we're not going back to the way things were".
I'm not sure anyone really, at the sharp end, 'fights for their country'. They fight (in no particular order) for themselves (to keep themselves alive, in extremis), the people next to them, for their family and friends back home and for certain values and things they hold dear.
Sticking with the naval theme, Sir Peter Scott wrote very eloquently about standing watch on the bridge of his destroyer as dawn broke over the English Channel and realising that, fundamentally, what he specifically and personally was fighting for, was the dark tree-lined river estuaries of the Devon coast, the creeks full of ducks and waders, the gurgling tide, the mud cracking and popping as it dried...and his freedom to enjoy them whenever the fancy took him. That is what the war was about for him - it encompassed a lot of much more high-minded things like liberty and history and individuality and nature but they were embodied in a landscape.
Do so many PHers really have nothing, at any level or scale, that they cherish enough to try and protect in the face of tanks rolling over the border to impose a regime and an ideology that threatens them?
War is hellish. Modern warfare is especially brutal in the scale and speed of destruction, and is particularly adept at wreaking a particular sort of psychological terror (having a cheap drone with a grenade sticky-taped to it following you around for hours before it either buzzes of or drops on you...and you don't know which. But could you live with yourself if you were physically safe but had given up on everything else you held dear?
I know this sounds very self-sure of me. None of us can truly know the answer until we are directly faced with it. But as a military reservist it's a matter I have pondered and I have clearly made my decision - which has to be 'Fight'.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Sunday 5th May 21:20
2xChevrons said:
If you can find a copy of 'Three Corvettes', the war memoirs of Nicholas Monsarrat (he of 'The Cruel Sea' fame). He has an entire chapter entitled "Why Men Fight" and he closes each section of the book - what were originally the closing chapters of each volume when they were published contemporaneously in the 1940s - with long introspections about his thoughts, feelings, motivations and philosophy of The War and war in general.
Brilliant book, and written pretty much in note from becaise he wasn't ever sure he was going to live to write the next bit.My copy is long overdue a re-read, thanks for the reminder.
2xChevrons said:
I find the proportion of replies saying "No, because the politicians are all bds and the country's a sthole" very surprising. The idea that the choice to fight against a force (especially one of the ilk of present-day Russia) invading your country has anything to do with agreeing with the politicians just doesn't occur to me.
I was as well, I'm surprised at how much the policies/opinions/personalities of politicians shaped people's opinions as to go to war or not. I would have thought the people close to them would have featured far higher. ds and the country's a sthole" very surprising. The idea that the choice to fight against a force (especially one of the ilk of present-day Russia) invading your country has anything to do with agreeing with the politicians just doesn't occur to me. Although there is a very individual streak with a number of posters on here, so perhaps it shouldn't be that surprising.
2xChevrons said:
...
Do so many PHers really have nothing, at any level or scale, that they cherish enough to try and protect in the face of tanks rolling over the border to impose a regime and an ideology that threatens them?
...
I think successive governments are well on the way to imposing a regime and an ideology that threatens us much more than Russia does.Do so many PHers really have nothing, at any level or scale, that they cherish enough to try and protect in the face of tanks rolling over the border to impose a regime and an ideology that threatens them?
...
2xChevrons said:
....... None of us can truly know the answer until we are directly faced with it. But as a military reservist it's a matter I have pondered and I have clearly made my decision - which has to be 'Fight'.
Wonderful post. Wish I had the knowledge and insight to write it.Edited by 2xChevrons on Sunday 5th May 21:20
Smint said:
Don't know enough about Ukraine.
The UK however is no longer worth dying or getting hurt for, betrayed ruined and bankrupted as it has been by countless politicians apparatchicks and others of all political persuasions since the last war.
You wouldn’t be fighting for the Tories or Labour etc you’d be fighting for your home, your families freedom from a foreign oppressor, it’s more basic survival than fighting for an ideology. The UK however is no longer worth dying or getting hurt for, betrayed ruined and bankrupted as it has been by countless politicians apparatchicks and others of all political persuasions since the last war.
Would I stay and fight? It’s easy to say yes when you’re warm and dry and your home isn’t surrounded by murderous rapists, I like to think I would. I admire the Ukrainians who’ve stayed and fought the invaders, many of them will encounter a fate worse than death for their bravery. What I don’t understand is why any Russian would volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Now that’s dying for nothing but the psychotic deluded desires of an already impossibly rich man.
Skeptisk said:
It is a hypothetical question (unless you are Ukrainian and of conscription age). So you have to answer hypothetical. So clearly if you are too old you need to imagine you were a few years younger, Ukrainian and able to fight. The question is aimed at asking whether you would put your own safety first or put it at risk for the greater, collective good.
I don’t know where I would stand. My grandfathers fought in WWI, my father and uncles fought in WWII and my brother was in NI during the troubles (and would have gone to the Falklands if he hadn’t crashed his car shortly beforehand). I even wanted to be in the RAF when I was growing up. Yet would I be willing to fight in such a conflict (with a seemingly very low chance of success) but with a reasonable chance of being killed or injured? I would like to think I would fight but worry that I would run.
Why?I don’t know where I would stand. My grandfathers fought in WWI, my father and uncles fought in WWII and my brother was in NI during the troubles (and would have gone to the Falklands if he hadn’t crashed his car shortly beforehand). I even wanted to be in the RAF when I was growing up. Yet would I be willing to fight in such a conflict (with a seemingly very low chance of success) but with a reasonable chance of being killed or injured? I would like to think I would fight but worry that I would run.
I've got teenaged boys. If I could get them to safety I'd go with them. If I was offered the choice of taking their place on the front line, I'd take that choice.
hidetheelephants said:
Studies of what motivates combatants generally reveal that they're fighting for the person next to them and the others in their unit, country and other more abstract concepts don't really feature.
Very much so. People fight for the bloke next to them, war is very equalising. Doesn't matter where you come from, who you vote from, what school you went to. Politicians would seem very remote in the moment. No one in a trench is worrying about political debates of private schooling, VAT, housing etc.
105.4 said:
Gargamel said:
105.4 said:
Pretty much what I was thinking.
Who am I fighting for? A bunch of incredibly wealthy ‘special interests’?
This war could have been resolved almost as soon as it started, but all of a sudden Boris Johnson makes a surprise visit to Kiev and any notion of a ceasefire is quickly forgotten.
Nah, sod that. I wouldn’t sacrifice my life to line the pockets of a bunch of corrupt, scummy politicians. Let them go out and fight instead, (although that will never happen).
I mean the willful ignorance of this post is incredible. Who am I fighting for? A bunch of incredibly wealthy ‘special interests’?
This war could have been resolved almost as soon as it started, but all of a sudden Boris Johnson makes a surprise visit to Kiev and any notion of a ceasefire is quickly forgotten.
Nah, sod that. I wouldn’t sacrifice my life to line the pockets of a bunch of corrupt, scummy politicians. Let them go out and fight instead, (although that will never happen).
So the war is basically all Boris Johnson’s fault. Do you hear how ridiculous you sound.
How is that NOT you blaming BJ for the war continuing?
I don’t think I could look friends and family in the eye again if I ran off and refused to serve.
Samuel Johnson wrote ‘Everyman thinks meanly of themselves for having not been a soldier’
Clearly from this thread it’s no longer Everyman, we are down to 1 in 3.
Gargamel said:
I literally don’t understand this comeback, you wrote the war could have been resolved the BJ went to Kiev and all notion of a ceasefire was forgotten.
How is that NOT you blaming BJ for the war continuing?
I don’t think I could look friends and family in the eye again if I ran off and refused to serve.
Samuel Johnson wrote ‘Everyman thinks meanly of themselves for having not been a soldier’
Clearly from this thread it’s no longer Everyman, we are down to 1 in 3.
Don't discount the fact that the average PHer leans heavily libertarian, or at least a very selfish form of it where others ought to help them but not vice versa.How is that NOT you blaming BJ for the war continuing?
I don’t think I could look friends and family in the eye again if I ran off and refused to serve.
Samuel Johnson wrote ‘Everyman thinks meanly of themselves for having not been a soldier’
Clearly from this thread it’s no longer Everyman, we are down to 1 in 3.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff