Well, history is full of "what if", what if we have more citizen
soldiers, what if Yamashita or Tsuji wasn't born etc? From
hindsight, it's easy to say if we have that bit of resistance, we
might win, but is this the case? Who's to say too many cooks will
not spoil the broth? Who's to say with your well-trained infantry
battalions in place, the British will not cock up, 'cos of
over-confidence or some other reasons? Everything is armchair
speculation. There're simply too many variables in the equation. To
be fair, I will not say whether your scenario will guarantee
victory for the Allies (in spite of the fact Johore Bahru is not
Dunkirk, we're not Britain and we don't have good air force and
navy and a channel to prolong the battle).
Wow, multilating bodies of soldiers. What a surprise. It's been
around since Roman times, if not before. When your a soldier, and
you know your to be mutilated or worse if you surrender, what do
you do? Fight to the death.
I do not know how the common Allied soldier then viewed the Jap
soldier. Is the latter bloodthristy to the extent that they
mutilate every POW? But I think they know if they incur the wrath
of the Japs, mutilation of soldiers and massacre of civilians is
not impossible.
It's not about fighting to death. It's more of following orders. If
you receive the surrender notice from your superior, then as a good
soldier, you do that.
I'm not against fighting to death. I salute the heroes who did
that. I was just pointing out the consequences of a stubborn
resistance. You can't deny this historical fact.
By your THINKING, should we ever fall in battle, everyone above
the age of 18 needs to be lined up and SHOT.
What you mean? Your 'fall in battle' is too vague to reach the
conclusion whether everyone need to be shot.
Oh, and how should we prevent the mutilation of our (soldier's)
bodies while alive? The answer, fight.
I'm not saying we should surrender when the odds are clearly
against the enemy. But a desperate struggle, with little chance of
winning, in chinese you call da4 shi4 yi3 qu4, the defeat following
the stubborn resistance might signal another Nanking massacre. More
so if the enemy has history of doing that.
I point you to Iwo Jima. There, almost every last Japanese
soldier held their ground. And in doing so, won themselves a
honorable death in accordance with their warrior ethos.
Interesting. We were discussing that part of history when the
Japs were the aggressors, now you use the later part of history
when the Americans were the aggressors. Sly indeed. I'm sure you
know the Americans were very less likely to massacre local
civilians or mutilate the soliders compared to the Japs.
And what would you know about historical cases where armed
militias turned back professional soldiers?
There's a recent case.
Somalia.
I assume you're speaking about Mog. What you mean turned back?
There were resistance, but the Americans were not eliminated. US
failed in her mission to capture the warlord and his lieutenants,
some soldiers were killed, and that's about it. Eventually, APCs
drove by Malaysians went in. You call this turned back?
The Americans were very kind in trying to follow the ROE. They
could just shoot into the civilian crowd or threw grenade inside a
suspicious house. Civilian casualties.
