Reading about various instances of military troops fighting to the death has me wondering if that’s regarded in military circles as an “unprofessional” thing to do if one has a viable surrender option. (Not talking about being captured by ISIS, for instance, which means potential barbaric execution), but rather, a US military squadron being captured by, say, professional Soviet forces in a Cold War-turned-hot scenario or modern-day Chinese/Russian forces in a war; forces that might treat them decently if captured.
Would it be professional or unprofessional for a modern US military force, when cornered and outnumbered, to willfully fight to the death rather than accept reasonable surrender terms? Doesn’t some US military creed forbid surrender?
Follow-up question: Is there in fact a legal or unwritten obligation for a commander or unit to surrender if there is no way to escape capture/defeat and doing so is in the unit’s interest?
Surely it would depend on the mission and why they’re fighting. Most military missions aren’t going to fall into a binary of “victory” or “defeat”, and even though dying and surrendering are both defeat, one might still be better than the other. Maybe the enemy is advancing to some key target, and you’ve been ordered to stop them, for instance: You might have lost the ability to stop them, but still be able to slow them down by fighting to the end rather than surrendering, which might give more time for reinforcements to show up after you’re gone, or for people to evacuate, or whatever.
Right. The specific mission I had in mind was something like D-Day. Suppose D-Day had failed and the Allied troops at Normandy couldn’t be Dunkirk’d - would it have been unprofessional for them to fight to the death (for little purpose?)
Not to fight the hypothetical, but the D-Day invasion could have been “dunkirked” a hell of a lot easier than Dunkirk was. The transport ships were already there!
More on topic, you have to remember that Allied forces taking part in the invasion weren’t made up of professionals, just a whole bunch of volunteers, draftees and other regular folks, with a very thin leavening of true professionals. Expecting professional behavior from a bunch of amateurs is a mug’s game.
The phrase I heard used pointedly while in training was “the Code of Conduct is not a suicide pact”. But as mentioned earlier, the mission is first, and the mission may require sacrificing yourself, that is part and parcel of the profession of arms.
If you recieve the order to surrender, it would seem “unprofessional” to ignore it out of vanity/pride. If things are so bad that no order can get through, you likely also don’t have enough information to be in a position where you understand you’re willfully chosing pointless certain death.
The previous posts especially JRDelirious have made clear the general indoctrination in at least the US (but the West in general by any but a very broad definition in culture and time of ‘West’). The official rules do not imply any ‘unprofessionalism’ to not surrender. They proceed IMO from the general cultural assumption that Americans/Westerners don’t need an inducement to surrender when further resistance is militarily futile. They need a strong inducement not to surrender, but it must realistically stop short of saying ‘never’ in order to be taken seriously.
The weight of not surrendering is a moral one, in terms of the welfare of the people under their command. This is clear in memoirs of US/Western commanders who did surrender, this is their stated rationale almost always. And in practice American military men have not been generally been strictly held to ‘have the means to resist’. And though that particular language is fairly new, no one should expect them to be in future.
The Marines at Wake Island in December 1941 had ammo left when they surrendered. In fact with hindsight they were possibly on their way to defeating the Japanese landing force. But the commander Maj James Devereux, cut off from communication with most of his force, did not know that, and weighed instead the possibility of a massacre of his men. Whereas, it was obvious that even if that particular (second Japanese attempt) at landing was defeated, more would come. Japanese naval and air forces had by then basically suppressed Wake’s heavy defenses with no sign of any US relief coming. But there was never any open suggestion the surrender was improper, although it wouldn’t have been considered ‘unprofessional’ if he hadn’t surrendered just then either. Practically speaking much deference is given to the commander’s decision under imperfect information and where the US force has put up a creditable fight up to the surrender, as is reasonable.
Likewise with the surrender of Corregidor in May 1942 to a Japanese landing force we now know was far smaller than the defending garrison, and which had lost ~3/4’s of its boats (for resupply and reinforcement). That wasn’t particularly criticized even with with later full knowledge of the situation. The commander there Gen Wainwright believed the Japanese force, particularly its few tanks, might run amok through the Malinta Tunnel complex killing non-combatants. And the island’s days of resistance were clearly numbered, though ‘the means to resist’ was not literally exhausted at the surrender. The US performance in that campaign overall isn’t thought as highly of, but rarely has the actual surrender been criticized (nor on Bataan, again a larger US/Fil force surrendered to a smaller Japanese one, but weakened by hunger and disease, and Japanese atrocities dealing with those prisoners have naturally overshadowed any question about the timing of the surrender).
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong - professionalism is a state of mind, which can be taught, and it has nothing to do with the actual employment status of the person involved. A new recruit with half a year of training under his belt can be far more professional that a veteran with 20 years of bad habits.
The professionalism of the Allied soldiers in Normandy varied from unit to unit depending on their training, background, and mission. Soldiers of the 101st Airborne were rather exceptionally professional despite the fact that almost all of them were new to war.
The circumstances required for a military unit to be in a position to want to surrender and be capable of surrendering are such that I’m not sure it’s easily characterized as a “choice.” Units tend to surrender either when hopelessly doomed and incapable of making a difference or if they are organizationally destroyed by shock (French units in 1940 being an example.)