Surrender or Fight to the Last?

I'm curious as to what fellow forumites think of the East vs West attitude on surrendering in battle. The Western thought follows the idea that if there is no hope of winning, it is better to surrender. This assumes that the enemy accepting your surrender will treat you relatively humanely (or at least allow you to live).

On the other hand, Eastern thought regards surrender as a vile dishonor, and only abject cowards and traitors would surrender to the enemy. Eastern thought glorifies those soldiers who would rather die than surrender, even in the face of hopeless odds.

On the one hand, the Western idea is more humanitarian. On the other hand, there are also plenty of instances where refusing to surrender, even if it means certain death, have either turned the odds, or achieved vital strategic goals.

I think there is plenty of "refuse to surrender" mentality in the West. In sports, we often hear coaches and players talk about how proud they are on "fighting to the last minute" after a game. Surrendering may be a little more OK in the Western culture, but it is definitely not as glorious as fighting to the last man. Just look at the movie "300". Would it still be made into a movie and glorified as it has been if the Greeks surrendered to the Persians? We also hear so many stories about how Allied troops fought to the last men in WWII.

And surrendering may not be as bad as we think in the East. For instance, one of the biggest heroes in China's history, Guan Yu, surrendered to his enemy and was actually glorified for doing so. And in early part of China's history, surrendering was seen as normal. In Zhou dynasty (the Autumn and Spring and the Warring States), many important figures switched sides and their loyalty was not questioned.

I think it has a lot to do with the political climate. Most of us grew up during or at the end of an era of almost fanatic political rhetoric. Within the past half a century in China, anyone who even as much as doubted the political system was seen as a traitor. If you actually surrendered to your enemy under this kind of political pressure, it would not be hard to imagine how yo will be treated when yo get back. Similarly, most of the Eastern nations have traditionally been under iron fists throughout their history when absolute loyalty was demanded. So under this kind of political system, any surrendering would naturally be considered as betrayal. In the West, however, the control had not been that tight within the past couple hundred years. Thus, surrendering would not be linked to any changes in political alliance and be considered as OK.

As an example, the political pressure in the Zhou dynasty (the Autumn and Spring and the Warring States) was not tight. Thus even changing sides was thought as OK. On the other hand, during crusades when religious and political control were very tight in the West, surrendering was punished severely.

vesicles said:

On the other hand, during crusades when religious and political control were very tight in the West, surrendering was punished severely.

Click to expand...

In the Middle Ages and the Crusades, high-born, wealthy captives were usually allowed to surrender and were ransomed, some of them many times. This happened across religious lines as well.

But most average soldiers were killed if they could not escape or switch sides, and this was more common in religious conflicts.

Which mentality in the West? In the US they have the saying, "better dead than red." You can read between the lines that many in the Pentagon don't want to leave Afghanistan without it looking like a victory. Same with Iraq and Vietnam. Anything less is interpreted as a surrender. If you want to talk mentality, look at US domestic politics or foreign policy. Both have this attitude that, "it's my way or no way." Compromise is looked upon as weakness and to surrender is not an option. The West looked at Japanese kamikazes as barbaric. When one of their soldiers sacrifices their lives, they give him or her a medal.

I don't think anyone can say there's a mentality or philosophy.

vesicles said:

I think there is plenty of "refuse to surrender" mentality in the West. In sports, we often hear coaches and players talk about how proud they are on "fighting to the last minute" after a game. Surrendering may be a little more OK in the Western culture, but it is definitely not as glorious as fighting to the last man. Just look at the movie "300". Would it still be made into a movie and glorified as it has been if the Greeks surrendered to the Persians? We also hear so many stories about how Allied troops fought to the last men in WWII.

And surrendering may not be as bad as we think in the East. For instance, one of the biggest heroes in China's history, Guan Yu, surrendered to his enemy and was actually glorified for doing so. And in early part of China's history, surrendering was seen as normal. In Zhou dynasty (the Autumn and Spring and the Warring States), many important figures switched sides and their loyalty was not questioned.

I think it has a lot to do with the political climate. Most of us grew up during or at the end of an era of almost fanatic political rhetoric. Within the past half a century in China, anyone who even as much as doubted the political system was seen as a traitor. If you actually surrendered to your enemy under this kind of political pressure, it would not be hard to imagine how yo will be treated when yo get back. Similarly, most of the Eastern nations have traditionally been under iron fists throughout their history when absolute loyalty was demanded. So under this kind of political system, any surrendering would naturally be considered as betrayal. In the West, however, the control had not been that tight within the past couple hundred years. Thus, surrendering would not be linked to any changes in political alliance and be considered as OK.

As an example, the political pressure in the Zhou dynasty (the Autumn and Spring and the Warring States) was not tight. Thus even changing sides was thought as OK. On the other hand, during crusades when religious and political control were very tight in the West, surrendering was punished severely.

Click to expand...

I think Guan Yu is the proverbial "exception that confirms the rule". In millenia of Chinese history, he's about the only figure to have surrendered and still be looked upon as a hero. That says something, I think.

I also don't quite agree with the "political control" argument. Who's to say political control was looser in the Spring and Autumn era? There were more states, sure, but Japan's Warring States era worshiped Bushido and Seppuku. And like Finn mentioned, medieval knights were expected to surrender when they have no hope of victory.

I do agree that our views of "history" is likely influenced by the not-so-distant past. Certainly, there is no argument that the surrenders and territorial concessions of the Qing Dynasty greatly influenced modern popular Chinese views on surrender.

It depends on the strategic situation really, If the force feels they can still hold out and moral is still good. then . The Choice depends on a number of factors Soldiers in real life are rarely looking too die and with this in mind even the battle of thermiopli was a strategic choice given a necessary action too hold back the enemy.

Or just to run away and fight another day if possible. As long as you have neither surrendered nor dead, you still havn't lost.

solarz said:

I think Guan Yu is the proverbial "exception that confirms the rule". In millenia of Chinese history, he's about the only figure to have surrendered and still be looked upon as a hero. That says something, I think.

Click to expand...

Wu Zixu in the Autumn and Spring period defected from Chu to Wu and was consider a patriot.

Su Qin of the Warring States was the prime minister of 6 states. Can you imagine someone nowadays to become the prime minister of 6 nations that are fighting each other?

In 3 Kingdom era, many loyal generals of Cao Cao were POWs. Zhang Liao would be a good example. He was captured by Cao after the battle of Guan Du and surrendered and became one of Cao's most trusted captains. Zhang He was another example. On the side of Wu, the most famous general of Taishi Ci, who fought the second leader of Wu (Sun Ce) and was captured and became his loyalty follower. Ont he side of Shu, Jiang Wei was also captured by Zhuge Liang in Hanzhong and actually became Zhuge's student and most trusted general. Two of the five tiger generals of Shu were POWs, Huang Zhong and Ma Chao. Also Meng Hue (spelling?) who was captured 7 times and eventually surrendered to Zhuge Liang.

In Tang dynasty, some of most famous generals were POWs. All the generals from Wa Gong mountain surrendered to Tang after a short conflict between the two sides.

In the early Song dynasty, the famous Yang family used to generals of the Late Chen State and surrendered to Song and became the most trusted generals. And Yang Zaixing was captured by Yue Fei and surrendered to Yue.

solarz said:

I also don't quite agree with the "political control" argument. Who's to say political control was looser in the Spring and Autumn era? There were more states, sure, but Japan's Warring States era worshiped Bushido and Seppuku. And like Finn mentioned, medieval knights were expected to surrender when they have no hope of victory.

Click to expand...

I don't think we are talking about high-profile captives since these are exceptions. I think we are indeed talking about average soldiers since we are talking about cultures. As Finn mentioned average soldiers in Mid Ages were normally killed when captured. I think this supports my point.

About the Autumn and Spring and Warring States, I think the political control was a lot looser as many different views were allowed to thrive, such as the hundred groups of thoughts. Basically, people back then in China had freedom of speech and freedom of religion that contemporary Chinese don't have. Compared to only ONE political view allowed in China NOW, the political control back then was a lot looser.

vesicles said:

Wu Zixu in the Autumn and Spring period defected from Chu to Wu and was consider a patriot.

Su Qin of the Warring States was the prime minister of 6 states. Can you imagine someone nowadays to become the prime minister of 6 nations that are fighting each other?

In 3 Kingdom era, many loyal generals of Cao Cao were POWs. Zhang Liao would be a good example. He was captured by Cao after the battle of Guan Du and surrendered and became one of Cao's most trusted captains. Zhang He was another example. On the side of Wu, the most famous general of Taishi Ci, who fought the second leader of Wu (Sun Ce) and was captured and became his loyalty follower. Ont he side of Shu, Jiang Wei was also captured by Zhuge Liang in Hanzhong and actually became Zhuge's student and most trusted general. Two of the five tiger generals of Shu were POWs, Huang Zhong and Ma Chao. Also Meng Hue (spelling?) who was captured 7 times and eventually surrendered to Zhuge Liang.

In Tang dynasty, some of most famous generals were POWs. All the generals from Wa Gong mountain surrendered to Tang after a short conflict between the two sides.

In the early Song dynasty, the famous Yang family used to generals of the Late Chen State and surrendered to Song and became the most trusted generals. And Yang Zaixing was captured by Yue Fei and surrendered to Yue.

I don't think we are talking about high-profile captives since these are exceptions. I think we are indeed talking about average soldiers since we are talking about cultures. As Finn mentioned average soldiers in Mid Ages were normally killed when captured. I think this supports my point.

About the Autumn and Spring and Warring States, I think the political control was a lot looser as many different views were allowed to thrive, such as the hundred groups of thoughts. Basically, people back then in China had freedom of speech and freedom of religion that contemporary Chinese don't have. Compared to only ONE political view allowed in China NOW, the political control back then was a lot looser.

Click to expand...

First, let me quickly address the issue of "hundred schools of thoughts" during the Warring States era. I disagree that it was because of a "looser" political control. Remember that Confucius was always on the run from one state to another because his mouth got him in trouble. That's not greater freedom of speech, just looser border control.

As for the "hundred schools of thoughts", it did not come from a greater freedom either. From Han Dynasty to Qing, not a single new school of thought arose, even as China underwent numerous dynasties with varying degrees of political control, and several periods of anarchy.

No, the reason there were a greater variety of philosophies in the Warring States era is the same reason Europe had more varied religions before the advent of Christianity: there was simply no unifying belief system (of influence) prior to Confucianism. Once Europe got Christianity, or China got Confucianism, all other beliefs got stamped out. That's human nature.

This isn't to say that pagan Europeans or pre-Confucian Chinese were more "free". It simply meant that their religion or beliefs did not matter as much to the rulers.



Now, as to the issue of "surrender", note that I'm talking about popular perceptions, not the realities of warfare. There were over 20k Chinese POWs in the Korean War, after all.

When we're talking about popular distate for surrender, we need to take into account the "good guys" and the "bad guys". In public perception, it's okay for "good guys" to surrender to other "good guys". ("Bad guys" are always prone to surrendering anyway.) What the public really hates is when "good guys" surrender to "bad guys", which instantly turns the "good guys" into something less. There are exceptions, of course, and Guan Yu is the most famous. However, most of the time that's how public perceptions go.

For example, Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) did not surrender to the Qing, but his grandson did. You can imagine how history judged that guy. Lin Zexu is venerated as a hero for standing up to the British Opium traders, even though he dragged the country into a fight they couldn't win. , his replacement, is widely villified for ceding Hong Kong to the British. Li Hongzhang, who dedicated his life toward building the Northern Fleet, was vilified after signing various Unequal Treaties. In "Shui Hu", Song Jiang will never be as great a hero as Lin Cong or Wu Song, even though he is their leader, and that's largely in part (IMO) because he was willing to surrender to the corrupt Imperial Court.

It is no longer what it used to be in the History of Wars, Victories, Defeats & Surrendering. It is now the use of "Nuclear Weapons" as a last resort by any of the big as well as small Eastern & Western countries who have them. This Nuclear Nightmare could happen when one side thinks that it could force the other to surrender. There are a few cases during the past decades when countries were at the "Brink of Nuclear War", and common sense prevailed. The Cuban Missile Crisis (US vs former USSR) during the Kennedy Administration was one of them. It is not which nation is superior or rich that can dominate or defeat the other. Ask the Pakistanis, North Koreans or Israelis whether they would surrender. Nations have to be level-headed and pragmatic, and best to leave Governments of countries to decide in times of potential major conflicts, rather than leave the decision to only to their Military. No Winners, No Surrender only DISASTER in Future Major Conflicts.