Is it ever acceptable to surrender to the enemy?

Depends on your country.

Attached: 123frenc.jpg (565x526, 69K)

Now this is the real question that needs answering

no

Attached: 58ee7c023545163ec1942ca9.png (400x400, 31K)

There are caveats to that question.
Acceptable circumstances for surrender.

1.You are incapable of further effective resistance or escape and evasion. This can vary from being wounded, out of ammunition or effective weapons to resist. This can be a formal surrender, ordered from the highest ranking surviving authority, or as individuals if you are wounded.

2.Ordered to surrender for political reasons, either formal surrender or armistice.

What kind of question is that?

Attached: Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-09.png (783x600, 276K)

pretty much this

Attached: download (10).jpg (300x168, 9K)

You have to make one first.

For some, the choice is between fighting or fleeing.

Fighting means risking your life or at least your health but that bargain may well be worth it because the alternative is sometime worse.

Fleeing doesn't mean you will live or be healthy.
But it does mean you are leaving behind your land, your possessions and social positions.

You can also surrender.
Against many foes, it is an acceptable strategy.
It might cost you a bit of freedom for a while but still save your life, allowing you to see your family again.
Against other foes, it's just digging your own grave, along with those of your loved ones.

It's a self evident axiom.

When the war is lost.
Or when the battle is lost and your death cannot take down an acceptable number of enemies or enemy equipment.

If it's just never surrender! shit to make a stand but means nothing to the war effort. Then I would be against it as a commander. Even if the war is lost the nation is going to need to be rebuilt or a resistance planned at another time, which cannot happen if all the men are throwing away their lives pointlessly.

No.

Attached: photo_2019-01-13_20-59-33.jpg (720x1280, 139K)

Only acceptable if the enemy you submit to is a squad of horny chicks with whom you can convince to let you go after you fuck them

Only if they surrender first.

Choose any conflict ever and I’ll tell you why it wasn’t purely fought for 1 mans financial benefit. How dumb are you to seriously assume all wars are fought for the benefit of only the upper echelon?

Well surrendering to an ally would be pretty pointless, so I'd say surrendering to the enemy would be acceptable.

What's the source doc?

What about all defensive wars? Is fighting to protect your homeland and often the actual building you call your home for the benefit of some bureaucrat?

Soldatenbuch.

Whitoids? Is this supposed to be some kind of insult? I've never actually been able to been insulted about being white to where I'm actually offended, because at the end of the day I'm still white and you are not.

It's a valid observation.

you could surrender to a neutral, like if you got over border to spain or switzerland

white non communists

It's acceptable when the only solution left is being slaughtered like cows.
Aka no ammo left to fight, no food, no water, no more able bodied men. You should always fight to the bitter end because if you're captured alive you will wish you were dead

Depends. Not to terrorists, Asian powers, religious groups, or ideologues like communists or fascists. Surrendering to any of those will usually result in death or worse since they'll either consider you an apostate or criminal to dare fight against their glorious cause and therefore not worthy to live.

Attached: POW Escort.webm (1280x720, 2.46M)

Checked and chuckled

are they jewish?
then yes. no sense in taking the risk of being stabbed in the back later for showing mercy.

t. New wave wannabe commie
Wars are fought for your land, your ideals, and your way of life. If you are willing to compromise any or all three of these you have no place in an independent society and no right to have a say in one's operation.

Attached: Commies_Tred_Nowhere.png (1017x1017, 1.13M)

If you can win in court without losing any of your property? Maybe. Any other circumstance, no.

Attached: Firefly_of_Seattle.jpg (608x456, 67K)

Do you still have ammunition? No
If not, your death would be quite pointless unless you're REALLY fast with a knife.

There's a special order for this exact scenario actually, it was devised around the 17th century.
>FIX BAYONETS

Attached: Mosin.jpg (420x252, 42K)

I'd probably kill myself first than risk getting beaten/tortured/starved for fun honestly. I was reading a first hand account earlier by Eugene Sledge of an American giving a Japanese captive a fucking glasgow smile trying to steal his tooth while he was alive. Finally somebody else shot the poor guy to end his misery. Knowing shit like that could happen if you surrendered to the wrong people makes me understand why the Japs almost always died fighting or committed suicide instead of surrendering. I would have done the same.

It's acceptable if you are a small country with no shot at even winning defensively since all it will do is further enrage and cause futile death. Also if a country has no more resources they might as well as surrender. For a country like Germany during WWII they really should have kept fighting until they could surrender to the Americans.

Cringe

>filename

Attached: 1534395418827.jpg (239x211, 10K)

Maybe you fight to die because it's glorious and life is pointless anyways. Who wants to live forever?