6 ms·
> you are much-much less inclined to shoot them and stop being an efficient soldier. But you also take the other side's soldiers out, in the same way. Why woul
by wizzwizz4 2y ago
> you are much-much less inclined to shoot them and stop being an efficient soldier.
But you also take the other side's soldiers out, in the same way. Why wouldn't commanding officers like that?
- short_sells_poo 2y agoI'm not a military thinker, so I might well be off on this, but I'd say because that would usually results in a draw, whereas the commanding officers generally want to win so that they can achieve the overall plan set out by strategic command - and want to achieve a crushing victory from which the opponent cannot recover from. I guess an army on the retreat who would favor an instant draw would favor the fraternizing, but generally by that point the winning army - including the soldiers - are not amenable to stop their advance and play a friendly game of football.
- cperciva 2y agoThe morale of your troops is known. The morale of the opposing troops is suspected but not certain. WW1 ended because the influenza epidemic was devastating the troops on both sides but neither side knew for certain how hard it was hitting the other side.
- wizzwizz4 2y agoAh, yes. Spanish flu: so-named because (neutral) Spain was one of the few countries not lying about whether they had it.