Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> It's a hard pill to swallow that "cowardly" surrender can often be objectively better than "stubborn" bravery

One old saying around these parts of the world (Romania) can be translated roughly like this: "The bowed head doesn't get cut by the sword", which explains like at least half of our history, seeing as we've never been a major regional power while being surrounded by 3 empires for at least a couple of centuries (the Ottomans, the Russians, the Habsburgs) and we still managed to keep a certain level of autonomy throughout the centuries. The Poles were a little bit more courageous than us and that attitude saw their country split into three.




> The Poles were a little bit more courageous than us and that attitude saw their country split into three.

This is very simplistic way to describe reasons behind partitioning of Poland, which was by then standards very large multiethnic country with borders from Baltic to Black Sea and ability to raise considerable military power to defend its borders in times of need.

Commonwealth's dissolution came from the inside. There was no centralization of power in Poland. King was de-facto figurehead with real power being divided between hundreds of nobles. Everybody else was professionalizing their military, but that was impossible to do in Poland because we were 18th century country that relied on King rallying nobles rallying their bannermen for military. There was no chain of command, grand strategy or even unified arsenal. That was ridiculous but nobles wanted it to stay that way so king or congress could never contest their power. What happened instead was country being partitioned and nobility getting the boot from new rulers that did not tolerate private kingdoms, private armies or having to negotiate with every single noble if they wanted to change something.


"having to negotiate with every single noble if they wanted to change something"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto


I think that your post kind of proves my point, as in you're taking it for granted that you needed an army in order to survive as a country (even as not really independent). That was not always so.


"The better part of valour is discretion; in the which better part I have saved my life."

- Falstaff the comedic coward in Shakespeare's Henry the Fourth


There is the counter quote by Churchill: "Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those who surrendered tamely were finished."


I'm glad that the "The bowed head doesn't get cut by the sword" strategy worked well for them and led to survival for a lot of people in the region.

Sometimes, though, the bowed head gets cut anyway, and surrendering in response to a promise of mercy leads to genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

I guess I'd say it's a strat that probably works more often than it doesn't, but your own mileage may vary.


I just read through that out of curiosity, and it says the Japanese sent in a leaflet demanding surrender within 24 hours, or "no mercy" would be shown. The Chinese did not respond.

While Nanking was an awful massacre if not genocide, it doesn't have a narrative against the Romanian proverb.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: