RIP Sir Rex Hunt

[Captain Seafort]

Beeb

After Argentine forces landed on the islands in April 2 1982, Sir Rex took the difficult decision to order the token group of British marines defending the territory to surrender.

He put on his full ceremonial uniform and told the invading commander: "You have landed unlawfully on British territory and I order you to remove yourself and your troops forthwith."

Now that is how to respond to obnoxious unwanted visitors.

[Teaos]

Pure class.

[Deepcrush]

Not brightest of persons it appears, but at least he seemed to handle well with civilian concerns. Not everyone is meant to be a soldier though.

[Captain Seafort]

Not brightest of persons it appears

In what way?

Not everyone is meant to be a soldier though.

True, but he did well during the invasion.

[Deepcrush]

In what way?

Walking up to an enemy who is invading your soil and telling them to leave. The fact that they are invading you should give you a hint.

True, but he did well during the invasion.

He surrendered, so while he did well with helping the Argentine secure the islands. There are only three sins for a Marine. Surrender, retreat and dishonor. As a governor a surrender alone is acceptable, as a Marine it is not.

[Teaos]

I didn't know you were Japanese.

[Captain Seafort]

Walking up to an enemy who is invading your soil and telling them to leave.

The order to "remove yourself and your troops forthwith" came after several hours of fighting, that had resulted in several dead Argies and a blown up LVTP-7 for no British casualties. Hunt was simply making absolutely clear that the Argies were unwelcome invaders, with all the considerable dignity and defiance he could muster.

He surrendered, so while he did well with helping the Argentine secure the islands. There are only three sins for a Marine. Surrender, retreat and dishonor.

The first two do not imply the latter (the retreat from Chosin was hardly dishonourable, or a sin). Given the situation (light infantry outnumbered a dozen to one, short of ammunition, with no anti-armour rounds left, surrounded by a force with armour and air support) only a drooling moron would have continued to resist to the last man. NP8901 had put up sufficient resistance to demonstrate that a) the Argies were unwelcome and b) man-for-man they were better soldiers. Once those two facts were established, continuing to fight for no purpose would have been the sin.

[Mikey]

I didn't know you were Japanese.

Better, he's thinking of the USMC. "Death smiles at everyone; [U.S.] Marines smile back."

[Deepcrush]

I didn't know you were Japanese.

I didn't say suicide charges and rice pudding.

The order to "remove yourself and your troops forthwith" came after several hours of fighting, that had resulted in several dead Argies and a blown up LVTP-7 for no British casualties. Hunt was simply making absolutely clear that the Argies were unwelcome invaders, with all the considerable dignity and defiance he could muster.

The numbers of losses aren't important, neither is his attempt to present himself as a POW. His defiance was token at best which is a harsh break to the traditions a Marine should hold. His defiance would have been better served by sending the message via a POW and continuing to resist even if by raiding actions.

The first two do not imply the latter (the retreat from Chosin was hardly dishonourable, or a sin). Given the situation (light infantry outnumbered a dozen to one, short of ammunition, with no anti-armour rounds left, surrounded by a force with armour and air support) only a drooling moron would have continued to resist to the last man. NP8901 had put up sufficient resistance to demonstrate that a) the Argies were unwelcome and b) man-for-man they were better soldiers. Once those two facts were established, continuing to fight for no purpose would have been the sin.

The three are separate matters, all of which lead to disgrace. If you lack on an item, you engage with another. If you lack all, then you take from the enemy. The only thing that his surrender was able to demonstrate was that England's Marines were not up to the task of defending their nations soil. Continuing to fight would have served to show the Argentine forces that further aggression would have only been more costly.

It boils down to two simple facts. He was a good governor, but a poor Marine.

[Captain Seafort]

His defiance was token at best

Absolutely. Any more would have lead to purposeless loss of life, and would therefore have been dishonourable.

The three are separate matters, all of which lead to disgrace.

Then the actions of the 1st US Marine Division in Korea were disgraceful. Not only did they retreat, but they were arguing strongly in favour of doing so long before their (US Army) Corps Commander instructed them to.

The actions of the USMC on Wake Island were likewise disgraceful, as they surrendered having suffered fewer than fifty men killed out of a total force of well over four hundred.

Continuing to fight would have served to show the Argentine forces that further aggression would have only been more costly.

8901 had already given them a very nasty fright. Continuing to fight would have achieved absolutely nothing except a lot of dead bodies.

He was a good governor, but a poor Marine.

He was a good governor, but he was never a marine, good or bad. Major Mike Norman was a bloody good marine, which he demonstrated by giving the Argies a hard fight, surrendering when ordered to to avoid purposeless loss of life, and then coming back with J Coy 42 Cdo to put his flag back up.

[Deepcrush]

Absolutely. Any more would have lead to purposeless loss of life, and would therefore have been dishonourable.

It would have delayed the enemy and showed a continued will to fight while inflicting losses on the enemy. There is nothing dishonorable about a Marine doing the job he is paid to do.

Then the actions of the 1st US Marine Division in Korea were disgraceful. Not only did they retreat, but they were arguing strongly in favour of doing so long before their (US Army) Corps Commander instructed them to.

You should look up the difference between retreating from battle and fortifying to the rear for fallback. Its a pretty common battlefield tactic when outnumbered.

The actions of the USMC on Wake Island were likewise disgraceful, as they surrendered having suffered fewer than fifty men killed out of a total force of well over four hundred.

The surrender of Wake Island was first off at the command of the USN, secondly part of an offer by the IJN to protect the lives of the civilians on the Island, third was a four day resistance against a force that outnumbered them more then 100:1, forth and lastly set the tone of the USMC actions for the rest of the war that the Japanese wouldn't be able to expect the quick surrenders the gained from the British out of the Americans. Far from disgraceful, those matters helped spur on allied resistance in the Pacific.

8901 had already given them a very nasty fright. Continuing to fight would have achieved absolutely nothing except a lot of dead bodies.

Really... do tell... people dying at war. Strange thought isn't it (sarcasm). The point of killing your enemy is in fact to kill him, which as a matter of fact does lead to dead bodies.

He was a good governor, but he was never a marine, good or bad. Major Mike Norman was a bloody good marine, which he demonstrated by giving the Argies a hard fight, surrendering when ordered to to avoid purposeless loss of life, and then coming back with J Coy 42 Cdo to put his flag back up.

A hard fight? What the fuck is that??? What kind of a fight is a hard or easy fight? Its not a golf game, its war.

[Captain Seafort]

It would have delayed the enemy

For no purpose - the closest reinforcements were at least eight weeks away.

You should look up the difference between retreating from battle and fortifying to the rear for fallback.

One involves breaking contact and moving away from the main concentration of enemy forces, the other involves breaking contact and moving away from the main concentration of enemy forces. I can see the vast difference between the two.

The surrender of Wake Island was first off at the command of the USN , secondly part of an offer by the IJN to protect the lives of the civilians on the Island, third was a four day resistance against a force that outnumbered them more then 100:1, forth and lastly set the tone of the USMC actions for the rest of the war that the Japanese wouldn't be able to expect the quick surrenders the gained from the British out of the Americans. Far from disgraceful, those matters helped spur on allied resistance in the Pacific.

So,

There are only three sins for a Marine. Surrender, retreat and dishonor.

The three are separate matters, all of which lead to disgrace.

only applies when you want it to then.

The point of killing your enemy is in fact to kill him

No, the point of killing your enemy is as a means to achieve specific military objectives in support of the overall political objective of enforcing your government's will on his government. Since the only remotely realistic objective (to demonstrate that the presence of Argentine troops was unwelcome) had been achieved, there was no military or political value in continued resistance.

A hard fight? What the fuck is that??? What kind of a fight is a hard or easy fight? Its not a golf game, its war.

Point conceded. The fact that Major Norman was an excellent soldier, who frankly achieved more than could realistically have been expected of him given the circumstances, remains.