In the traditional concept, being a soldier was once regarded as a dishonorable profession, but now some people say: "I regret being a soldier for three years, and I regret not being a soldier for a lifetime." "Is this notion really outdated?In fact, serving as a soldier to defend the country is an honorable and respectable duty. However, it is not easy to survive on the battlefield, especially in the age of hot weapons, and some soldiers may resort to "playing dead" to avoid danger. But does playing dead work?Let's have a hard time.
First of all, back in the era of cold weapons, the tools of battle were swords, guns, swords, and halberds, and the cruelty on the battlefield was always the same. Although playing dead may be a temporary escape, if the opponent wins in the end, the person who pretends to be dead may face an even more tragic fate. In ancient times, merit was usually determined by the number of enemies killed or captured. The victor will resort to a variety of methods, including cutting out the enemy's ears, in order to gain more success. Is it still a wise choice to play dead in this situation?
However, even in the era of hot weapons, playing dead is still not a good way to save your life. Recruits may ask if it is easier to succeed in playing dead in modern warfareThe veteran's answer may have chilled their hearts.
Playing dead can lead to three tragic endings. First, he was shot by his own people. There is a team of overseers on the battlefield who are responsible for enforcing discipline. If a soldier is found to have retreated or fled without permission, the Overseer may immediately shoot him. This will not only cost the soldier his life, but also leave the stigma of desertion. Even if they are lucky enough to escape the punishment of the Warlords, the soldiers may face a second tragic end—the enemy clearing the battlefield.
Looking back at the battle between the United States and Japan during World War II, some truths were revealed in the movie "Hacksaw Ridge". At that time, some U.S. soldiers were wounded or feared death and chose to play dead. However, once the large forces retreated and the Japanese army had won, they would begin to clear the battlefield. The Japanese army may repair the American troops on the ground with swords or guns, even if they pretend to be dead, they will not be spared. If you are lucky enough to avoid all this, you will eventually face a third tragic fate - the body may be incinerated.
To sum up, playing dead on the battlefield is an extremely stupid act. Only those who have never experienced war and have never been a soldier may think that playing dead is a means of escape. It is not easy to be a soldier, but when faced with danger, a true warrior should face it bravely, not take some meaningless action. Perhaps, we should re-examine the value of being a soldier and the enormous sacrifices made by those who gave their lives for the country and the people.
This article profoundly examines the feasibility of "playing dead" on the battlefield and analyzes the tragic end of this practice from a historical perspective. By comparing the war environment in the era of cold weapons and the era of hot weapons, the author shows readers the possible consequences of playing dead in different historical backgrounds. It seems to me that the article, through vivid descriptions and powerful arguments, manages to convey its core theme: playing dead on the battlefield is a stupid and dangerous choice.
First of all, the article focuses on the negative perception of traditional ideas about being a soldier, mentioning the common saying that "a good iron does not hit a nail, and a good man does not serve a soldier". Subsequently, the author cites the saying that "I regret being a soldier for three years, but I regret not being a soldier for a lifetime", highlighting the re-recognition of the profession of being a soldier today. This clever opening technique has succeeded in piquing the reader's interest and making them willing to continue to learn more about the practical application of "playing dead" on the battlefield.
Secondly, through the analysis of the era of cold weapons, the article explains the infeasibility of playing dead in this period. By referring to the fact that ancient military exploits were determined by killing enemies or captives, and the means by which the victorious side obtained them, the author succeeds in revealing the serious consequences that pretending to be dead could have faced during this period. This historical contrast gives the reader a better understanding of the risk of playing dead, and lays a solid foundation for the argument that follows.
Then, the article shifts to the age of hot weapons, and through the description of the modern war situation, the reader questions the expectation of playing dead. By mentioning the existence of the Warlords and the possible clean-up operations on the battlefield, the author provides an in-depth understanding of whether "playing dead" is feasible. By quoting the plot of "Hacksaw Ridge", this part of the content more vividly shows how the enemy cleans up the pretended dead on the battlefield, making the reader more empathetic.
Finally, the article summarizes the three miserable ends, that is, being shot by one's own people, the enemy cleaning up the battlefield, and being burned. This clear and powerful summary provides strong support for the conclusion of the article. Through this summary, the reader has a deeper understanding of the stupid nature of "playing dead" on the battlefield.
Overall, this review takes a serious and deep look at the core content of the article. Through the analysis and argumentation of the author's arguments, I deeply feel the persuasiveness and logic of this article. Through the lens of history, the author successfully conveys to the reader the hardships of the profession of soldiering, and warns of the possible consequences of irrational behavior on the battlefield.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!