Deserters in T2K

[Raellus]

I thought we had a thread dedicated to this subject, but, if that is indeed the case, I couldn't find it. There's a brief discussion here (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=2126) but I figured that perhaps this topic deserved its own thread.

I was hoping for a broader treatment of the subject, but Charles Glass' The Deserters is an interesting snapshot of desertion from the U.S. and British armies during WWII. There are fairly detailed profiles of three American servicemen who deserted, and one Brit (in North Africa, of all places).

The first thing that struck me is how desertion/deserter is defined. One of the figures profiled in the book was separated from his unit and joined a group of French partisans, taking part in combat operations against German troops. Since he was AWOL from his parent unit, he was considered a deserter. So, it's very possible that survivors from the destruction of the U.S. 5th ID, for example, could be considered, by the letter of the law, as deserters.

The other thing I learned is that most deserters were men who were either new replacements or whose original units had sustained so many casualties that they consisted mostly of replacements. As a result of such large numbers of replacements, the camaraderie that bonds men together in battle was weakened to the point where a not insignificant number of American and British troops ended up deserting.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The two examples you quoted make for interesting reading, proving that "desertion" isn't so simple as the definition makes it sound.
Personally I tend to think for the Twilight War that once the "Good luck, you're on your own" order is given, desertion is meaningless in a national military sense and it's going to be defined by whoever commands a group irrespective of whatever legal, national, group size and command parameters used to apply.

[Webstral]

The first thing that struck me is how desertion/deserter is defined. One of the figures profiled in the book was separated from his unit and joined a group of French partisans, taking part in combat operations against German troops. Since he was AWOL from his parent unit, he was considered a deserter.

That's very interesting. I had always assumed that troops who were separated from their parent units and who joined whatever allied unit they could to continue the fight were ultimately credited with honorable service. Perhaps that was naive of me. If this is not the case, then many thousands of GIs and Filipino soldiers in the Philippines 1942-1944 who fought on as guerillas were deserters. They even disobeyed orders to do so. I'll have to read more on the subject.

[Matt Wiser]

They weren't as far as MacArthur was concerned. He even issued field promotions to guerilla leaders, several guys who were 2nd or 1st Lts. and wound up leading guerilla bands were promoted to Colonel on Big Mac's orders.

[Silent Hunter UK]

There is also of course deserting a unit as the conflict is completely and utterly lost, so it's really just best to go home.

[Olefin]

Thats one place where I disagree strongly with the authors of the game - i.e. that Americans and British soldiers would so easily desert their units - maybe if this was the old US army that was mostly draftees - but by the mid 90's the regular US Army was as professional as the British one was

So you know I do not extend that to units that were either made up of trainees (like the hastily raised light infantry divisions in the US) or National Guard units.

[Raellus]

Thats one place where I disagree strongly with the authors of the game - i.e. that Americans and British soldiers would so easily desert their units - maybe if this was the old US army that was mostly draftees - but by the mid 90's the regular US Army was as professional as the British one was

I'm talking about late in the Twilight War, Ole. By 2000, wouldn't a lot of front line combat troops be draftees and former REMFs Those types aren't necessarily your best trained, equipped, and motivated troops. As I mentioned in my first post, being a replacement or among replacements could sever the bonds of comradery that binds military units together. Now imagine that your unit is low on supplies. If desertion was a problem for the U.S. Army in the ETO during WWII, especially when we were clearly winning the war, I can easily see it as being doubly so c.2000. Honestly, at that point, aside from one's buddies, what would be worth fighting for If your buddies were all dead or you were stuck in a new unit with a bunch of strangers, there'd be even fewer reasons not to desert. It would be endemic.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

To go along with what Rae was talking about, I'd add that the veterans of the Twilight War might have been fighting for about half a decade and by the end of the war, they are no longer simply fighting for their country and/or a national cause. Those reasons have been ground out of them by the attrition of the war and the bonds they feel with their fellows have been created in those years. New people to the unit will be like strangers to them until the new personnel have had plenty of time to prove themselves to be competent and more importantly, prove themselves to be survivors - after years of war, you might be emotionally hardened against the death of your fellows but it doesn't mean you're going to want to befriend new people.

Then on top of all that, you have the devastation of the warzone that British & US troops will have learnt extends to their homelands - they aren't fighting any more to keep their homes safe, their homes have already been attacked and in some cases, destroyed.
I think in those last few years of the war, the psychological stress on British & US troops would be severe enough given the above factors that replacements to a unit could easily feel alienated enough to want to leave and maybe go home. Others might feel that the war is lost and lost by both sides after they started dropping nukes. Some of them would believe that since both sides have wrecked the planet, there is just nothing left worth fighting for.

[Targan]

In my last Twilight campaign there was a definite divide between the longest-serving members of the unit and the various newcomers. It fits well with reality but it wasn't artificial. There were definite trust issues with some of the newcomers, and also the newcomers were often pretty horrified at the unit's modus operandi, particularly after command passed to Major Anthony Po.

Sometimes there was movement of personnel between allied units too, often at the request of those being transferred. I think that forestalled a few instances of desertion. When Major Po's group encountered Captain Molly Warren's B Troop, 116th ACR at Dobrodzien there was a great deal of suspicion on both sides, although that was slightly mitigated by a few characters (PCs and NPCs) having met at other times during the war.

Major Po eventually tried to combine the two units and take overall command, but it didn't last very long. There was a brief civil war following a botched raid on the outskirts of Krakow, and the two units went their separate ways. A few personnel from both sides stayed with the respective new units. I think the legalities of who was technically in a state of desertion in a case like that would get very murky.

Taking it upon yourself to move to a different unit, with the permission of the receiving unit but not the original unit... I guess it would in that case come down to whether Captain Warren was found to be guilty of refusing Major Po's lawful orders or not. Warren's people were fiercely loyal to her and almost to a man ignored Po's orders once Warren was in conflict with him. Po's people had far more varied reasons for remaining loyal to him, but mostly it was fear.

[pmulcahy11b]

We kind of have it backward here, re the breakup of 5ID. The soldiers didn't desert the division -- The division deserted them.

[Cdnwolf]

I have one character who deserted from the Russians after the attack by during the last days at Kalisz. He was actually from the Ukraine but his first unit was decimated in China and he was the building core for another division sent against the Americans. When his tank was hit and most of the crew killed he grabbed the uniform of the highest ranking officer and bluffed his way out of the area. The group met him on the road to Krakow roasting rats under a bridge.

[Silent Hunter UK]

I have one character who deserted from the Russians after the attack by during the last days at Kalisz. He was actually from the Ukraine but his first unit was decimated in China and he was the building core for another division sent against the Americans. When his tank was hit and most of the crew killed he grabbed the uniform of the highest ranking officer and bluffed his way out of the area. The group met him on the road to Krakow roasting rats under a bridge.

A big question mark in the RL Cold War was just how reliable the non-Russian forces (both in the Soviet military and the NSWP forces) were going to be. I'm currently playing an Estonian deserter myself; she would like to get home to Tallinn if it's still there.

[Raellus]

In T2K, one army's deserter is another's volunteer. My favorite PC (to play) is a Latvian deserter from the Red Army serving in a small unit made up mostly of NATO troops, currently operating as freelancers in the service of the Free City of Gdansk. Although the unit operates exclusively against PACT troops (and marauders), in all likelihood, its entire membership would be considered deserters. Heck, Varis Babicevs, my Latvian PC, would be considered a deserter by both the Red and U.S. Armies!

I totally agree the lines would be blurred by 2000. The nebulous definition of deserter could lend itself to all kinds of liberties being taken, both by those labeled as deserters, and by those in positions of authority.

By 2000, I don't think that most armies would reject or punish soldiers that straggled in after days, weeks, or even months of being AWOL. Units were just too starved for experienced manpower to turn their noses up at returning deserters. That said, I think it would depend on the commander. In my essay, State of the U.S. Army in the Year 2000, I think I mentioned that some cantonment commanders had leeway to deal with criminals and deserters in any way that they saw fit. Some might take them back with open arms, no questions asked, others may detain them or assign them hard labor or other distasteful jobs that need doing, and some might execute deserters in order to send a message to the rest of the troops.

That's for deserters who return voluntarily. For those "captured" by patrols or whatever, I would expect treatment towards the harsher end of the spectrum would be fairly common.

If a more liberal policy was in place, I can see troops giving themselves extended leaves- in other words, temporary desertion. On an interesting, somewhat related side-note, that was one common form of passive resistance carried out by slaves in the antebellum South- running away for a day or two. Apparently, many slave masters chose to look the other way, as long as the runaway returned before too long.

[pmulcahy11b]

By 2000, I don't think that most armies would reject or punish soldiers that straggled in after days, weeks, or even months of being AWOL. Units were just too starved for experienced manpower to turn their noses up at returning deserters. That said, I think it would depend on the commander.

I'm sure his orders would be for everyone to watch the former deserter carefully.

BTW, 3 days gone without permission is considered UA (Unauthorized Absence). This is normally punished by a Summerized Article 15, and most of the punishments listed would have no meaning in a T2K world. Perhaps the only one would be Extra Duty -- make him do extra perimeter patrols, link ammunition, dig mud out of roadwheels, etc.

From 4-29 days missing, you are AWOL (Absent WithOut Leave). Punishments for this can range from a Commander's level full Article 15; again, most of the punishments are meaningless in a T2K world. They would probably go back to Extra Duty, but with more heinous details. Another one they used to do in Vietnam is to make him walk point for a prolonged period of time (days to weeks) -- something that can get you killed quickly.

In all cases, in a wartime scenario, you would have to make sure that the PC/NPC was really missing without a legitimate excuse. This is usually done with a commander's or JAG investigation -- something probably not going to happen in a T2K world.

30 days or later, you are officially a deserter. Punishments in wartime range from bread and water rations to execution. To me, you can no longer trust this person. Execution, or at least stripping him of all weapons or gear then dropping him off in a hot area would be acceptable to me in a T2K world. In the real world, desertion usually puts you in a federal prison (don't know how long) for a long time. But realistically, the military doesn't spend a lot of time rounding up deserters.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The trust issue is another part of the grey area with desertion. Paul mentions that if a soldier was a deserter, he would not put any trust in that soldier but I think this is also something that's going to vary between different units, commanders and probably more importantly, different nationalities.

To me, it would be paramount to find out the reasons for why the person went absent and for how long they were absent (to decide if they really had deserted, given that the period of absence generally seems to be around 30 days before they are declared as a deserter - something that's going to be difficult to keep track of given the number of devastated units & lack of admin trail at year 2000).

I tend to think that even in the T2k world, there would be no standard treatment and deserters would be taking a gamble any time they asked to join up with a unit. I'm certain there would be some units who would execute deserters and I'm certain there would be commanders with a different point of view. For example, if someone wandered away from their unit because they were shellshocked, I'd like to believe that their condition would be recognized as the mental health issue that it is and not a case of them simply running away from their responsibilities. And then there's the question of is the person actually deserting or are they defecting From the point of view of the unit they left, they're a deserter but for the unit they just joined, they're a defector - what happens with the trust issue then

Then we start getting into the aspects of game design that were taken to make the game interesting - if you treat every deserter as someone to be executed, you lose the chance for the PC unit to comprise various nationalities. Plus you lose one of the tropes of the T2k game, the WarPac soldier who hates the communists/Soviets/Russians and just like it would happen in the game world, someone (in this case, the Referee) is going to have to decide who is a deserter and who is a defector.