Talk:List of foreign volunteers

Separation?

It seems to me this article might be better off separated into two sections: first, the Foreign volunteers article about what FVs are, how they are distinguished from mercs, conscripts, etc, plus a general overview of the history; second, a List of foreign volunteer units to contain all those units currently listed in this article. The way the article currently stands, the actual information about what FVs are is almost nonexistent.

Initial assessment

Not sure it needs a formal separation - the discussion of FVs would be better with context of examples IMO. It does however need a better discussion of what FVs are. Also the current definition does not seem to fit all units e.g. the discussion about US forces makes it clear most of these volunteers are motivated by personal gain, which the current definition in the header makes them mercenaries. I would suggest it needs to cover at least three categories; ideological volunteers, adventurers and those seeking non-financial benefits (welfare, education, citizenship). It could do with a longer historical perspective too - most examples at 19th. century and later. And, of course, it gives no references at all. So far, can't really rate it better than stub. However, it is a subject worth some work by interested editors - I will flag on the task force pageMonstrelet (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Examples

This appears to primarily be an historical listing and context, however we are today seeing fairly high amounts of 'volunteer combatants' from different countries fighting in current wars. For instance, you have Europeans and Americans (in the continental sense, though also applies to the US specifically) volunteering in Syria, among other volunteers, to fight with the Kurdish/SDF forces. You have accounts of Europeans from different countries fighting on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine. On the other side of the coin, you have the phenomenon of global Jihad and its ability to bring different militant-hopefuls into the fold of various networks (wasn't a fairly high-profile example - an American caught in 2001 fighting for the Taliban - recently freed from prison?). Then you have the concepts of legality, which without a doubt deserves its own section. While you may have laws on the books prohibiting citizens of a country to fight in a foreign military institutions as combatants, these laws are enforced sparingly at best depending on local political context. For instance you have the Lincoln Brigade of Spanish Civil War fame BOTH held in high regard and shunned over the course of a decade. You have the recent instances of British subjects being arrested for fighting with the Kurds in Syria and the strange boondoggle that's become in terms of legality. (It technically being on the same side as the government of the UK - while putting it at odds with an 'ally' of the UK, Turkey - making it on the same side as one's government but an enemy of that government's supposed 'friends'. This of course overshadowed by the long history of British subjects serving in other military organizations in varying capacities over the years).

Additionally, a small section or even just sub-section should exist on the use of foreign 'volunteers' being used as a plausibly-deniable cover for what is in reality government-directed actions. Examples of this include much of the Fascist Italian involvement in the Spanish Civil War and the 1999 conflict between Pakistan and India. I believe Russia also tried to employ this tactic in the early months of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, as well. I think it's important to note this nuance - it's more widespread than one might initially believe but it pops up again and again throughout history. (Especially WWII) 2601:87:4400:AF2:DCB7:13F:4B84:1883 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)