>obligatory war crime scene
there is usually no merit in shooting a prisoner of war
it accomplishes nothing and only serves to make operations harder down the line by encouraging the enemy to refuse to surrender later on
the only time shooting a surrending enemy is actually recommended is if they were in a different sides uniform, which in itself is war crime
>only serves to make operations harder down the line by encouraging the enemy to refuse to surrender later on
how would word get out? they just took the d-day beach and all the nearby germans are dead or captured. literally no way for germans to know in this situation
>how would word get out?
because once you have done it repeatedly and consistently over a period of several months, you will develop a reputation for it
better not to do it at all
it serves no tactical or strategic purpose
>because once you have done it repeatedly and consistently over a period of several months, you will develop a reputation for it
how? by a little birdie? they were executed behind the fog of war and germans never reclaimed the territory
i get what you are saying but at the same time you are posting pseudo know it all crap. possibly, yes. but unlikely. especially this late in the war. word of americans attacking during the Laconia rescue got out only because the u boot got away and reported it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>people cant possibly find this out >therefore we should do it
this might be hard for you to imagine, but if you develop certain things as a habit, and do things regularly, they will be increasingly hard to keep secret the more they are done
hence, dont kill surrendering enemies
you gain nothing
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you gain nothing
No need to feed them, no need to care for them. It also raises your army's morale by allowing them to punish vicious inhuman enemies.
I see some gains.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No need to feed them, no need to care for them.
these are ultimately small concerns for the army as a whole
if even germany could afford to feed their prisoners then there is no argument that would stand for the better equipped and better supplied allies >It also raises your army's morale by allowing them to punish vicious inhuman enemies.
an armys institutional morale is not hinged on how brutally they can treat their opponents
and a significant portion of the psychological battle against germany was billing themselves as geneva-compliant
which went a long way in encouraging surrenders from the opponent
allowing any kind of deviation detracts from the overall strategy
2 years ago
Anonymous
>these are ultimately small concerns for the army as a whole
2 years ago
Anonymous
It reduces or eliminates incentive for more of the enemy to surrender.
Because when families of soldiers and the government in charge of those soldiers finds out that they haven't been sent names, pictures, and ransoms for the missing in action soldiers they figure it out really quick that you israelites don't let gentiles live when you can get away with murder.
Capturing enemy soldiers is a big propaganda boost as well as an inevitable fact of war.
You will never except with indescriminate bombing find any group of soldiers who will never find themselves reduced to a man who doesn't want to die, or a have a man who has something to live for, or someone knocked unconscious, or someone who actively surrenders.
There ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERS IN ANY LARGE OPERATION.
EXCEPT when israelites take no prisoners.
>germans caring about forced czech conscripts
you can just send them over on a list of dead instead of captured
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Germans were an honorable and humanitarian fighting force and your nonstop lies and vampiric drain of their history for israeli profit is being ended by truth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>starts war against poland unprovoked >starts war against USSR unprovoked >invades denmark, netherlands, belgium, and norway unprovoked >bombs london civilians >bombs historical monuments >kills 10+ million civilians in holocaust
naw germany is objectively evil and the bad guys. they were dishonorable to the extreme and not humanitarian in the slightest. you are a revisionist moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
[...]
war against poland unprovoked
bromberg nassacreS, but so did the russians and you dont care about that
[...]
war against USSR unprovoked
Ideological enemies, just like america does with everyone post ww2
[...]
denmark, netherlands, belgium, and norway unprovoked
So did the allies and britain was already planning to invade norway
[...]
london civilians
churchill bombed german civilians first and was famous for night raid civilian terror bombing
[...]
historical monuments
So did the allies especially all over france
[...]
10+ million civilians in holocaust
It's actually 22 million you disgusting holocaust denier
2 years ago
Anonymous
Allow me to refute your post, point by point.
>bromberg nassacreS, but so did the russians and you dont care about that
meds
>Ideological enemies, just like america does with everyone post ww2
meds
>So did the allies and britain was already planning to invade norway
meds
>churchill bombed german civilians first and was famous for night raid civilian terror bombing
meds
>So did the allies especially all over france
meds
>It's actually 22 million you disgusting holocaust denier
meds
2 years ago
Anonymous
I will NEVER take my meds!
2 years ago
Anonymous
we can tell
2 years ago
Anonymous
we can tell
2 years ago
Anonymous
i can tell you are someone who never owns up to her mistakes
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's actually 22 million you disgusting holocaust denier
Proofs?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No but they were definitely better than the Russians (unless you were israeli lmao).
American pows could yap, or scouts could watch you doing it. Of course, as soon as anyone makes the claim, you're becoming propaganda fuel, and then they all know.
I remember hearing that there was a trend of machinegun bunkers holding out and surrendering quite literally as they were being overrun. I don't know what my opinion is of it, but it's something that wouldn't impact future surrenders.
I've heard people say that about d-day machine gunners but somehow I dont think people would be ok with US G.I.s being executed if the roles were reversed
Sometime you can benefit from it when you don't have the accomodation or the manpower to absorb such surrender. In general, US army was responsible for quite a few summary execution, most in the pacific, but not only.
Aussies are like Canucks but with high test levels. Unbelievable that their government is even more pozzed than canada. I think it's their further proximity to freedomland.
Only under 2 conditions. Either they previously committed war crimes and thusly do not deserve to be treated in accordance with laws they do not abide by or they prefer creamy peanut butter over crunchy
Those were Czechs actually. Many US companies were told to take no pow on d-day because they had no way to deal with them
https://www.ronaldspeirs.com/reputation/controversies/
Just shoot them and then claim they did it themselves. You can even hang people you don't like later for these war crimes so its a double if not even triple win.
Under most circumstances, no. But, not all circumstances are equal, so I can imagine some more extreme situations where I have to be honest with myself and I would.
If I had strong reason to believe the enemy was not sincere about surrendering, especially if they had just performed some act that amounted to a war crime and were just trying to save their own skin, for example. Also, shooting an enemy is not always the same as shooting to kill. Shooting to disable is on the table, and NOT killing an enemy with one or two well-placed shots could arguably be "battlefield justice" where surviving might not be a preferable option to death.
>he hasn't seen the video of prisoners getting their knees blown out
Your post could be the most idiotic post I've seen on /k/ today. But, the day is still young, so (You) might be able to best yourself yet.
If they were committing a war while pretending it was a Special Military Operation, they have already forfeited any mercy or consideration for quarter. They are just murderers invading my home. Pile the corpses high and fertilize the fields deep, pray that I decide to shoot to kill.
>young lads that dont know what the frick is going on ? and/or look like a fricking twink
no, i understand that he willingly or unwillingly was stupid enough to join the war, and still has a whole life to straighten up >la creaturas / el abominacio / boomers
"click,click"
Wow I gotta be the guy to say this?
In that scene, when they're shooting them for being germans/nazis, the guys are shouting at them in Romanian that they're romanian. Romanians got conscripted and forced to man the defenses. Poor frickers.
So no, hypothetically I wouldn't. POWs are more valuable than dead bodies, they can carry themselves out of the battle.
Depends on the conflict. Ideally no, when dealing with either A) surrendering forces known to fake surrender or suicide attack (Pacific theater Japs), B) forces known to have commited war crimes against your side en mass (executing your POWs en mass, murdering your civilians on mass, etc.), or C) caught in the act of committing war crimes, then they should be executed.
It's probably better for everyone though if the Pandora's box of killing people already out of the fight is left closed
ooh a tough one. if it was a slow fight low casualties proly no.
BUT if i lost my loved ones or friends proly would.
Inb4 no warcrime shit. just mow the frickers down, if you had fricking balls to throw that on me what u just did and i fricking survived and my mates didnt, frick you, your buddies and you are going straight to wich option you chose with your priest or whateva.
inb4 serbian
its all about emotion, do you get carried away. is the war defending or you on conquering side. shit. there is a lot of factors.
i proly wouldnt if were conquering and they fight for their country, would do warcrimes on invaders tho.
Of course. Enemy life by definition has no value and the choice to war is proof. All you do when you kill someone is shorten a life that ends in death so NBD.
>If you speak the language, those guys are screaming that they are conscripts that were forced to fight for the Germans and don't even want to be there >Americans blow them away >First American says "What were they saying"?" >Second American replies "Look mother, I washed my hands for dinner! Hahaha"
Depends on how "in charge" of a squad I am. If I feel like they'll shoot them if they do something wrong I'd prefer to just rough them up. Live people are more valuable than corpses. If I don't really trust people to shoot someone when I'm shaking them down I'd rather pretend they presented a threat and shoot them. Once someone shoots them someone else gets spooked and shoots them it's sort of a everybody shot them deal and I'm not a crazy killer sort of thing.
Only Communists and Political Commissars, as they are the primarily carriers and spreaders of the Red Plague. Hitler made the right decision with the Commissar Order, in which ALL Bolshevik political officers were to be turned over to local SS immediately for liquidation.
Otherwise no, it's in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Frick that what i want to know is whats up with the image streeking in those scenes? All of the copies, streams and broadcasts of this film have the same defects yet years ago it was not an issue.
Pilots, Politicians, Artillerists and Sharpshooters yes ofc. Also everyone involved in chemical, biological or nuclear warfare as well as enemies targetting civilian infrastructure.
Typically no, but there are certain situations where it's the practical decision. If I'm in hostile territory on route to (not from) an objective, have no good way to accommodate prisoners, and can't afford the risk of turning a hostile loose, then I may kill a surrendering enemy. Not out of malice but out of expediency. It's the rare exception because we cannot afford to do otherwise in that moment; it is not the rule. And that's only in the case of a few survivors from an enemy patrol or something. In the case of larger scale surrenders, never.
Not unless there was some reason to do so tbqh. For example if I was well forward of the main element and had no means of controlling them or keeping them contained. But generally shooting prisoners is Black person behavior imo.
Politicians, journalists, bankers, and occupiers that have previously been given a chance to leave get to face the wall. They had a chance to surrender, cease operations, and leave when it mattered.
If they were Russians that manned the thermobaric rocket launchera, then sure. One of the longstanding traditions / unwritten rules of war, is that anyone using a flamethrower doesn't get to surrwnder. The same should apply to the thermobaric or vacuum munition operators.
Militia not wearing a uniform (aka Muslim terrorists typically such as the Taliban and ISIS) should be ahot after a speedy trial.
I wouldn't shoot/kill PoW or innocents
But I would rape every civilian woman I could
I would frick so much and impregnate so many half the country would be my relatives
You don't actually have to accept a surrender. Under international law, putting your hands up/waving a white flag is a request to parley at which point terms of surrender can be laid out. These terms can be rejected however. Doing this is frowned upon, but not actually illegal. The argument can be made that only the ranking officer can accept or decline a surrender and that the enlisted man must taking the surrendering party to an officer however it's also within an officer's right to give his men a standing order not to accept any offers of surrender or parley.
Tl;dr It's mostly legal for a soldier to say "I do not accept your surrender" before shooting an enemy with his hands up.
Would I personally kill someone who was requesting parley however? It depends on who it was and what war I was fighting. Were I fighting in Ukraine for example, yes as they would execute me if I surrendered. If I was fighting in a gentleman's war where are the typical rules and expectations are followed, no. Where I on a D-Day esque mission in which taking prisoners would compromise the objective, then I don't know. I think I'd do it if I had to but I'd say that the highest rank present has the moral obligation to be the one do it.
Inter arma enim silent leges, but your post is wrong.
>Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899. [USA signed: 29.07.1899, ratified: 09.04.1902]
>Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited >... >(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; >(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
And this is why we have an officer corps, because if we let grunts do what they love most ("kill! burn! maim!") wars would be far more brutal and last longer, since the whole convention would fall apart.
Much better to execute a few of your own soldiers for war crimes than to let their moronic actions make the war drag on longer.
No, I would not, and I would heavily encourage my squadmates to not either. I would also treat the civilians as well as possible of course. Then I would enjoy the benefit of rolling through the whole enemy army as all their men just surrender because they know that they'll get out of this hellhole, a warm bed, and their stomachs filled.
I think Russia might have won the war in Ukraine by this point if their soldiers weren't such uncivilized degenerates.
>I think Russia might have won the war in Ukraine by this point if their soldiers weren't such uncivilized degenerates.
Russians are really a real-life parody at this point: "see problem? use violence! problem not gone? more violence! WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!"
Only the politicians.
put me on le screencap, fellas
add journalists and oligarchs and you're golden
WITNESSED.
WITNESSED
basado
You beautiful motherfricker.
Yes if im behind the lines and can't afford him returning to his regiment.
Are they Russian?
Russians are not human, therefore you can't commit warcrimes against them.
have a pity (You), gay, but don't get used to it
he isnt wrong trough
tiblas deserve a bullet and history shows that
>Russians bad, they commit warcrimes
>Therefore I must commit war crimes myself
Reddit moment
same with israelites right?
Would you download a car?
>obligatory war crime scene
there is usually no merit in shooting a prisoner of war
it accomplishes nothing and only serves to make operations harder down the line by encouraging the enemy to refuse to surrender later on
the only time shooting a surrending enemy is actually recommended is if they were in a different sides uniform, which in itself is war crime
>only serves to make operations harder down the line by encouraging the enemy to refuse to surrender later on
how would word get out? they just took the d-day beach and all the nearby germans are dead or captured. literally no way for germans to know in this situation
>how would word get out?
because once you have done it repeatedly and consistently over a period of several months, you will develop a reputation for it
better not to do it at all
it serves no tactical or strategic purpose
>because once you have done it repeatedly and consistently over a period of several months, you will develop a reputation for it
how? by a little birdie? they were executed behind the fog of war and germans never reclaimed the territory
>we can do it just this once, no one will remember it
>says this every single time they do it
>why do our enemies refuse to surrender?
i get what you are saying but at the same time you are posting pseudo know it all crap. possibly, yes. but unlikely. especially this late in the war. word of americans attacking during the Laconia rescue got out only because the u boot got away and reported it
>people cant possibly find this out
>therefore we should do it
this might be hard for you to imagine, but if you develop certain things as a habit, and do things regularly, they will be increasingly hard to keep secret the more they are done
hence, dont kill surrendering enemies
you gain nothing
>you gain nothing
No need to feed them, no need to care for them. It also raises your army's morale by allowing them to punish vicious inhuman enemies.
I see some gains.
>No need to feed them, no need to care for them.
these are ultimately small concerns for the army as a whole
if even germany could afford to feed their prisoners then there is no argument that would stand for the better equipped and better supplied allies
>It also raises your army's morale by allowing them to punish vicious inhuman enemies.
an armys institutional morale is not hinged on how brutally they can treat their opponents
and a significant portion of the psychological battle against germany was billing themselves as geneva-compliant
which went a long way in encouraging surrenders from the opponent
allowing any kind of deviation detracts from the overall strategy
>these are ultimately small concerns for the army as a whole
It reduces or eliminates incentive for more of the enemy to surrender.
Because when families of soldiers and the government in charge of those soldiers finds out that they haven't been sent names, pictures, and ransoms for the missing in action soldiers they figure it out really quick that you israelites don't let gentiles live when you can get away with murder.
Capturing enemy soldiers is a big propaganda boost as well as an inevitable fact of war.
You will never except with indescriminate bombing find any group of soldiers who will never find themselves reduced to a man who doesn't want to die, or a have a man who has something to live for, or someone knocked unconscious, or someone who actively surrenders.
There ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERS IN ANY LARGE OPERATION.
EXCEPT when israelites take no prisoners.
>germans caring about forced czech conscripts
you can just send them over on a list of dead instead of captured
The Germans were an honorable and humanitarian fighting force and your nonstop lies and vampiric drain of their history for israeli profit is being ended by truth.
>starts war against poland unprovoked
>starts war against USSR unprovoked
>invades denmark, netherlands, belgium, and norway unprovoked
>bombs london civilians
>bombs historical monuments
>kills 10+ million civilians in holocaust
naw germany is objectively evil and the bad guys. they were dishonorable to the extreme and not humanitarian in the slightest. you are a revisionist moron
war against poland unprovoked
bromberg nassacreS, but so did the russians and you dont care about that
war against USSR unprovoked
Ideological enemies, just like america does with everyone post ww2
denmark, netherlands, belgium, and norway unprovoked
So did the allies and britain was already planning to invade norway
london civilians
churchill bombed german civilians first and was famous for night raid civilian terror bombing
historical monuments
So did the allies especially all over france
10+ million civilians in holocaust
It's actually 22 million you disgusting holocaust denier
Allow me to refute your post, point by point.
>bromberg nassacreS, but so did the russians and you dont care about that
meds
>Ideological enemies, just like america does with everyone post ww2
meds
>So did the allies and britain was already planning to invade norway
meds
>churchill bombed german civilians first and was famous for night raid civilian terror bombing
meds
>So did the allies especially all over france
meds
>It's actually 22 million you disgusting holocaust denier
meds
I will NEVER take my meds!
we can tell
we can tell
i can tell you are someone who never owns up to her mistakes
>It's actually 22 million you disgusting holocaust denier
Proofs?
No but they were definitely better than the Russians (unless you were israeli lmao).
Source: Polish great grandmother
American troops who witnessed it could later be captured by germans and spill the beans
American pows could yap, or scouts could watch you doing it. Of course, as soon as anyone makes the claim, you're becoming propaganda fuel, and then they all know.
I recall reading a letter that was posted here, I think, in which german troops reprimand americans for some POW executions in Italy.
>two wrongs make a right
The point was that word does get out, as odd as it seems.
Yes, because a 20yo grunt at the bottom of the food chain is going to take the long term macro view of anything he does
I remember hearing that there was a trend of machinegun bunkers holding out and surrendering quite literally as they were being overrun. I don't know what my opinion is of it, but it's something that wouldn't impact future surrenders.
I've heard people say that about d-day machine gunners but somehow I dont think people would be ok with US G.I.s being executed if the roles were reversed
Looking back that entire movie was war crime propaganda
Sometime you can benefit from it when you don't have the accomodation or the manpower to absorb such surrender. In general, US army was responsible for quite a few summary execution, most in the pacific, but not only.
What if you're Airborne or another type of unit where you may not have the facilities necessary to maintain prisoners?
>muh warcrimes
Frick off israelite
depends purely on how clear war was to that point.
also
/k/- philosophy and ... morality?
Terrorist yes, soldier no.
>politicians, israelites, blacks and arabs or otherwise muslim
Any day of the week
>european or similar heritage
Probably not
Aussies are like Canucks but with high test levels. Unbelievable that their government is even more pozzed than canada. I think it's their further proximity to freedomland.
Canada is the school shooter of the western nations, utterly filled with impotent rage.
I imagine Australia is much the same, maybe even worse.
funny. I always thought of aussies as gelded Texans
texans are already gelded though.
prisoners and the prison wardens. prison mentality reigns supreme in that barren rock, and moronation follows suite.
Hasn’t Australia had a right wing government for the last 20 years? How can they be posed?
really makes you think
Funny way of saying USA.
Canada is doing way better than your shithole.
God I wish that was me.
Only if it's a nazy
Only under 2 conditions. Either they previously committed war crimes and thusly do not deserve to be treated in accordance with laws they do not abide by or they prefer creamy peanut butter over crunchy
Cream > crunch
Anon if we ever cross paths they're gonna have to bury what's left of you in a soup can
Those were Czechs actually. Many US companies were told to take no pow on d-day because they had no way to deal with them
https://www.ronaldspeirs.com/reputation/controversies/
>Many US companies were told to take no pow on d-day because they had no way to deal with them
>thousands of germans taken prisoner on D-day
>didnt read the source
Just shoot them and then claim they did it themselves. You can even hang people you don't like later for these war crimes so its a double if not even triple win.
Under most circumstances, no. But, not all circumstances are equal, so I can imagine some more extreme situations where I have to be honest with myself and I would.
If I had strong reason to believe the enemy was not sincere about surrendering, especially if they had just performed some act that amounted to a war crime and were just trying to save their own skin, for example. Also, shooting an enemy is not always the same as shooting to kill. Shooting to disable is on the table, and NOT killing an enemy with one or two well-placed shots could arguably be "battlefield justice" where surviving might not be a preferable option to death.
You're an idiot, theres no such thing as shooting to disable.
>he hasn't seen the video of prisoners getting their knees blown out
Your post could be the most idiotic post I've seen on /k/ today. But, the day is still young, so (You) might be able to best yourself yet.
No, but this hypothetical aggressor may end up with a little something carved on their foreheads.
If they were committing a war while pretending it was a Special Military Operation, they have already forfeited any mercy or consideration for quarter. They are just murderers invading my home. Pile the corpses high and fertilize the fields deep, pray that I decide to shoot to kill.
whoa we got a badass over here
Are they white Europeans? Then no.
Only if they're G*rmans
Is she cute?
>young lads that dont know what the frick is going on ? and/or look like a fricking twink
no, i understand that he willingly or unwillingly was stupid enough to join the war, and still has a whole life to straighten up
>la creaturas / el abominacio / boomers
"click,click"
Nah, because I am not a Black person.
politicians and brass? yes
low level grunts and conscripts? no and might even share a beer with them
Can a demographic threat surrender?
If they taunted me with their cleanly washed hands, yes.
if it's russian i'll shot a surrendering enemy, his wife, his parents, his children, and his cousins
only the russian officers
Absolutely. Democrats, savage browns, and their handlers should suffer.
Only Russians.
yes, I wouldn't want to deal with having to secure them
Wow I gotta be the guy to say this?
In that scene, when they're shooting them for being germans/nazis, the guys are shouting at them in Romanian that they're romanian. Romanians got conscripted and forced to man the defenses. Poor frickers.
So no, hypothetically I wouldn't. POWs are more valuable than dead bodies, they can carry themselves out of the battle.
Czechs actually
Only if the look suss. And asian looking rusians.
it's better to take a surrendering soldier into custody than have him fight to the death.
Depends if they are white or not (communists/anarchists are never white.)
Depends on the conflict. Ideally no, when dealing with either A) surrendering forces known to fake surrender or suicide attack (Pacific theater Japs), B) forces known to have commited war crimes against your side en mass (executing your POWs en mass, murdering your civilians on mass, etc.), or C) caught in the act of committing war crimes, then they should be executed.
It's probably better for everyone though if the Pandora's box of killing people already out of the fight is left closed
ooh a tough one. if it was a slow fight low casualties proly no.
BUT if i lost my loved ones or friends proly would.
Inb4 no warcrime shit. just mow the frickers down, if you had fricking balls to throw that on me what u just did and i fricking survived and my mates didnt, frick you, your buddies and you are going straight to wich option you chose with your priest or whateva.
inb4 serbian
its all about emotion, do you get carried away. is the war defending or you on conquering side. shit. there is a lot of factors.
i proly wouldnt if were conquering and they fight for their country, would do warcrimes on invaders tho.
if they did the same to my men, or if they did anything funny, honor and mercy take the bus and funky town becomes the bgm
I wouldn't execute but I'd take all their shit and leave em stranded for sure.
Of course. Enemy life by definition has no value and the choice to war is proof. All you do when you kill someone is shorten a life that ends in death so NBD.
>If you speak the language, those guys are screaming that they are conscripts that were forced to fight for the Germans and don't even want to be there
>Americans blow them away
>First American says "What were they saying"?"
>Second American replies "Look mother, I washed my hands for dinner! Hahaha"
Kino scene
Depends on how "in charge" of a squad I am. If I feel like they'll shoot them if they do something wrong I'd prefer to just rough them up. Live people are more valuable than corpses. If I don't really trust people to shoot someone when I'm shaking them down I'd rather pretend they presented a threat and shoot them. Once someone shoots them someone else gets spooked and shoots them it's sort of a everybody shot them deal and I'm not a crazy killer sort of thing.
Would you like to be shot while surrendering yourself?
Only Communists and Political Commissars, as they are the primarily carriers and spreaders of the Red Plague. Hitler made the right decision with the Commissar Order, in which ALL Bolshevik political officers were to be turned over to local SS immediately for liquidation.
Otherwise no, it's in violation of the Geneva Convention.
if i knew i wouldnt get in trouble yes
after shooting the enemy is less of a hassle and not a security risk
Depends on the war, the enemy, who/what I'm fighting for, etc.
Fact of the matter is sometimes you can't take prisoners.
Changes nothing
No I'm not American
No, it would give me an excuse to leave the frontline.
if he's entirely unarmed and isn't trying to suicide bomb me? Absolutely not.
Frick that what i want to know is whats up with the image streeking in those scenes? All of the copies, streams and broadcasts of this film have the same defects yet years ago it was not an issue.
Pilots, Politicians, Artillerists and Sharpshooters yes ofc. Also everyone involved in chemical, biological or nuclear warfare as well as enemies targetting civilian infrastructure.
Those 2 werent surrendering, they were demonstrating to the Americans that they washed their hands for supper
There's no point of shooting defenseless enemy, unless you don't have any place to imprison them or the enemy doesn't exchange pows
Typically no, but there are certain situations where it's the practical decision. If I'm in hostile territory on route to (not from) an objective, have no good way to accommodate prisoners, and can't afford the risk of turning a hostile loose, then I may kill a surrendering enemy. Not out of malice but out of expediency. It's the rare exception because we cannot afford to do otherwise in that moment; it is not the rule. And that's only in the case of a few survivors from an enemy patrol or something. In the case of larger scale surrenders, never.
That whole movie is such a Jweish power fantasy.
Give me one good reason not to.
Prisoners are valuable in exchange.
I would shoot them unless I wanted to rape them
Of course.
Would you waste your rations for some useless-fricks who are waiting to be rescue so they can come shoot you a second time?
Not unless there was some reason to do so tbqh. For example if I was well forward of the main element and had no means of controlling them or keeping them contained. But generally shooting prisoners is Black person behavior imo.
If they're chinese, yeah
In all honesty, probably not.
Probably by accident.
no. not surrendering soldiers at least
Depends on the enemy.
Politicians, journalists, bankers, and occupiers that have previously been given a chance to leave get to face the wall. They had a chance to surrender, cease operations, and leave when it mattered.
Depends
Black/Islamic/fanatics? You have to.
From an army of a functional and adjusted society? Nope.
If they were Russians that manned the thermobaric rocket launchera, then sure. One of the longstanding traditions / unwritten rules of war, is that anyone using a flamethrower doesn't get to surrwnder. The same should apply to the thermobaric or vacuum munition operators.
Militia not wearing a uniform (aka Muslim terrorists typically such as the Taliban and ISIS) should be ahot after a speedy trial.
Yeah
why shoot a surrendering enemy when you can make one your personal sex slave or put them to manual labor?
Absolutely, a surrendering private is useless, but a surrendering general? They would probably not be immediately executed.
I wouldn't shoot/kill PoW or innocents
But I would rape every civilian woman I could
I would frick so much and impregnate so many half the country would be my relatives
You don't actually have to accept a surrender. Under international law, putting your hands up/waving a white flag is a request to parley at which point terms of surrender can be laid out. These terms can be rejected however. Doing this is frowned upon, but not actually illegal. The argument can be made that only the ranking officer can accept or decline a surrender and that the enlisted man must taking the surrendering party to an officer however it's also within an officer's right to give his men a standing order not to accept any offers of surrender or parley.
Tl;dr It's mostly legal for a soldier to say "I do not accept your surrender" before shooting an enemy with his hands up.
Would I personally kill someone who was requesting parley however? It depends on who it was and what war I was fighting. Were I fighting in Ukraine for example, yes as they would execute me if I surrendered. If I was fighting in a gentleman's war where are the typical rules and expectations are followed, no. Where I on a D-Day esque mission in which taking prisoners would compromise the objective, then I don't know. I think I'd do it if I had to but I'd say that the highest rank present has the moral obligation to be the one do it.
Inter arma enim silent leges, but your post is wrong.
>Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899. [USA signed: 29.07.1899, ratified: 09.04.1902]
>Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited
>...
>(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
>(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
>surrendered at discretion
Could the victor not theoretically declare that being shot is a condition for your unconditional surrender?
No.
And this is why we have an officer corps, because if we let grunts do what they love most ("kill! burn! maim!") wars would be far more brutal and last longer, since the whole convention would fall apart.
Much better to execute a few of your own soldiers for war crimes than to let their moronic actions make the war drag on longer.
No, I would not, and I would heavily encourage my squadmates to not either. I would also treat the civilians as well as possible of course. Then I would enjoy the benefit of rolling through the whole enemy army as all their men just surrender because they know that they'll get out of this hellhole, a warm bed, and their stomachs filled.
I think Russia might have won the war in Ukraine by this point if their soldiers weren't such uncivilized degenerates.
>I think Russia might have won the war in Ukraine by this point if their soldiers weren't such uncivilized degenerates.
Russians are really a real-life parody at this point: "see problem? use violence! problem not gone? more violence! WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!"
Absolutely, they are the enemy and deserve no quarter. Bullets are cheaper than food and housing.