4 ms·

I assumed they would have shot him on the spot. Chokehold seems mild. You're in a war zone. Shooting people who put you in harm is a thing.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
- dralley 4y ago
  I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary". Wars are won when the enemy no longer has the ability or willingness to fight. Committing atrocities against civilians rarely accomplishes anything more than increasing of the enemy, unless their situation was already hopeless to begin with.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: >No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary" I cant believe I actually need to say this but trucks leave tire tracks in the dirt. You're gonna have a hell of a time dragging an army (especially a conscript army that needs far more ideological motivation than a professional army) across a country without leaving some ancillary destruction behind.
    - dralley 4y ago
      There is massive, massive, incredible difference between those things happening as "ancillary destruction" and those things being part of "the mindset needed to win a war"
      - orbifold 4y ago
        There have been very few semi-symmetrical conflicts in the last ~70+ years. The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. Similarly the mind-number number of casualties the Soviet army sustained even in the battle of Berlin, at the end of the war or the losses it absorbed in the battles of Kharkiv, in the defense of Moskau and St. Petersburg have no parallel in modern warfare.
        dralley 4y ago
        >The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. I think this only helps my point, because with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the bombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Stalingrad and many other cities were of absolutely minimal value in ending the war except insofar as it damaged military targets in those cities - and in many cases it was outright counterproductive (e.g. London). Name a single war, or battle in which atrocities against civilians have helped the aggressors, in a situation where the defending side wasn't already militarily defeated (e.g. German or Soviet occupied countries)? It didn't help in Chechnya, Vietnam, or Yugoslavia (either during WWII or in the 90s). Even the impact of the nuclear bombs is heavily debated. The Imperial Japanese military still wanted to continue the war, and the Emperor was less concerned with the plight of civilians than what was going to happen to himself after the war. The only universally effective method of winning a war is destroying the enemy's ability to fight. Cruelty towards non-belligerents is not required to do this.
  - COGlory 4y ago
    Considering that there's never actually been a war without rape and pillaging, you're making a pretty bold claim with no evidence.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Well... for all the atrocities the Germans committed the Poles that I have talked to that survived the war were uniformly appreciative of the restraint of the German officers and conscripts occupying their villages[+], as opposed to the Russians who pretty much destroyed the country they supposedly liberated, killing and raping civilians as they went along. So there definitely are differences in how the rules of engagement are interpreted from one actor to another. Needless to say this doesn't justify anything the Germans did and I acknowledge that Russia was instrumental in beating the - actual - Nazi's but still, that difference does stand out. It's a pretty tricky thing because technically the Russians were 'on our side' and the Germans were clearly the enemy and just writing about it in an objective way is hard enough keeping in the back of your mind everything else that the Nazi's were up to. + Note that the Germans committed plenty of war crimes in Poland as well and that there were quite a few really bad things that happened in areas under German occupation, but on a relative scale they were considered the 'lesser of two evils' from the point of view of the civilian population that was not directly in the crosshairs of the Germans.
      - orbifold 4y ago
        As a German who got some first / second hand accounts from children of Polish survivors and Polish survivors I disagree. The German army and other occupying forces did awful things in Poland and not just to the Jewish population. Just because the violence and killing was maybe more methodical and less unstructured like randomly raping civilians, doesn't make it any less awful. Even the initial attack that resulted in the occupation of Poland was done without regard to the lives of the civilian population.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes they did. And still compared to the stories about the Russians they showed considerable restraint. This is not about absolutes, it is about relatives. Having no control over your army and the atrocities it commits because the higher ups simply don't care at all about the kind of image they are projecting is exactly the reason why things are utterly out of control in Ukraine today. Lack of discipline, lack of enforcement and in general using the army as a weapon of terror is what is happening, there is zero restraint.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

dralley 4y ago
I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary". Wars are won when the enemy no longer has the ability or willingness to fight. Committing atrocities against civilians rarely accomplishes anything more than increasing of the enemy, unless their situation was already hopeless to begin with.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: >No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary" I cant believe I actually need to say this but trucks leave tire tracks in the dirt. You're gonna have a hell of a time dragging an army (especially a conscript army that needs far more ideological motivation than a professional army) across a country without leaving some ancillary destruction behind.
  - dralley 4y ago
    There is massive, massive, incredible difference between those things happening as "ancillary destruction" and those things being part of "the mindset needed to win a war"
    - orbifold 4y ago
      There have been very few semi-symmetrical conflicts in the last ~70+ years. The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. Similarly the mind-number number of casualties the Soviet army sustained even in the battle of Berlin, at the end of the war or the losses it absorbed in the battles of Kharkiv, in the defense of Moskau and St. Petersburg have no parallel in modern warfare.
      - dralley 4y ago
        >The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. I think this only helps my point, because with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the bombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Stalingrad and many other cities were of absolutely minimal value in ending the war except insofar as it damaged military targets in those cities - and in many cases it was outright counterproductive (e.g. London). Name a single war, or battle in which atrocities against civilians have helped the aggressors, in a situation where the defending side wasn't already militarily defeated (e.g. German or Soviet occupied countries)? It didn't help in Chechnya, Vietnam, or Yugoslavia (either during WWII or in the 90s). Even the impact of the nuclear bombs is heavily debated. The Imperial Japanese military still wanted to continue the war, and the Emperor was less concerned with the plight of civilians than what was going to happen to himself after the war. The only universally effective method of winning a war is destroying the enemy's ability to fight. Cruelty towards non-belligerents is not required to do this.
- COGlory 4y ago
  Considering that there's never actually been a war without rape and pillaging, you're making a pretty bold claim with no evidence.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Well... for all the atrocities the Germans committed the Poles that I have talked to that survived the war were uniformly appreciative of the restraint of the German officers and conscripts occupying their villages[+], as opposed to the Russians who pretty much destroyed the country they supposedly liberated, killing and raping civilians as they went along. So there definitely are differences in how the rules of engagement are interpreted from one actor to another. Needless to say this doesn't justify anything the Germans did and I acknowledge that Russia was instrumental in beating the - actual - Nazi's but still, that difference does stand out. It's a pretty tricky thing because technically the Russians were 'on our side' and the Germans were clearly the enemy and just writing about it in an objective way is hard enough keeping in the back of your mind everything else that the Nazi's were up to. + Note that the Germans committed plenty of war crimes in Poland as well and that there were quite a few really bad things that happened in areas under German occupation, but on a relative scale they were considered the 'lesser of two evils' from the point of view of the civilian population that was not directly in the crosshairs of the Germans.
    - orbifold 4y ago
      As a German who got some first / second hand accounts from children of Polish survivors and Polish survivors I disagree. The German army and other occupying forces did awful things in Poland and not just to the Jewish population. Just because the violence and killing was maybe more methodical and less unstructured like randomly raping civilians, doesn't make it any less awful. Even the initial attack that resulted in the occupation of Poland was done without regard to the lives of the civilian population.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes they did. And still compared to the stories about the Russians they showed considerable restraint. This is not about absolutes, it is about relatives. Having no control over your army and the atrocities it commits because the higher ups simply don't care at all about the kind of image they are projecting is exactly the reason why things are utterly out of control in Ukraine today. Lack of discipline, lack of enforcement and in general using the army as a weapon of terror is what is happening, there is zero restraint.