If you were a military leader and commanded a large military unit ( regiment, brigade, division, corps, army ) you would allow your soldiers to kill civilians and loot with impunity.
If you were in command of thousands of soldiers ( a regiment or more ) would you let your soldiers commit war crimes?
Depends on who the enemy and if I can get punished for it.
@Excalibur @The Notorious SLAV @GobidMujahid @PersonalityChad @SilentShadow @DarkStar
@AutistSupremacist
@AutistSupremacist
Last edited:
V
Of course I would. Letting incels ascend would be my main goal.
If the Wagner PWC consisted of incels instead of prisoners. Where the main prize is not getting out of prison after a certain amount of service, but the opportunity to get pussy and have sex.
depends on who are the enemy
If the enemy nation is one I dislike, yes.
I am interested in this question in the context of whether it will affect the combat capability of your unit or not, and how it will affect military success, whether it will undermine the commander's authority among the soldiers, and how strong the guerrilla warfare will be.
It should be done as a reward after a victory. The dirlewanger brigade did this excessively, had very poor discipline and got stomped whenever it fought with actual soldiers. The red army did it only after they retook their entire country and it served as a motivation and stimuli to keep going.
An interesting point. An interesting observation. The success of the Red Army in its battles with Dirlewanger was due to the fact that the Red Army soldiers were greater slaves than the Wehrmacht and SS soldiers. The Red Army soldiers would have died anyway, not from enemy bullets, but from NKVD bullets in the back. They had no choice; they were already dead. They didn't care; nothing could demoralize them, as many of them had already accepted the inevitability of death.
IDK if you can’t control or discipline your soldiers how are you supposed to coordinate tactics or strategy they’ll just disobey your orders/do whatever
It can embolden the enemy as well
It can embolden the enemy as well
When the Yugoslav Partisan politician Milovan Djilas complained about rapes in Yugoslavia, Joseph Stalin reportedly stated that he should "understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle".[27] On another occasion, when told that Red Army soldiers sexually maltreated German refugees, he reportedly said: "We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative."[28]
I more or less agree with this approach
Last edited:
Mass rape seems inevitable in any brutal war
You can't prevent war crimes in a large scale war, especially towards an enemy that your soldiers want revenge for (for example Soviets and Germans)
Maybe somewhat depending, as others have already said, on who we were fighting. Though I'd have to think about my reputation, and if my soldiers went too out of their way we could become a prime target for the enemy just for propaganda purposes, so it absolutely shouldn't go too far.
I'm becoming Dirlewanger himself
Depends of who are the fighting against
For example, let's guess that they fight against antifa protestors or some antifa militia, I would let them brutally kill and torture, not only the antifas, also their relatives.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
