Shooting to kill - how many men can do this?

[@joshboustead2702]

So Stormtroopers are actually really deep and emotional beings who don't want to kill anyone!

[@JayneCobb88]

awesome

[@mon339]

The Emperor ordered the Galactic Army to miss intentionally so that the Emperor could make Luke join the dark side of the Force, but failed. Obi wan Kenobi said that the Stormtroopers are THE BEST sharpshooters in the Galactic Empire. So no... They are just soldiers that are doing they're jobs better than any assassin or any other soldier in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF STAR WARS. Hope that settles it! Thanks for reading.

[@Huanito99]

So when you look at SW again you realize that the protagonists are the sociopaths, since they shot to kill

[@germanvisitor2]

Perhaps the protagonists are just aware that the stormtrooper armour disperses the energiy of a blaster hit, turning a lethal hit into a stun.

[@TheTalon03]

Mad man genes from both sides. Han Solo offs people while remaining cheeky, Darth Vader chokes people just for the prestige of being a Sith Lord (extra points for looking at their face) . At least Kylo feels the pull from the Light and only takes his anger out on machinery, barely bullying his officers. Not such a bad guy now, is he?

[@sirsulo9102]

"Trigger finger frostbite" sounds like a punk rock band

[@dwaldpilar9309]

Hahaha yes!!

[@sabotabby3372]

In b4 an anti-war punk band named that

[@ELiiSE_YT]

Black pistol fire has a song called Trigger on fire which is close

[@bronillabear4104]

I call dibs on that name

[@jmfm-r2q]

@@bronillabear4104 damn

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

Notice there's basically no jump cuts in this video. That's a proper talented KZbinr.

[@raialasio1574]

Really memorized that script eh

[@arintheseatsesh6242]

@@raialasio1574 Lmfao. This is from 3 months aho and the video is 3 yesrs old. Gargle razors

[@danielrko9895]

I don't think he has a script he sound like a passionate teacher when a student asks a random question about his favorite subject

[@raialasio1574]

the script was more like a stamp for what he's gonna talk about. That kind of script, just some few words to get the lessons going.

[@delta9c21h30o2]

@@danielrko9895 yeah, he seems like one of those few guy with a genuin knowledeg of what they are takling about.

[@usmarinestanker4074]

As a US Marine veteran of the Second Battle of Fallujah, thank you Lloyd for making this video. We are nowhere near where we need to be to deprogram our soldiers and it is a terrible injustice.

[@nucleardragons]

it doesn't even look like govs give a damn :(

[@jaighter]

@@nucleardragons well they don't. but police are the government, so they are gay or something...

[@vincesolari294]

@@jaighter wtf

[@CeroAshura]

Exactly, they spend years and tons of money to desensitize you for battlefield and then expect you to go back to civie life the week after your discharge.

[@gayusschwulius8490]

Why on earth should we deprogram our soldiers? That'd make them like 80% less effective, lol

[@FrAngelGaming]

Thats why my teamates are so useless

[@danielkaiselgruber1750]

ThεληgεlGαmεr Gold comment.

[@ironfist452]

thats a good one

[@salc1n380]

rainbow I take it

[@JavierOrtiz-vr4qg]

theawsomegamer 😂

[@Max200012]

it all makes sense now

[@smoek2285]

This isn’t a normal Channel. There is actually love and time put into these videos. All respect earned.

[@GamePhysics]

This is why in videogames the protagonist can fight countless other enemies without being in much danger. The enemies are shooting without the intention of killing. But the protagonist is a psychopath with reflex-killing installed.

[@valynazvalkynaz5375]

mind=blown

[@valkyrie1689]

you say that but i've known clinically proven psychopaths to have an issue with this. so the question would be is are the clinical tests wrong, or is it something a bit deeper than not giving a f@k about others lives? besides the protagonist we are supposed to hate and are often more nightmare than potentially realistic. (trying to stay constructive)

[@thawndoo]

He's having a goof.

[@deez420nuts69]

No it's because it's a video game. Come on use your brain

[@carltonlee17]

More like that the player are not able to sense the fear of their enemy, or the game producer(s) didn't really intended to... well basically they don't give a shit

[@David-Ray]

After years of training and then deploying, society expects you to turn it off as soon as you return. It doesn't work like a switch. Thank you for this well explained video, Lindybeige.

[@d_boi9345]

I reckon it does work like a switch. A normal person can't flip it up but if you kick it with enough force it eventually turns on. The problem is the lever sticking out breaks off in the process

[@MattC-jg1yb]

Shut up dude, when has a civilian employer asked you to hold a weapon and not shoot someone? If you couldn’t transition properly, you are dumb

[@captainchaos3053]

Not everyone struggles with turning it off and on but the reality is you don't have to have an on off switch but more of a volume control. However once qualified as an infantry soldier and then moving on into more specialised roles where you operate in smaller numbers its very much impossible to be anything less than a "killer" and it does stain your soul.

[@CheezeWuz]

My old art teacher told us a story about his father or grandfather... can't remember... either way they where a tank operator in WWII. He had to go out for a poo one night, but what he didn't know was there was a sniper watching them. Now shooting a man with his pants down is low but instead of shooting him he shot the bucket he was pooping in. Apparently covering his back side and making him smell bad. My teacher would go on saying he was glad the sniper had a sense of humor or he wouldn't be alive.

[@jabloko992]

Who poops into a bucket on the front lines? If I'm somewhere between France and Germany at the edge of a forest I'm simply going to shit wherever I damn please, there is no reason to be sanitary about it.

[@StonedWidowOnDoom]

So... that is your moral of the story?

[@steffenebener7332]

CheezeWuz we in germany have a term for someone who is scared, that is "Schisser" (Shitter)because it was only allowed to leave you Position, if you had to satisfy your urgent needs. Same for the Term "sich zu verpissen" (to piss off) for going away/to flee

[@rhyzvanic3660]

He'd have literally been shooting at someone with his pants down.

[@workingguy-OU812]

A bucket gives a person something to sit on. He didn't say it was a bucket they either carried with them or, if they did, use for anything other than a place to take a dump, then dump out. Remember that the English and Americans are used to sitting on a toilet - I don't think that Cheeze's teacher was Asian and, thus, used to stooping. Can they stoop, or lean against something? Sure - but why would they when they could easily carry a 'shit pail' on the rear of the tank for such uses.

[@skyflier8955]

Fighter pilots were told to not shoot to kill. They were told to destroy the vehicle, and often left parachuting enemy pilots alone. I think it's easier for tankers and pilots to kill unintentionally, because they were trying to take out the machine, not the man.

[@NalinAirheart]

I realize you're likely referring to earlier pilots (WWII), but that's a straight up war crime as outlined in the Geneva Convention.

[@skyflier8955]

***** if you shoot the pilot out of the craft, you don't have to keep shooting, saving ammo, so you can shoot down more. All the vitals of the craft are located near the pilot, including the engine. And it is hard to hit a specific part of a plane when its weaving. Having flown simulators, i cant even take a plane down thats an ai

[@sevenproxies4255]

Strategically, the machine is cheaper to replace than the crew manning it. The necessary logistics and training involved to create a fully fledged fighter pilot or tank crew usually costs more than the aircraft or the tank itself. It also takes more time to produce fighter pilots and tank crews than it takes to construct a fighter jet or a tank. So from a strategic perspective: killing the crew or the pilot hurts the enemy more than merely destroying the vehicle. Or better yet, maiming and hospitalizing the pilot or crew is the most costly result you can inflict on the enemy and help you win the war faster. Dead soldiers only need a wooden box and a hole in the ground, which doesn't cost the state that much. Living but injured men on the other hand costs a fortune in required medical care, physical therapy and financial support after they are no longer fit for duty due to their injuries or are able to do any kind of job at all as a civilian. A state could of course cut financial costs by refusing their injured soldiers proper healthcare, battlefield recovery and financial aid etc. But would then suffer a huge blow in soldier morale because if the soldiers doesn't feel that their government is looking out for them even when they are risking their lives to protect it, they won't perform as well in battle.

[@MrDoboz]

+Grand Nagus Zek (Zekki) you are wrong. the fuel tank is the weakest, especially, in a tank (i mean the vehicle), you have at least 3 operators, and you won't win by just killing one of them. but if you take out the fuel tank, instant profit. btw the operator is also harder to hit, because it's relatively small compared to the other weak points, and with a little bit of luck, the operator can dodge any type of non-exploding rounds.

[@handlesarecringe957]

Ever played war thunder? Most of the time, destroying the tank is killing the crew, as destroying the vehicle itself is insanely hard. A tank can still survive with a massive hole in the armor. And since a tank can still kill you if its engines and tracks are destroyed, you have few options. One is to disable it by destroying the gun or the ammo rack, however, there's still the machine gun and tankers do carry small arms. So, you kill the crew. Why? *THE TANK CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ITS CREW*. It can still work without the engine, or even the gun. It cannot work without the people operating it.

[@01FNG]

So this explains why the bad guys in movies cant aim at all they are just nice deep inside...

[@asneakychicken322]

Maybe in the star wars universe they never learned about this part of psychology so all the stormtroopers are just normal guys that don't want to hit anyone

[@detectiveshaft9990]

And it's the heroes who are the real monsters! D:

[@MrJay_White]

weren't storm troopers basically 6 month old clones? though i guess it would explain why they where better able to kill off droids

[@forestelfranger]

Of course the heroes are the real monsters. Heck they loot everything not nailed down to the floor and slaughter dungeons full of monsters like it was nothing.

[@marten933]

poor stormtroopers...

[@niconestra]

Touching on what we see in film. Usually the bad guys ie: Stormtroopers, the motorcycle gang in Road Warrior, the Orcs all have their faces covered or disfigured which makes them easier to see killed.

[@ashcarrier6606]

When I think back to all the war movies I liked as a kid, like "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarrone", "Battle of the Bulge", I notice now that the Germans all conveniently die without utterring a word. They just crumple over dead. That is very considerate of them! In reality, most of them would not die instantly. They would cry out, begging for aid. And their comrades, their buddies, would risk their own lives to try to save them. As a viewer...that would make me squirm in my seat. And to have Clint Eastwood smiling as he mows them down as they scream in agony, begging for their pals to rescue them? No. No way in hell I want to watch that.

[@jadall77]

Because they are "killing" the same stuntmen over and over. A lot of video games you are shooting up zombies or other NON human style bad guys.

[@The_Sea_Guardian]

Reminds me of Warframe, which is a game and not a movie. You play as someone who kills literally tens of thousands of enemy soldiers (because its super future, past human race) where half of them are greed strickened (their government that is) and wear rubber suits with a box helmet that completely hides any resemblance of a humanoid face (until you headshot them at least). The other half is a much bigger war mongering faction (lore wise, iirc) that consists of countless clonings upon clonings that their bodies are so frail and terrible looking. But you still learn that some of those people try to defect from those factions and you sometimes get tasked with saving them. Even recently you learned about a few characters who were killed because of them wanting to help others. Its fun playing games like these, but sometimes I really do enjoy the human nature elements that get sprinkled here and there.

[@elultimo102]

@@ashcarrier6606 There is a diary from a Japanese officer at Iwo Jima: "We were told Americans were inhuman monsters, yet you hear them crying for their mothers as they lay dying..."

[@krinkrin5982]

@@ashcarrier6606 Interestingly, in Wolfenstein, the Germans actually shout when you shoot them, but the shouts are made in a very comical way.

[@ben33584]

Perfectly put sir, i can tell a truth teller when i hear one. Shoot to kill distorts the minds of soldiers. They go back home facing another war waiting for them. And this one is silent. There are many war vets who are mentally disturbed and behave like they are still in the battle field, especially when they encounter an adrenaline rushing situation. You'll hear them yelling "incoming" and going for cover. Soldiers are meant to be non thinking killing machines. But they are not Drones, they have emotions. They go through a frequent terror of emotional shifts, from killing for love to killing out of fear. Wars are inevitable but no man out there likes killing another.

[@zaboza2011]

Lesedi Ben there always an exception

[@musicaccount3340]

Except for islamists who go to heaven for killing infidels. Ideological processing also works.

[@zaboza2011]

What's an Islamist?

[@musicaccount3340]

A muslim fanatic.

[@zaboza2011]

Roman Soloduhin but doesn't that apply to any armed fanatic regardless of thier beliefs?

[@ecabernet]

When I was in the army 20 years ago, they explained to us why we spent endless hours on the shooting range and why the targets looked like the top half of a man. To turn it into a reflex. So you would shot to kill without thinking. They mentioned the statistic from WW2, and they also mentioned something from Vietnam. Something about how many bullets were shot, and how many died. They also showed us many videos of what to expect. Which were basicly propaganda videos about how good field hospitals were. Shot in the face? Missing half a face? Your teeth stuck to your own forehead? No problem.. We will fix it. And we were shown them fair few times. To make us ready for what to expect when the shit hits the fan.

[@GunFunZS]

ecabernet THE Army? Which army?

[@vitas5333]

guessing from ww2 and vietnam probably US. could be french though

[@Combatant5]

The statistic about rounds fired per kill in Vietnam doesn't really support Lindy's argument, what it says is twofold. 1: Jungle combat is terrible for accuracy. 2: There are reasons to fire a rifle other than to kill someone (suppression).

[@williamahrens5737]

actually the rounds fired has more to do with what the AR is capable of, its also why they only let us have 3 round burst now

[@Combatant5]

Your two claims are actually both false: The AR-15/M16 Platform is an inherently accurate design, far and above what we've had to this point in history. The lockup design on them makes them very repeatable, and means that it's fairly easy to find an AR-15 which will do at least 1 MOA for mechanical accuracy on a bad day for less than $1000. What made the M16 what it was in Vietnam was a combination of bad ammo (different pressure-curve than designed), and a lack of training due to the US Army being mainly draftees. Few people ever get significant exposure to firearms, and we (the US) were drafting them to fight and not giving them enough training. What is more significant is that iron-sighted M16s are less capable than rifles equipped with optical sights which we have now, so there is some credence to your point there. This has led to the standardization of optical sights on US military rifles. The other claim that we now only have 3 round burst selectors now is also false. The early 1980's saw the adoption of the M16A2 and M4 Carbine rifles, which did feature a S-1-3 selector switch, but the A2 has since been phased out in favor of the M16A4 and the M4A1 Carbine which have gone back to a S-1-F selector layout. The reason we moved to a S-1-3 selector was because of experience in Vietnam with, again, draftees. Draftees never got enough training on proper fire discipline, and were often liable to do mag dumps with their rifles in full-auto. This lead directly to the adoption of the S-1-3 selector layout which has since been phased out now that we have a professional military.

[@jacobjohnson3200]

My Dad would sometimes tell me about his experiences in Vietnam, when I was a kid. Usually when he was drinking. Dad was a farm-boy with a pacifist heart, but was conscripted and so to war he went. One day I asked about the scar above his eye, knowing only that he'd gotten in during his tour as a truck driver. He said a VC had crossed the road immediately in front of his truck, and his passenger, referred by Dad as "the gungho idiot," shot through the windshield, hitting the VC, and shattering the glass. A glass shard had hit my Dad's eye, causing the wound. Dad had been angered that the man had shot from his truck. He said that along this particular route, there had been a sort of detente among the drivers and VC, something informal and organic, but present nonetheless. A few weeks following, a suicide bomb attack by the VC at a bar, frequented by truckers and considered generally safe, killed several of his friends. He blamed the shooting described above, rightly or wrongly, and still carried animosity towards the shooter, all these years later.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

I don't doubt your dad's sincerity but I don't buy the detente story.

[@dukefanshawe6815]

The real stories are always the best. Thanks for sharing.

[@stevenobrien557]

Lol what a load of shit

[@nam430]

viet moiws cha nam

[@timmorrison4117]

@@majungasaurusaaaa you have no basis to believe or disbelieve, do you? It's a shame to insult his father, and more diplomatic ways to ask for others with experience to comment.

[@nomdeplume798]

There must be something in what you say. After 2 years of fighting in North Africa and Italy, my late father-in - law came across a young German soldier in a house not far from the coast in Normandy. He was trying to re-load his rifle and panicking. Richie shouted "Hande hoch" and the German dropped his rifle. He then gestured for him to run away which he did. Richie just couldn't bring himself to shoot a man 10 yards away who couldn't defend himself.

[@timothycook3566]

So his only two choices with that boy was too let him go or shoot him? He couldn't bring himself too shoot the boy, But he could have took him prisoner.

[@itscrono7073]

@@timothycook3566 lmao let's see you in that situation

[@timothycook3566]

@@itscrono7073 You're right, But I like to think I'd kill the fucking crout, or take his ass prisoner.

[@USN1985dos]

@@itscrono7073 No, this is pretty antithetical to everything we're trained for these days. I get that it's different times and different enemies, but a guy who's terrified one second can still find his courage later on and rejoin the fight. In that situation I could understand not shooting him, but you absolutely take the enemy prisoner. Otherwise, one of your fellow soldiers could be killed by him at any point in the future, and then that's on your head. If we were to see that happen these days that soldier in question would be NJP'd at a minimum, if not court martial'd.

[@KarstRats]

And that soldier went on to kill a bunch of actual innocents. Good job.

[@metatronyt]

Very VERY good video, couldn't stop watching untill the end. A Fantastic job. +1 like

[@wattage]

Completely agree with +Metatron. This was a fantastic topic, Lloyd. Enjoyed every minute! Your discussion on VC winners reminded me of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary, The Victoria Cross - For Valour. Highly recommended if you have not seen it already. His other documentary on The Greatest Raid of All is equally good.

[@michaelfoye1135]

Like he said. Ditto

[@felixvennberg7799]

If you are interested in the topic, check out the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. I suspect that is where he got the information discussed in the video.

[@thatfishbreeder]

Exactly! I clicked on this video out of curiosity and had many things to go and do at the time. But without even noticing, I had already finished the whole 23 minute video! That's how you know you have an engaging and well-written discussion or speaker!

[@MrChuckwagon55]

White racism needs to be stopped. Black supremacy is the only solution to stop white privilege.

[@piobmhor8529]

When I was in high school in the 70’s, a friend’s dad was a conscript in the Wehrmacht during WW2. I am from the generation where many of teachers and parents went through WW2 on the allied side, so we knew enough not to ask veterans “did you kill any Germans?”. Anyway, after a few beers at my friend’s place with his dad, he started talking about his first kill on the Russian Front. Being a product of the Hitlerjugend and ceaseless propaganda, he told us how automatic it all was. He was on the front for just a few days and spotted a Soviet patrol close to their position. He said he raised his Sturmgewehr, lined his sights on the centre of mass of the “man shaped target” as he was taught, and squeezed the trigger like a robot. The Soviet soldier fell immediately. Initially, he felt no remorse mostly because he was brainwashed to think the Soviets were not humans but beasts. Later once the Soviets retreated, he saw the poor unfortunate Soviet conscript he personally killed. It wasn’t until then he saw that he was indeed a human. He said that he couldn’t describe the horrible feeling he had, and revealed he hopes that we (my friend and myself) never had to do that.

[@gunarsmiezis9321]

"so we knew enough not to ask veterans “did you kill any Germans?”" What why? The first thing I ever asked my ancestors about wars they have fought in is how affective they where on the battle field. "he told us how automatic it all was." That is how it is supposed to be, thinking is slow you need to operate on trained instinct and muscule momory. "He said he raised his Sturmgewehr, lined his sights on the centre of mass of the “man shaped target” as he was taught, and squeezed the trigger like a robot. The Soviet soldier fell immediately." All correct here. Like in the text books and practace. "Initially, he felt no remorse" What Why? "he was brainwashed to think the Soviets were not humans but beasts." I highly doubt that. "It wasn’t until then he saw that he was indeed a human." So what? Did he think he was shooting at something else? "He said that he couldn’t describe the horrible feeling he had" Why did he have bad feelings, war is war people die. "he hopes that we (my friend and myself) never had to do that." I guarnte you that the germans born after 2000 will have to fight to survive.

[@BloomerMindset]

@@gunarsmiezis9321 the guy is just retelling what he heard, cut him some slack.

[@Trombi01]

@@gunarsmiezis9321 "War is war people die" does not equal that killing other people is not horrible. Also why do you think germans are going to war anytime soon?

[@gilgabro420]

what an asshole

[@eviljohnnybravo7575]

@@gunarsmiezis9321 Really genuinely curious what you are implying with that last sentence

[@shishamaster38]

"Himmler in summary - not a nice chap" that sentence made me laugh so hard 😂😂

[@robertnett9793]

it's a pretty accurate summary.

[@OperationDarkside]

I think that's called dry humor

[@visionist7]

High-n-rish Him-lah

[@bl4cksp1d3r]

@Nemean Lion german here with a good grip on my country's history. He really wasnt a nice chap.

[@gerald1495]

STRENG GEHEIM

[@timbednarchuk8908]

"In WW2 soldiers didn't want to harm each other" Meanwhile at Stalingrad...

[@timbednarchuk8908]

DIO i wish

[@timbednarchuk8908]

@DIO good i am most alpha painting

[@trashman7906]

Meanwhile in the Nanking...

[@Onyxiate]

Well, both the Nazis and the Soviets were told the other were beasts, inhuman, and that they didn’t have lives. It’s incredibly easy to kill blindly, that’s why chemical weapons were so often used as it took the guilt away from the murderer. The soldiers were brainwashed to believe the others weren’t human, and that’s why most soldiers struggled to return to life after the war as they were taught people weren’t human.

[@anthonyjameson7129]

@@Onyxiate nazies don't gave soviets much of a choice, fight or be enslaved and 💀

[@dustinfrancis9161]

another thing is the psychological use of dehumanizing the enemy. if you see the enemy as a monster rather than a man it is easier to shoot. this can be seen in posters from WWII the Cold War and many others

[@Lenny-on7nn]

+Rundra Which one ?

[@maxpowerdup]

I think the episodes name was "Men of Steel", second season

[@31er_ohne_AMG]

and what about the french?

[@zJoriz]

My thoughts exactly. It's kind of hard to not be afraid of Muslims when you're being led to believe any one of them is willing to blow you up in the name of religion. But since our brains are wired to sense dangers, these are the signals we pick up instead of "he's a human driving a cab" or "she's selling the stocks of her business to become a partner in a climate initiative". ... Actually, that last bit might sound terrifying to some people.

[@stroke_of_luck]

We see the same kind of dehumanizing behavior in ANTIFA. This anonymous person is a low disgusting creep who is going to do you, so you had better do him first. They gang up and destroy that is part psychosis, part fear and attacking to prevent them from doing the same to you

[@yotamkaspi8508]

Would be interesting to check if these statistics change when it's a war of survival where defeat can mean the destruction of your nation (independence wars and such)

[@SuperKarlFriedrich]

actually heard about a theory that american casualties in vietnam were that high despite their greater gunpower, not only because of vietkong guerillia positioning and such but also because, contraryly to the vietkong, american soldiers didn't feel a reason to fight and so to kill there.

[@yotamkaspi8508]

SuperKarlFriedrich May also explain how Israel managed to defeat all of its surrounding neighbors in 1948

[@kamelontti3926]

Well check out the winter war.

[@rainyday3939]

mr box Like what the Afghan military did when they dropped their guns and ran from IS/ISIS and when France surrendered and collaborated with Nazis Germany? xD

[@EternalNetzah]

You might find interesting to read about Israel's independence war - especially in the stages where it was losing. However these things already happened in the past, situations where you have no where to run and you know you gonna die. World War 2 is full of such stories, some of which are forgotten.

[@fatcoyote2]

It seems LindyBeige was getting a little emotional when he performed this. I was told by my Drill Instructor once that modern day soldiers (in the US, at least), are having to be taught NOT to take shots. Their (my) training is so effective that the conditioned response we were given is now so prevalent that even in situations that it isn't ideal, soldiers will take shots just because. I thought he was bs'ing me, until I left the Army, and while I was at work, I had an instinct to attack another person. Not a psychopathic urge, not an angry thought, just a tiny part of my brain that said "finish this, move on," and I went to the bathroom and got a case of the shakes. Not a good time.

[@Oddball_E8]

Yes, but then most of these studies were of wars where men were often enlisted, with a minimum of training.

[@509Gman]

+OddballEasyEight you meant to say "conscripted".

[@Oddball_E8]

thgreatandini Yeah, sorry, I'm swedish. Lost in translation, I guess.

[@RicardoMoralesMassin]

I believe your accounts would go quite well with what was said here. If you have a training that started after WWII that conditions you to go for a kill, that`d become a problem in the future, thus training the men NOT to take shots to counter the initial training. As he said, you get that ball going but don´t have a clear idea of how to stop it. I hope you have a good long life, I can`t imagine what it´s like to be in your situation.

[@GuntherRommel]

No, he's correct in saying enlisted; Many WW2 countries didn't perform any conscription at all, but enlistment of healthy men reached an exceedingly high percentage of available numbers. Canada, for instance, only conscripted a few hundred or thousand, and none actually left Canada to go to the Theatre of War.

[@espressocookie8965]

"Oh, he's having a shave. There's the other guy. They're laughing, must've been sharing a joke. *pew* There we go, headshot."

[@Donkeyearsa]

Some people just cant take a joke! lol

[@kaenbedehem950]

"Sniper's a good job mate"

[@SkippertheBart]

Stone cold.

[@olivialambert4124]

So just a correction, psycopaths aren't bad at recognising emotions. If anything they are quite often significantly better than normal people. Its just that they really don't give a shit. "He had some money in his pocket and I wanted a kit-kat so I shot him in the face" rather than "I didn't realise he was scared". They will usually pick up on emotions very well, as well as often being self aware of their own pathology. They will just do anything they feel like without remorse and don't really care about other people's emotions. "He's scared... well he isn't me so why do I care". Thats psychopathy.

[@nesa1126]

this :)

[@scottfordham]

Yeh I watched a documentary on the British SAS all but 2 of them were self proclaimed psychopaths quite frightening really.

[@VarietyGamerChannel]

Psychopaths are great at reading emotions, but the chief characteristic is that they don't really feel them in the same way, if at all. So they don't just not give a shit, they don't empathize because they don't know what it feels like. They might even feel something else...like pleasure where one would expect to feel pain or concern. This doesn't mean they're dangerous in general, they are still aware about right and wrong and can suppress urges or lack thereof.

[@Phelixc]

I can't see a single reason a psychopath would even join the army, what is there to gain from it? As far as I've understood psychopathy, they are motivated purely by their own needs and wants? Also, a unit of psychopaths would be a bad idea, as I could not possibly see anyone of them putting their lives on the line for the other ie. coming to the aid of his fellow soldier when he is pinned down or something like that (why should I risk my life for someone who isn't me?)... But I am no expert in this, I've not even read about psychopaths, I just based this of +Olivia Lambert comment and what I've heard about them elsewhere, so I might be very wrong indeed :P

[@olivialambert4124]

Phelix Kelevra I can't see a single reason they WOULDN'T join the army. What is there to make the army worse for psychopaths than normal people? They care a lot less about killing others so one of the major drawbacks is gone. What do they gain? Well money in an economy where regular jobs are very hard to get. They can use the term military veteran to get easy respect and credibility. They might even find the training fun in the same way sports are fun. Psychopaths have no reason to join the army less than normal people. A unit of psychopaths wouldn't be a great idea, I'd worry about them killing their commanders. Apparently it used to be a regular thing to throw a grenade at a dangerous commander termed "fragging" and that was normal people, a psychopath very well might do that far more often. However having a few psychopaths dotted around regular soldiers wouldn't really be too bad. They know that acting out like that would end badly so its not a huge issue. Also we have to remember that we're talking about the worst psychopaths, most of them aren't remotely this bad and a lot of them can live a fairly normal life and even care about others. VarietyGamer I'm fairly sure its less about them reading emotions differently and more about them just not caring. It is a well known common thing for psychopaths to be exceptionally good at empathising with others and using that fact to manipulate people. It is incredibly rare for them to find pleasure in hurting people and really only happens when they have another mental disorder as well as psychopathy. Of course combining other mental disorders like that results in an exceptionally dangerous individual but since both psychopathy and sadism are rare having both combined is insanely rare. They haven't experienced some of the emotions first hand but that doesn't stop them from empathising with the similar emotions they have experienced in the same way that I can empathise with motherly love despite not having nor wanting children. And yes they know right or wrong and a lot of them have a good moral compass but here we seem to be more talking about the rare and interesting ones who might have less of a moral compass and be constrained more by the legal system. But yeah, on average they will be significantly better at empathising because it helps them get their way. Scott Fordham I really wouldn't be surprised if thats true. Not true for everyone of course, but a higher percentage of psychopaths wouldn't be surprising at all. I spoke with an ex-SAS member. He certainly wasn't a psychopath mind. He had severe PTSD. He had alcoholism and was drunk at the time. And even mentioning the name of the well known Iran Embassy fiasco he broke into tears. You could see the pain in his face and you could see he was telling the truth whilst saying he regretted some of the things he did. It wasn't stated outright but it was heavily implied it included multiple episodes of torture. Quite honestly I don't think most non-psychopaths could handle some of the things he was talking about for very long. And the majority of these missions and tortures were done in Ireland against the IRA. A country bordering England, people looking exactly like you speaking your language and could almost be your countrymen. It makes you think they need to be looking for psychopaths just to avoid the psychological torture you're left with when you retire.

[@AndrewMcLay274]

For some reason i always stumble upon your videos minutes after they are uploaded

[@Imhornydadcomeinside]

Illumibeige.

[@winkerdude]

+Imhornydadcomeinside Ok. That was funny.

[@MrDMIDOV]

Lloyd sense

[@houseofmayors2]

Then u should state that fact by announcingthat you're FIRST

[@Imhornydadcomeinside]

***** Ah shit, a wice guy.

[@sivert1216]

So in short if you want to win a war, recruit a load of psychopaths XD

[@noellundstrom7447]

XXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[@sigabythemage4009]

Sivert Heide yeah...

[@MsCwebb]

Of course...U don't want to get slaughtered with a bunch of pacifist hippies lol

[@Phunny]

Sigaby The Mage Gang members, serial killers, murderers and so on.

[@MGarafano]

Did you not watch whole thing? You don't need psychopaths in today's military, you just need conditioning, you need to teach people to pull the trigger without thinking about it. Besides, there are only so many psychopaths in the world, never mind the fact employing them leads to problems down the line. In fact, I would say a modern military does it all can to avoid psychopaths, they are too unstable, and the lack of emotional bond cuts both ways. Far easier to just train them to kill without thinking about it. US military in WWII only 2% shoot to kill, only half of that 2% were psychopaths, yet today, US military has achieved over 95% shoot to kill ratio. Brain washing is far more effective then psychopaths have ever been!

[@Airbournjack]

For those that didn't put it together. The whole "shoot before you think" part of that skinner training, is also part of the reason we had a bit of an issue with Friendly fire. It works fine enough when there is a front, or when the unit is operating all in one stack, but when you break up into groups to clear. If those rooms came together and shooting started, the reaction was the same. Training did shift, to try and minimize this, increasing communication so that teams can expect fire from another room and recognize it as being from a friendly, but it still happens

[@darth_dan8886]

As a gamer who played a good bunch of milsims, I can confirm completely that after a time where you "get good", you might just turn a corner and light up a guy, and only then realise it was a friendly. Granted, it's a very different conditioning happening - you aren't actually _killing_ anyone - but the core principles of reward and punishment are the same, so I believe it's a good demonstration of the principle.

[@doob195]

@@darth_dan8886 Reminds me of how the very first time I played ARMA, I unloaded a whole magazine into some random guy because I was already so terrified by the idea of some Viet Cong soldier popping out of the jungle I panicked and just started firing.

[@darth_dan8886]

@@doob195 Yep, sounds about right.

[@Kebab-Defender]

​@@darth_dan8886 Uniforms matter a lot, I played nearly a thousand hours of Red Orchestra 2 and 80% of that time I played as the germans. So I got used to surpressing and shooting guys wearing brown, yellow and green colours, while wearing pilotkas and bowl helmets (Soviets), while aiding and not shooting guys wearing gray, white or black colours, while wearing coal scuttle helmets (Germans). Also Axis soldiers (Germans and Japanese) sprint while holding their weapon on one hand and Allied soldiers (Soviets and Americans) sprint while holding their weapon with both hands, so even if you cannot see their clothes properly, you can distinguish them via their silhouettes... Though most milsims do not have something akin to this. When you integrate these infos into your reflexes you never shoot friendlies no matter the circumstances of your position. May it be the hard to see envinroments, long distances or pure chaos. That being said, friendly fire still happens from time to time. But its mainly because of poor positioning. Like a newbie or an idiot running in front of a firing MG or hip-firing with a high fire-rate weapon in close quarters combat with friendlies around.

[@juicynarwal6272]

A wise man once said "A soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him".

[@BibleGuy11]

what was his name?

[@juicynarwal6272]

Originally the quote I saw read anonymous, but upon doing some minor research the original speaker of this quote is Gilbert K. Chesterton, and his version reads "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."

[@MichaelS-vy1ku]

gayyyyee

[@tiggerthemighty8279]

Alternatively because he loves those beside him.

[@justandy333]

An amazing quote.

[@chapiit08]

I knew this old man who as a teenager fought on the Nationalist's side in the Spanish Civil War, he once told me that he allways shot to kill and he allways volunteered for firing squad duty because he reasoned that the more he killed the sooner the war would end. What a sorry species we are...

[@learrus]

That is a very natural way to view it.

[@chapiit08]

It must be quite a situation. One of my uncles told my father that once they had to stop a major offensive and at one point he simply got out of his trench exposing himself while holding a heavy machine gun and shooting from the hip in total disregard of what could happen to him, it was pure desperation.

[@SmelliestElm]

I a weird fucked up way he is kinda right. I guess his logic was the more I kill the less amount of time everybody else will have to suffer.

[@mikkeljrgensen181]

Please explain how that logic makes us a sorry species... If someone wants to kill me, kill my men, potentially kill everyone I love, or torture them (certain middle eastern terrorist groups would love nothing more than to do that), I would not feel bad about killing them. I would probably just feel a lot of anger and hate if I got into a gun fight with them, but even if they didn't shoot first, I don't see why it would be wrong of me to shoot to kill them, considering they are there purely to kill me and my men.

[@bennylofgren3208]

Mikkel Jørgensen That is very easy to say when you haven't been in a situation where you have the choice to kill someone.

[@psykbryt2096]

When I see any other video that is over 15 minutes long I think to myself "man this is way too long, Im not gonna watch it". But when Lindy uploads a 23 minute long video, it's not enough.

[@MrBizteck]

I've skipped this video several times because it was too long. But Im glad I did watch.

[@jaygoodner7219]

A bit late to the show here, but the category of killing from love describes Audie Murphy perfectly. The seventh of twelve children born into abject poverty in rural Texas, he provided his family with food by shooting small game; think of pop-up targets. In combat, he went berserk when his best friend Lattie Tipton was killed, and is a good example of the forebrain shutting off and instinct and rage taking over. This concept of killing from love allied when he performed the action that won him the CMOH near Holzwihr in 1945. He sent his men to the rear and continued to fight. Audie, he was plagued by PTSD the rest of his life, and he was a vocal proponent for treatment for vets suffering from it almost before they had a name for it other than "battle fatigue", or "shell shock". Great video, as all of yours, and I really enjoy them, Lindy. Keep up the great work!

[@Volkaer]

On the subject of World Wars, would there also not be a huge difference between say an American Soldier, who went half way across the world to participate in a war that they are told to by a bureaucrat in power, versus, say a Polish resistance soldier whose family was killed, home destroyed, and country occupied by the enemy? Perhaps even a difference between the aggressor / invading force vs. those defending their homeland and families?

[@slendy9600]

Volkier Neigh i think your on to something there. as i understand it the resistance groups in france and greece and whatnot were pretty hardcore

[@super_7710]

You can link this to some of the points in the video. Attackers/Invaders are aggressive and threatening and therefore easier to kill. People defending a home are stationary and you don't want to fight them.

[@krankarvolund7771]

I don't know if Resistance is very effective in killing germans, but I heard that without the informations dealed by the REsistance, Normandy's landing were been very harder, and perhaps impossible. I think Resistance is pretty effective in spy and intelligence ^^

[@eclogs9117]

in the revolutionary war it was said that british soldiers often were confused since they were basically fighting their own like a civil war which made them lose morale, as well as fighting for a king rather than an ideal

[@vorpalzvevda3659]

Israel

[@dragonangel1786]

Damn! Is it any wonder soldiers have trouble adjusting to civilian life when they come back from war?

[@dannylamb456]

There's a saying that soldiers at war dream of peace while soldiers at peace dream of war.

[@iberiksoderblom]

Mostly...

[@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate]

It’s those closest to us that have to deal with the problems that such training brings with it. Unfortunately there aren’t enough wives that are strong enough to cope with the fallout, hence I’m eternally grateful for my wife’s understanding and patience. The things she has put up with might find their way into a book that might help the families of veterans in the future, but not quite yet as we have the little issue of my terminal cancer to finish off first.

[@Angel-rm7wv]

@@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate Sir, I'm sorry for what you had to go through. I can't say anything personal as we are strangers but i hope you find peace.

[@myparceltape1169]

I wonder what the armourers who filled up planes with 4lb incendiaries night after night thought.

[@illiteratethug3305]

5:42 *Sees German troops. "OI, YOU LOT, GET OFF MY BLOODY FRANCE, GO ON, CLEAR OFF, THE BLEEDIN' LOT OF YOU. ...YOUR MOTHERS WILL BE HEARING ABOUT THIS!!!"

[@hellpwnage6665]

The quiet guy in the platoon: *Loads Sten with murderous intent *

[@StartledSloth]

This is definitely a point backed up by Sebastian Junger's book "Tribe." In that, he confirms that across all available psychological studies of the military, the most traumatizing thing a soldier can experience is watching someone else die, regardless of whether it's an ally or an enemy. The vast majority of soldiers reported that they would much rather be in a situation that endangers their own life, such as taking artillery fire or getting shot at by enemy snipers, than a situation that requires them to kill someone else.

[@caseyjack9969]

My grandfather fought in ww2 for all of its duration, he was in the Scotts guards. And he quite openly told me if he didn’t have to kill someone he didn’t but then that all changed when there was a German solider he didn’t shoot because he told me he looked like a teenager and reminded him of his brother (my grandad was in his early 20s) and about 40 minutes later there was a massive explosion. The person he didn’t shoot ended up blowing up a British tank crew in there tank. He told me from then on he didn’t think of them as men he saw them and possibilities. Possibly they could kill someone he knew later on in the war. He told me he killed 8 German men and 4 Italian. He had it scratched on his lee Enfield Which we still have today on our wall above the fire place. Edit: Just thought I’d leave this comment here. I’m so upset people are comparing my grandfathers story to fury. That film is one of the worst war films I’ve scene. Pearl harbour is number 1 most hated war film if anyone was wondering. I’m close to becoming an alcoholic because of these fury comments. If I was going to make a story up I’d choose a good film/story such as saving private Ryan, band of brothers or a bridge to far. You can call me a lair but I know my grandfather was a war hero and I respect him so much. When KZbin allows photos to be posted in the comments is the day I post the war records, his rifle, his medals and his personal letter to his wife talking about the incidents he was in. Thank you all for reading my comment. I have flikr If anyone would like to see the photos, have a good day

[@rasmuskock8077]

Casey Jack what an interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.

[@Pablovru]

I wonder how many grandpa stories are actually real.

[@caseyjack9969]

Kristina Petrov I don’t know what you are trying to imply but my story is 100% truth. he’s my idol and I wouldn’t make up lies just to get a couple of likes on KZbin.

[@dextervinant4874]

Casey Jack I think he's trying to say that he wonders how many stories from grandfathers are embellished. I don't think it was a personal insult to your grandfather, but it is an acknowledgement that human memory is fickle and oftentimes those kinds of stories are mistold later on?

[@caseyjack9969]

Cliche Guevara yeah

[@saifis]

I understand its more of a built in biological mechanism not wanting to kill your own kind, but still feel like its a nice thing for humanities sake.

[@twardy8304]

well, i would probably have a lot more problems with killing a dog puppy than i would have with shooting some terrorist douchebag for example

[@TheSuspectOnFoot]

+TWARDY A criminal is a bit different kind of a target than a soldier that's a legit combatant and someone who's in the same position as you are but only on the other side.

[@saifis]

TWARDY You say that, but when it comes to actually shooting some one, most people can't shoot, as said in the video, unless your some psycho,its not a show of weakness, just that you are human. I'm sure the US soldiers going to Europe during WW2 thought the same, "I'm gonna kill all the nazis". most did not.

[@tedcruzthewrathofgod8439]

I don't understand why it is so hard to take a life

[@JayWing519]

You wouldnt because youve never done it. Its the same reaction you have when your trying to do something your scared of. You, unwillingly, dont want to do it and have to make yourself do it. Obviously though killing a human is a much harder response to overcome than doing something your scared of.

[@johndoe-is2fw]

PTSD is no weakness of soldiers - its the sickness of experience

[@MTWZZYZX]

It's by defnintion a disorder. PTS is often just the normal reaction to a highly abnormal experience.

[@b.l.9764]

Who would ever be ignorant enough to claim that PTSD is a weakness of Soldiers?

[@artyomarty391]

@@b.l.9764 PTSD is a weakness. Its caused by a soldier living a protected mommas boy life, never being in a fight in his life, and then suddenly going to war and seeing real raw life. This is exactly why the military tries to screen volunteers: to make sure they are psychologically advanced to withstand the harsh realities of combat A good example is fishing and hunting. If you've never hunted or fished in your life, your first experience at killing something will be quiet difficult. It will be even more difficult if you had been brought up as a sissy or if you are just not used to getting new experiences.

[@blapointe9]

Artyom Arty I’ve been in the Army for 17 years and have known several Soldiers with some level to severe PTSD. People that were definitely not sissies as you put it or lived mommas boy lives. You are a ridiculous short sighted &$#!, probably incapable of having a half cognitive thought in your limited half empty skull.

[@kairndreamer2885]

@@artyomarty391, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is caused by trauma-inducing events or experiences: for some this is the horrors of war, for some it happens to be a rough childhood or even a near-death experience, and for survivors like myself it happens to be from abuse. You are perfectly welcome to call us what you will, but just remember that there's a good portion of us (including myself) who've got a ton of muscle and determination to survive against the odds: and we do Not take kindly to people who think they've got us all figured out. Next Time, go do some research ya twit.

[@RamblingRecruiter]

I agree with you that this is a fact. From my own experiences in Iraq, if 3 soldiers in a squad had it in them to pick up their heads and return fire, only 1 was taking aimed shots. The other two were just burning ammo to make noise. Our LT always wanted to know how much ammo was expended in an engagement, and you'd get these kinds of answers: "I fired 2 full mags", "I fired 17 rounds", "I fired 4 rounds"... invariably there'd be four enemy kia.

[@justinz9225]

It's also worth noting that just shooting under stress is a lot harder than shooting on a flat range. Law Enforcement Officers have about an 18% hit rate in the field, even though they hit the target 100% on the flat range. When adrenaline is surging, your shaky hands turn a 7-yard target into a 21-yard target.

[@Colin-kh6kp]

Every actual police shooting ive ever seen has been a ridiculous mag dump as fast as possible.

[@obfuscated3090]

US LEO "training" is typically poor and many enthusiasts are far better shots. Our educational requirements are lax too with a few exceptions. Note that many EU police carry SMGs yet don't have near the use of force problems the US does. America has more vanity than professionalism and it shows.

[@jlcr4300]

@@obfuscated3090 Going on tangent, but not changing to the metric system just to be different is peak vanity.

[@Milamberinx]

Why shouldn't the law enforcement officers also be subject to the lack of desire to kill? This test broadly agrees with that musket test Lindy mentioned.

[@Keka-vg3ut]

@@obfuscated3090 or maybe it's because in most European countries we have nowhere near as much problems with gang crime etc where there are deadly encounters with suspects. Police officers in the us operate in a much more dangerous environment than here in Germany I'm pretty sure most of our German police officers would do worse in deadly encounters than American police officers while I think they are better at everything else that is police related because most training is talking etc and not so much to fight but I think that is the big weakness of our police if they'd ever be in a deadly encounter

[@ThePerfectRed]

You really must recognize he does this is a single cut scene. incredible!

[@notinterested8452]

Funny Farmer good point.

[@longpinkytoes]

director level: Rope

[@Dunkle0steus]

the 1947 survey only interviewed troops that had survived the war though. Maybe firing at the enemy gets you killed more often.

[@mcRydes]

Many of those interviewed in the survey were actually fictional, because the author (a journalist, not a social scientist) just made them up to create a better story.

[@phileas007]

That may be so, but I think there are a couple of interesting factors to throw in. 1) Modern drone pilots are also known for having issues killing their targets because they have full control and zero risk 2) WWII fighter pilots were mostly recruited from prisons because they were known to be capable as ex-murderers 3) back in WWII there were a lot of older people going to the front, today in the middle east it's mostly youngsters. 4) Basic training methodology has changed a lot since the 50s, nowadays it's all about psychologically breaking their minds, it's about turning ordinary ppl into order-obeying psychos. Just like ISIS does so successfully.

[@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

If it had been a social scientist all not just some would have been made up.

[@heghog5899]

fairz

[@BigJaseNZ]

Nah, these findings were taken pretty seriously. The US military found they could get around it with different training methods. They also found that soldiers that used crew served weapons such as machine guns are mortars were significantly more likely to fire their weapon. There is a lot of psychology at work here. We simply weren't aware of it during WWII to the extent we are now. You'll find this phenomenon is much less frequent in modern militaries because of the changes to training after WW2.

[@ajohnymous5699]

What I love about this channel is that this is both wholesome, yet consistent. When Lindybeige discussed artillery being the main cause of death in both world wars, there is no seeing the person being afraid and its just firing a big gun and only hearing about how it might kill people vs. seeing them. These men don't have to see the enemy, they dont have to aim their gun at an enemy, they're "aiming at a target." while machineguns killed about 15% were machineguns kills in WW2 so that guy holding the trigger down to pin the enemy down and having a flurry of bullets flying towards a target with some flying around and then some hitting a man by chance if not on purpose. There is an unusual consistency to human behavior established in the findings Lindybeige conveys to us from research on research.

[@Holuunderbeere]

Humans are humans after all.

[@Donkeyearsa]

The same is with bomber crews. You are just dropping bombs you dont see the people who are being killed. There was a really good episode on M.A.S.H. about a pilot dropping bombs and not seeing the damage its doing.

[@darth_dan8886]

Yeah. With this context, the militaries' fascination with fully automatic weapons and "accuracy by volume" suddenly makes a lot of sense. Not because it's actually better than a single shot or a short burst, but because it has actual real chance to hit when the shooter isn't quite aiming.

[@ajohnymous5699]

@@darth_dan8886 Not just that but even looking back and wincing at some decisions, seeing how out if touch old men were and still kind of are with an increasingly modern world. Like how the U.S., Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia aimed to get semi automatic rifles standardized, with the Soviets having some developmental problems with the AVS-36 select fire rifle having reliability issues before they made the SVT-38 and then the 40 before having to fall back on the Mosin somewhat due to how easy and cheap it was to produce. Then once they regained elbow room they made the SKS rifle and the RPD machinegun as the first real light machinegun before introducing the AK platform as they went from people who thought cavalry would outlast tanks due to WW1 experiences to making some modern weapons. The idea being "individual soldiers can make a difference, their rifles should give them greater ability to fight" while Germany, by contrast, was very reluctant to do the same and tried making the bolt Mauser the way to go as they believed Machineguns were the real firepower in squads and Mausers supporting them is sufficient. America was weird about automatic weapons and they thought it was wasteful so they would accept machinegun with lower rates of fire and this was reflected in the M16A2 where the U.S. Army decided a 3 shot burst was more sensible than automatic fire. And between WW2 and Vietnam the AK existed and was doing well while the West tried battle rifle as intermediate rounds were thought to be "too weak." Only for Battle Rifles to be largely too unwieldy and having less ammo on each soldier. Like you can tell when a visionary is at the helm of decision making and someone clueless and it pops up far more noticeably than before. It's incredible

[@HoseTheBeast]

I’m a great grandson of two ww2 veterans. Other was a sniper and other was a rifle man. They both fought in the winter war defending their nation against the soviets. The sniper one from my dads side got a few medals that he later actually threw in the trash. But anyway you can look at the statistics of the winter war and you will see that every finn fired to kill during those 105 days. Maybe there is a difference when you are defending your home and your family all your loved ones and when you are just shipped to a strange country to kill people.

[@NKG416]

agree

[@andrew_owens7680]

Yeah, that's what the military call a flawed system. They want any recruit to be able to kill anybody anywhere. And if they can't get a human willing to do it, a robot will do.

[@truedarklander]

@Ryan Kruse the winter war began before the Soviets got involved. And don't forget that the Soviets were who declared war on Finland.

[@Omifi]

@Ryan Kruse we allied with germans after the winter war not during it. Im not offended by your joke just clearing facts

[@xtremea3165]

@Ryan Kruse sure sure of course, Trading with eachother is bad init? loads of countrys did it and after Germany burned down Lappi the trading system ended and finland quit trading and made germany seen as hostile force. Why are you crying over finland when sweden gave the germans access to northen finlnad using the train system and the fact that they gave germany free metal so they could create weapons? Fucking finland fought for their country, pussy sweden didn't do shit and in my eyes supported the killing of over 10 million people

[@seecha8970]

22:30 to the end is perhaps the MOST important part of this video.

[@toxichazard5015]

This was by far the best explanation of PTSD due to killing that I have heard.

[@thisotherperson]

Yeah possibly the most meaningful minute I spent on youtube

[@Teglamen]

lol. trained killing machine who's been told that killing is wrong after having a nice body count

[@jonynos16]

the answer is never wage war

[@SuperAsefasef]

Well an important difference to keep in mind is the fact that in ww1 and ww2 we had a draft but since then we've become an entirely volunteer army. You have to choose to join. I think that makes a big difference

[@Arnyh0ld]

While there is a difference people recruited are often manipulated into it by various techniques.

[@Dread_Pirate_Homesteader]

Made zero difference. The training aspect is what was needed. The major difference between ww2 and Vietnam training was the military killed green pop men that would fall. Vs a circle target on paper

[@sebastianaquino7454]

I saw the video 5 years ago, 3 years ago I did my final project of a psicology class about it but just with what I remembered, because I couldn’t find the video. Today I stumbled it on my feed, the title was interesting and as soon I clicked, I realized it was THAT video. Saving it on my favorites and rewatching it again after so many years. Thanks for the video

[@michaelbyrneskiai]

"the rifle is only a tool it is the hard heart that kills" Gunnery Sergeant Hartman

[@RandomPerson57_]

“Wired differently upstairs” is a really good insult

[@pteppig]

Depends on how you view the majority of the population. I would see it as a great compliment

[@pfalky2k]

not really. some of us are quite pleased to be "wired differently upstairs" - not in a "let's see how many people we can deconstruct" way. just a bit "off the wall". I don't really like people. I FUCKING LOVE animals & would end humanity rather than see my pet get a runny nose - I mean, I can't. but if I could? farewell Homo Sapien. there are about 25 humans I would keep. the rest, i'd neither help nor hinder their survival or extinction. unless they fell into my "Hated" category in which case i'd like to put them in DEEP fekn hole, douse them with Pitch-oil & throw a burning zippo in. Tell me i'm "WDU", i'm as like to thank you.

[@hellpwnage6665]

Only in England

[@vapormissile]

Amen, man. "Flush out your headgear, New Guy."

[@jaighter]

@@pfalky2k zippocat zippocat zippocat

[@runforitman]

Is this one of the reasons firing squads are given a few rifles with blanks?

[@HrRezpatex]

I have never heard of that, but would probably kill my officer if i found out that i was given blanks. (i would see it as a attempt to murder me)

[@GaenaralHONK]

@@HrRezpatex Firing squads are the guys that shoot in executions, not in actual combat

[@HrRezpatex]

@@GaenaralHONK aha, ok thanks for the answer :)

[@antiisocial]

I have read that yes, this is the reason why.

[@gmansplit]

@@HrRezpatex Were you asking a question?

[@Jeff250lbc]

Some dead guy said... Out of 100 men “Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.” -Heraclitus

[@Holuunderbeere]

Good quote

[@Jeff250lbc]

@@Holuunderbeere it is .. the history of the US soldiers Marines is proof.

[@tiberiu_nicolae]

My grandfather was in WWII and told me that he didn't shoot to kill. I just now begin to understand why. War is horrible and innocent men were in it on both sides.

[@tiberiu_nicolae]

Just to add something, this phenomenon has also been documented on new hunters that can't shoot the deer in the crosshair.

[@mikeromney4712]

Not if the enemy think like you...:)

[@greasehillbilly6543]

+iNsaneMilesy When you get shot you don't keep fighting the same if you injure them it's almost the same effect as killing

[@mikeromney4712]

I think this would allways depend from the situation and the outcome will be anytime a different...So yes, injuries will not (allways) kept people from fighting furthermore...

[@chrisbrent7487]

+iNsaneMilesy it all depends on how you are injured. If you take one through your lung you won't go far or a 7.62x39 through your femur you won't go far either.

[@Spid88PL]

Hello Lindybeige! I've translated the video to Polish... don't ask me how many hours I've spent o.O :D But it's worth it, I think (unless you won't accept my work) :S Have a look in your free time, please. Greetings from Poland! :)

[@castlehill6717]

People like you are awesome :). I don’t speak polish as I am American (Although I do know quite a few Americans who do, as they are ethnically Polish), but I love that you took your time to do that.

[@oczony]

it's a very good translation thuogh Janusz! Janusz!

[@Angry_People_Media]

You're awesome for doing that! It made it in the video.

[@saturninkepa4915]

​@@castlehill6717 kielbasa and bigos!

[@angeliparraguirre7329]

You mad lad 👏🏽

[@sleepingboyxx]

As a clinical psychotherapist and a military history fan, I found your channel so valuable and providing such unique psychological perspective of wars and human mind. Keep up the good work.

[@BananasFroggy]

Those last 2 sentences are actually very important. Well worth the time to watch, thanks Lindy. Merry Christmas!

[@LibertarianUSA1982]

I can concur with this.... As a US Marine, I did two tours in Iraq and left the wire often. I never fired my rifle one time in anger.

[@T-E-M-P-O]

Salute

[@MsCwebb]

Jesus man!!! What the hell were you doing in combat without the fortitude to pull the damn trigger?

[@LibertarianUSA1982]

Agron Legioneras I was never in combat is what Im telling you.

[@MsCwebb]

LibertarianUSA1982 oh lol

[@hades7746]

LibertarianUSA1982 Korengal Valley myself. Where were you deployed?

[@kezianaomi1839]

easily the most interesting war channel ever. too bad i just discovered you. keep it up

[@UnknownKnower2]

why are you interested in war?

[@Makaveli2000]

@@UnknownKnower2 why are you?

[@UnknownKnower2]

Im a guy

[@Makaveli2000]

@@UnknownKnower2 so

[@Makaveli2000]

what's ur point

[@VWeooo]

All this you are talking about is directly related to the Christmas Truce in WWI in the first year of war... when most soldiers were conscripts and felt like Christmas was a time of peace. When Christmas was over they would not shoot at the other trench because now they "were not mere enemies"... they saw the human side of the other soldiers and now they could not shoot at those with whom they had played football or shared chocolate, tobacco, etc. Real good talk.

[@yehmustafa2959]

George Washington. Delaware River. December 25-26, 1776.

[@billw7000]

I was involved in trials with Simunition (the 'paintballs' you referred to). The behaviour of soldiers was markedly different from when using the laser weapon simulators. Some became really gung-ho. One guy even jumped out of a first floor window to get at the enemy he was so excited - and broke his ankle and was still on a high. Whilst others f*cked about with their equipment rather than get stuck in during the firefights. I have also been involved in trials with troops using standard paintball guns. They viewed that as more of a game than with Simunition and generally really enjoyed themselves. I think it is to do with knowing the live round capabilities of their weapons (Simunition is used in their standard small arms) that had different connotations than the paintball markers. All in all it was really interesting to see.

[@DareToWonder]

ok this explains why the Storm Troppers in Star Wars always miss

[@Kassidar]

"good guys" don't miss

[@DareToWonder]

they did not really flinch to kill anyone...

[@franshakvoort6874]

Well, they could've just cloned men who shoot to kill right?

[@FabrizioBianchi]

Apparently the end of the Clone Wars gave them a coscience.

[@FabrizioBianchi]

Came here to say this!

[@DutchBane]

i had a pellet gun when i was little and i tried to shoot a bird. i aimed and i felt my heart sink. i felt terrible. i never fired at the bird and just stuck to cans.

[@joekenyon1599]

george lightheart you'll shoot yer eye out

[@Chuzzlepuff]

I shot a pigeon when i was 10 with 1 pump from my bb gun without even aiming... i shit you not the bb went into the pigeons eye socket and killed it instantly. I was mortifiedXD i couldn't even play world of warcraft for a couple weeks because i didn't want to kill anything in the game

[@JaguarBST]

your first kill is always hardest, you shouldn't shy away from killing animals if you are willing to accept hunting is part of human culture. It's one thing to be empathetic to living creature and another to be so over sensitive that you can not shoot a bird for food. But that's just my opinion :)

[@DutchBane]

JaGuaR but i didnt need to eat it. It was just for sport. I just dont like shooting that way.

[@zeecaptain5351]

george lightheart I have no problem shooting a bird. I did once and thought nothing of it

[@pauljs75]

I guess that explains the footage from Syria, where you have guys running around a corner of a building and not even trying to aim at all while shooting randomly.

[@keepthepeace3744]

+awesomekc Try to be civil im pretty sure he dosent have downsyndrome he was clearly making an observation

[@keepthepeace3744]

awesomekc well after your statement im sure he now knows what it means

[@pauljs75]

It was footage from one of the Euro news sources being run on a PBS channel here in the U.S. (One that does "world news".) Said it was one of the non-ISIS non-Syria rebel factions. Seemed they were just putting on a show for the camera and not doing much that looked effective. They were holding the gun loose and not even trying to sight or point it as it fired. (My feeling though is that if they did anything that looked like an effort was involved, they would have been shot by whoever they were going against.)

[@ericsmith5919]

US forces don't (ideally) suppress and run at the same time. You work in teams, with one suppressing and the other moving. That way you can lay down effective suppression while still making forward progress. Do US troops "run and gun?" Yes, and it's probably not rare. Is that what they're trained to do, and supposed to do? Not at all.

[@ericsmith5919]

Isn't that kind of... exactly what I said? "One suppressing and the other moving?"

[@daveanderson7304]

Dear Lindy Beige: Nothing beige about you sir. Your videos are fascinating and your style is wonderful. Keep up the great work!

[@americana_incarnate1717]

Lindy: Himmler not a nice chap. Me: that's a understatement.

[@astridstoik6002]

"A UNDERSTATEMENT" I can tell that English isn't your first language

[@zoranhome]

@@astridstoik6002 how many foreign languages do you speak?

[@masterson0713]

An*

[@scorkami1789]

So... Technically, when someone points a gun at my head, looking them dead in the eye gives me a higher survival chance than looking in the opposite direction and praying?a lot of action movies make a bit more sense now

[@General12th]

Only if you have the time. If they're trained to kill, they would shoot you the instant they raised the gun. If they're a psychopath, it won't matter anyway.

[@scorkami1789]

im talking abotu the typical drug dealer who puts the gun into his pocket nad posts it on instagram xD yeah i dont have a chance against a seal

[@TheBetterManInBlack]

No, that guy is most likely a manufactured psychopath with zero respect for his own life, let alone yours.

[@scorkami1789]

so everyone who holds a gun at me is a psychopath? that would mean that every souldier i fought (i didnt fight in a war, this is an example) would be a psychopatch... which is clearly not the case. drug dealers, thieves, idiots... there are many ways to get a gun, andthere are many people who would threaten you just to get their stuff, that doesnt mean everyone of them is hannibal lecter.

[@natthekiwi7074]

apparently smiling also helps when walking through war. If you smile and walk then people are way less likely to shoot. A general used to do that when walking directly into the enemy city. WWII I believe and it mught’ve been the guy with a bow and arrow.

[@gilbertotoledo1421]

But how many can shoot to thrill?

[@danacoleman4007]

My favorite song of all time!!!!!!!!

[@angeliparraguirre7329]

Nice ref

[@pcport2698]

Aiaiaiaiiii

[@jonathanmabe5561]

Ready to kill I got my gun at the ready

[@jim.franklin]

Brilliant video, so very true. Human beings are not the cold blooded killers often claimed, most of the most notorious killers never harmed a fly themselves, but they convinced others to do it. After almost 20 years in uniform and numerous operational deployments I can hand on heart say that without conditioned training most would never fire at their target, it has to be instinctive. However, as spoken of, there seems little effort in deprogramming those trained to act not think. It takes a lot of staying power to suppress instincts. All personnel who have seen combat have PTSD even if they do not realise it.

[@FlyingPipers]

One of the most interesting videos that I have ever watched on KZbin. I couldn't stop watching until the end! Great work :)

[@rorypowerbreen497]

Yes Same 😁

[@willotter4503]

Sane

[@joejk3]

looks like we need to redistribute fighter jet proficiency from the greedy 1%

[@SilentNinjaPtrs]

lol liberals

[@tomcole5118]

anime sucks The pilots have nothing to lose but their chains.

[@NuclearRoll]

anime sucks underrated comments

[@Zion5100]

amazing hahaha

[@TheFi0r3]

The pilots have nothing to lose but their planes.

[@arielfuxman8868]

7:45 Although it is a quote from chess, "The threat is greater than the executuion"

[@arielfuxman8868]

@Homa Simpson e5

[@arielfuxman8868]

@Homa Simpson Nc3

[@arielfuxman8868]

@Homa Simpson Bc5

[@arielfuxman8868]

@Homa Simpson Bxb4

[@arielfuxman8868]

@Homa Simpson Ba5 this is the evans gambit accepted line

[@SK4M_Freal]

The last minute was absolutely mind-blowing, made a really good point 💯 I really do advise to watch all this vid. Cheers Lindybeige.👍🏽

[@TalenGryphon]

Well... this is the most horrifying video I've seen today. Starts out as something of a triumph of the human spirit, then deteriorates into how easily said spirit can be manipulated. And where you talk about the consequences of reflexive training: That is particularly heart-wrenching Though your bit about the Victoria Cross winners is interesting. That puts new light on the cliche of the hero who wins the day only after his best friend/partner/lover is killed

[@pokefan2711]

The human is actually very mentally fragile, isn't actually too hard to make a civilian turn into a soldier. Ever saw real videos of hypnosis? Having the map of the mind, you can reach desired changes fairly easy.

[@pietrotettamanti7239]

@@thegreatnihil7854 You ain't a psycho, you're just an edgy kid seeking for attention

[@quasicroissant]

@@thegreatnihil7854 that's some /r/iamverybadass material right there

[@Me.Cookunknown]

@@tawnybrawn doesn't that make u a sheep as well? following others who aren't sheep and telling ppl who are "sheep" makes you a sheep. how about u stfu and stop telling others this. it makes zero sense

[@Legitpenguins99]

@MA MC sorry we arent murdering pychopaths. Either your a teenage edgelord or you need to be institutionalized

[@AlexNovakim]

Did the unwillingness to shoot to kill apply to japanese soldiers in WWII as well?

[@lindybeige]

Interesting question. I do not know.

[@Andreas_Mann]

BUSHIDO

[@jpkman1995]

Have to love how Japan was always the rogue element.

[@kirumy-toz]

+Lindybeige perhaps the internal structure of imperial Japanese society develops different psyches which encourage lethal behaviour. The same could be said for radicalised Islamic State militants.

[@krillissue]

I mean, if you dehumanize a group of people enough, you can get people to do anything. The Japanese considered themselves a superior race, and in doing so they dehumanized their neighbors, and to an extent the West too.

[@blowingfree6928]

This accords in part with something my father once told me. He was with the Eighth Army in North Africa, and he described how if they were out on patrol and they passed a German patrol, they would usually ignore each other and just carry on, as there was no point in engaging each other and someone might get hurt. Lack of killer instinct in the ordinary man, though I do not think that applies to the ordinary Japanese soldier or SS man, both of whom rather relished killing. Having read a lot of fighter pilot autobiographies, it seems that all of them were firing at the aircraft to bring the aircraft down, rather than trying to kill the human inside. They never thought about anyone being inside and all of them tried to bring the aircraft down. I would suggest that the 5% of pilots bringing down 50% of aircraft shot down had nothing to do with not wanting to kill, but was due to the 5% being good shots with a good eye, and the remainder being poor shots, particularly with deflection shooting.

[@CeroAshura]

Meanwhile the Japanese kamikaze pilots were acting under the impression that their own plane was also unmanned.

[@RovanRS]

Well, your father was lucky - his country was not invaded by the Germans. He did not have to watch his countrymen - civilians - including women and children, die from German bullets and bombs. He did not have to witness German atrocities during the occupation. As a result, he had no real reason to hate the German soldiers he was fighting against. My grandfather on the other hand, hated the German occupiers with all his heart and when he finally had the opportunity to fight them, he tried to kill as many as possible.

[@blowingfree6928]

@@RovanRS I don't think it was luck, as an ack-ack battery commander he saw plenty of civilians, men, women and children, killed in 1940/1941 due to the German bombing of British cities. However, he was a serviceman and servicemen tend not to hate. They usually regard their German opponents as people just doing their duty. It is usually civilians that hate and are keen for someone else to draw the blood of the enemy. I take it you are Russian and your grandfather was eventually old enough to join the Soviet Army later in the war.

[@myparceltape1169]

Half of the pilots could have been guarding the tail of the one in front, the one who would be awarded the kill.

[@docdavidb]

@@myparceltape1169 Yes. A wingman rarely got a chance to shoot, if Bud Anderson is to be believed

[@capnstewy55]

B F Skinner also did a lot of work with pigeons. I would also argue that good fathers are more likely to shoot to kill. It's just there are fewer of them in combat usually.

[@ArmoredCricket]

“Peck him in the eye! Peck him in the eye! Peck him in the eye!”

[@gggg-hq4td]

I read this as he was saying that

[@1337penguinman]

This could also explain the increase in PTSD since WW2.

[@hlary8320]

id imagine "finger trigger frostbite" has gotten more naturally prevalent these days since were now all more or less connected by the internet thus making it much easier to humanize someone

[@RegosAwesome]

Couldn't you also argue against that since in the earlier periods (WW2, Civil War) it was people with cultural similarities and so it's a lot easier to humanise them, compared to today where a lot of wars are overseas in foreign cultures.

[@hlary8320]

RegosAwesome well ww2 to the usa was a over seas war taking place in europe,africa, and the pacific

[@fudgingteddy9481]

Nah, a higher percentage of US soldiers actually took the shoot when fighting against the Japanese, then when fighting against Italy/Germany. It was pretty obvious that the US soldiers found it easier to humanize the people with cultural similarities, then the Japanese.

[@TheDeadoss7]

Also, they had a direct reason to hate the japanese military.

[@HaeravonFAQs]

I wonder how this applies to ancient and medieval warfare? How many soldiers in a phalanx were willing and able to kill? In a legion? How many were just there holding up their shields being pushed by the back ranks, while they stabbed blindly under or over their shield with a spear or gladius? It could also explain why the Spartans were so superior as a fighting unit to other soldiers - they killed Helots as part of their upbringing. They almost certainly would have been desensitized in battle to a degree which their neighbors weren't. Aside from the physical conditioning, the Spartan mystique might have been as simple as the fact that they were willing to "shoot to kill", as it were, at a rate most of their opponents were not.

[@GuruJudge21]

He's touched on it before and I was inclined to agree with him. Modern warfare is far more terrifying an event to the individual soldier. In centuries past, close combat provided a scenario where it was kill or be killed. They would also have felt a sense of fellowship that would have urged them on to protect their friends that was logistically impossible to maintain in later conflicts. Your example of the Spartans represent an entire society dedicated to warfare to the absolute extreme, were in it was amazingly even more traumatic not killing your enemy or dying in the attempt.

[@Oberstgreup]

I suspect it's easier to kill when the guy is within spitting distance and actively trying to kill you. Like the guy charging with the bayonet Lindybeige mentioned. Our instincts just haven't evolved to feel like a guy shaving or telling a joke 200 yards away, or even shooting at us that far away, is actively threatening us the way a screaming guy charging with an axe 10 feet away is. There's a lot of culture that goes into to it as well, though. The Spartans were relentlessly socialized to kill. Romans weren't, but their training was as professional and systematic as ours is, which is what made the legions such brutally effective killing machines.

[@tcurtisjohnson]

It's easier to FIGHT when someone's within arm's reach and trying to fight with or (at least apparently) kill you; actually KILLING, though, remains quite difficult as long as you and your opponent are looking directly at one another. Lindy's point about Che and others of his ilk who LIKE killing still have certain instinct-level problems with killing someone face-to-face, probably because, when we see FACES, we see PEOPLE. As supporting evidence, I offer the fact that, throughout human history, most (land) battle casualties, by a HUGE margin, occurred after the enemy broke and ran, even in cases of disciplined, professional forces like the legions against undisciplined, non-professional hordes like the Goths or the Germans. You would EXPECT a legion to cut its way through a mob, killing as they come, in a trice, but the historical, archaeological evidence shows that that simply didn't happen. Yes, it's physically simpler to stab a running man in the back than to stab a resisting man in the front, but there's no WAY the individual skill levels were anything like the same when legion fought barbarian.

[@TheSm1thers]

It would be easier for them to fight close up because the enemy are a direct threat.

[@christopherknorr2895]

fighting hand to hand is fighting for your life. it's you or him.

[@michaeladolph7134]

My grandfather was in the German Wehrmacht and he always told me that he never fired a single shot at the enemy because he was scared and didn't want to harm anyone... Loads of soldiers said the same. He ended up as POW in France and returned to Germany many years later with a clear conscious not to have killed.

[@justtango4741]

what if he missed a shot on someone who later wiped out his fellow soldiers?

[@danpat6838]

This is why police need to be trained differently to soldiers. So the officer can make a decision to shoot someone rather than it being instinctive

[@Immerteal]

also ex-soldiers probably shouldnt be allowed to join the police or be required to do special training.

[@BigSwede7403]

That´s RoE, RoE can´t and won´t override a conditioned reflex unless you keep it at the front of your mind all the time which is a huge strain mentally and will keep you distracted. Get distracted in the battlefield... There´s a big chance you are going home in a box. Think of it like this. Someone makes to punch you in the face, you flinch/starts to protect yourself, move back out of range, lessen the impact. Natural reaction. Now you get an order to not flinch because not all those punches will connect anyway, they are just fakes. So you keep it at the front of your mind, "Don´t flinch, don´t move" and that can (not always though) override that natural flinch. Problem is, when that actual punch comes through, you will (most likely anyway) just be standing there and taking it because you are so busy overriding that natural reflex. RoE works when you have time to reflect on what you are doing though, but that is far from always when lead is flying left and right.

[@IdleDrifter]

Unfortunately, many police officers were killed in the process of routine traffic stops by the psychopath at the wheel of the vehicle. The psychopaths always turn out to be career criminals. So the reaction by the police organizations and politicians is to ensure the officer will not hesitate to fire their weapon should such an event occur. There is no shoot to wound as there is a shoot to stop. Shoot to stop is legalese for shoot to kill. The same message is taught to concealed carry students as you are deploying a lethal weapon. Shooting to wound could be construed as torture and imply you had the option to escape. Shooting to kill means in court that you had no choice and were in danger of losing life and limb. With shoot to stop, the second the threat stops being any threat against you you must cease fire. No executions. Example, an intended robbery victim pulls their weapon and shoots the perpetrator. The perpetrator slumps to the ground unconscious but is still alive. The victim cannot shoot again after this point. They are required to call 911 and the dispatcher will send the necessary units. The victim does not have render aid to the perpetrator.

[@Mr_Phage]

Fair point, this perfectly explains to me why American police always seem so jumpy at road-side stops caught on camera. As someone from the UK whenever I see armed police it always freaks me out.

[@MI-jp4nq]

Trained differently how? Are you aware of the 21 foot rule, or the time it takes (sometimes a fraction of a second) to identify and neutralize potential threats? The ROE of military personnel and SOP for apprehension for LEOs are furthermore massively different. For one, soldiers don't go up to the enemy, verbalize intentions, give a series of commands and aim toward his arrest. The police are, however, expected to get up close, personal, and peacefully engage with potential threats for a greater variety of potential results (detainment, questioning, threat neutralization which may include shooting to kill and no action) for a greater time period than an average soldier is expected to face a belligerent. With a soldier the options are narrow and the goal simple - shoot. Kill. With a LEO the actions have to change based on minor variations in any one or some of hundreds of variables - Is the apprehended reaching for a weapon? Threatening the officer or someone else? Non compliant with the law or officer orders? One of the many- and rarely used- options the LEO has is using their firearm to prevent or stop any of these 3. In most cases where this option is utilized, it is justified . Yet due to anomalous incidents where this option is utilized unjustifiably, and marginally more (controlled for crime rates) against members of one group over another? Now we have a problem with LE. Now they need to be 'retrained' or 'disarmed'.

[@keithlynch7239]

Forty five years ago I was walking home alone, late at night. On the opposite side of the road another young man was walking in the opposite direction to me. I don't remember why, but we ended up axchanging angry words and he crossed the road and faced me. I wasn't concerned and was prepared for any confrontation with him. I then saw the knife in his hand and I froze with fear. Seeing the fear in my face, he immediately became conciliatory towards me, expressing concern and apologising for the scaring me. So yes, I have expressed fear and seen people back away and I have seen fear in people's faces and felt compassion and the desire to help. The current global turmoil and conflicts perpetrated by our elected politicians stem from greed, avarice, envy, ambition, etc, etc of individuals who join in with the collective club of tribalism which is concentrated in government and expressed by the main media as patriotism and defence of the land, but is in fact only a brainwashing mechanism to make the rich even richer and the powerful even more powerful, which is detrimental to everyone one else.

[@WhatIsSanity]

I'm really glad you didn't get stabbed. I wish my expressions of fear stopped people from stomping on my head and throwing me in front of a moving car though. :/

[@ryangranato5010]

@@WhatIsSanity Why did you let them throw you infront of a moving car?

[@WhatIsSanity]

@@ryangranato5010 Took me by surprise.

[@maguspie9543]

@edwardschlosser1 Some men are also rational and don't pull a knife on someone they are angry at.

[@lordofdarkness4204]

In the end of the day, people don’t really want to kill each other even in the heat of war.

[@Stiggandr1]

I feel like this discussion is one of the main themes of Enders Game.

[@jwenting]

it is. Ender's Game is all about training people to kill without them realising they're killing. The children are never told they're killing enemies, the entire war is presented to them as a video game.

[@skrackensdal]

+CaptainDuckman in a sense it predicted drone warfare

[@jwenting]

Harrigan Holocaust which started in Vietnam, though on a small scale. The USAF first experimented there with target drones converted to carry missiles. These were controlled from the launch aircraft. Not a big success, but they tried it.

[@Antotoooooooooo]

WWII was already full of self driving bombs The V2 was set to fall on london Americans had miniature tanks loaded with explosives to drive to the frontlines also

[@jwenting]

Antotoooooooooo different beasts. Most weren't actively guided, just set a course and hope it gets there. There were some efforts at guided weapons but they never really left experimental status (though the Germans did field a small number of guided anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles late in the war, using wire or radio control from a launching aircraft, they were never used in large numbers).

[@gatsbysgarage8389]

This idea has come up a lot in discussions I’ve had with my family about gun culture and also about owning German shepherds- how many people assume they could pull the trigger just because they own a gun, and how even if you can do it many if not most people will hesitate. Under those assumptions, we are of the opinion that dogs like shepherds are better for home defense than a gun because dogs like that have been bred to never hesitate

[@pleb7612]

As a us marine you just blew my mind, this is one of the most eye opening videos ever

[@DivingDonut]

Dont believe this bollocks. SLA Marshalls Ratio of Fire claims are completely discredited by now, making this video baseless. www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/4-Engen-Marshall-under-fire.pdf Best of luck in your service, dude!

[@Half_Finis]

Thank you for your service from Norway :)

[@thegreatnihil7854]

As a hunter, it made me realize that I might be a psychopath... I believe that animals are living, breathing, intelligent creatures, but I have no trouble blowing their head off... I mean were all going to die, I probably wouldn't care that much if I killed people...

[@leobarajas1468]

You haven't refuted anything in the video though.

[@barbariandude]

@Chris Jones, you may or may not be one, but I highly doubt your willingness to kill animals factors into it. These deeply ingrained social instincts are triggered by members of the same species.

[@goyonman9655]

Himler couldn't watch executions??? I'm stunned

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Executing civilians up close put quite a psychological strain on the germans carrying it out. That's why they moved to less visible methods. They started with special gas vans. But these were hated by the crew because the victims didn't die quickly and their banging and screaming could be heard.

[@noratrieb]

He still was a human after all

[@ctykckcktyvc7558]

No, he personally asked for the videos of hangings from the bomb plot to kill him

[@ctykckcktyvc7558]

May have misread himler as Hitler but oh well

[@swen6390]

Himmler was also seen as a traitor at the end of the war by Adolf H. Most people think he was gruesome but he himself didnt want it to go like it did

[@SALSN]

I always thought we shot at man shaped targets to be sure we were able to hit a man sized target :-/ We also had tracks with targets popping up while we were walking, that had to be eliminated as fast as possible. It makes sense to be fast on the trigger when being threatened, but I never realized there was a psychological component as well.

[@SuperVistaprint]

there are a lot of these put to sad truth. in the kosovo war, my neighbour, his son and 2 more villagers had camp. after some hours of chatting, eating etc. the son went to wee and though "ha, i am going to prank them". crawled back to the camp, stood up and shouted - and his father shot him in a split second, raised his ak, pulled the trigger. it took them several minutes to realize what just happened and who got shot. a trained reflex and a bad joke - make a sad story

[@SALSN]

I was stationed in Kosovo, but long after the actual fighting was over, so luckily I never got into a shootout.

[@W4ldgeist]

Welcome to the army, bro. In the army you are "a weapon" a tool for the instrument "army". That's all we are supposed to be. The army employs sooooo many psychological tricks to manipulate solders without many realizing it. I am sure most soldiers feel the friendship to their fellow soldiers and believe it's genuine affection for that human being, while it's mostly the result of standard army training that makes "a pack" of wolves. Everything that feels good to the common soldier is fake in the army. Everything is just there to make you kill better. The social outcome of that training, the meta-emotions caused by it, the PTSD, the friendship are just byproducts, that the "army" doesn't care about, because it's not important to the function of "the weapon" soldier in the moment of their use. Aside from the utmost respect I have for every soldier who ever lived and fought for their country, their loved ones, their fellow soldiers, I think that fact is what makes me dislike the army as an institution very much. Because it manipulates humans without care for the results beyond their use.

[@VeteranVandal]

+Waldgeist I agree. I can never bring myself to respect an institution based on the effectiveness of bloodshedding.

[@SALSN]

Waldgeist While armed forces might not have the individual soldiers health as the highest priority, but let's not forget that after all they are there to protect their countries, at least in most countries. After all I think we were treated quite well, when I was a soldier. And when it all comes to show in the field, the way to keep yourself and your friends alive might come down to your willingness to pull the trigger. Whatever the circumstances of your friendship might be, they are still your friends.

[@mikemartin5073]

Was feeling quite depressed. This made me feel a bit better. Thank you mate

[@blakewinter1657]

So, perhaps this is part of why PTSD is more common for modern soldiers than it used to be?

[@Oberstgreup]

It isn't more common, we just don't sweep it under the rug as much. Many, many, many veterans of WW1 and the US Civil War had PTSD.

[@ME-hm7zm]

"Shell shock" "Combat fatigue" "Yellow belly". All pretty much PTSD.

[@Bynming]

It may be simultaneously more common than it used to be AND also less frequently swept under the rug because it's slightly better understood or at least more researched.

[@Cragified]

The last point to me isn't so much about PTSD as that you have instilled a conditioned reflex into a man to shoot to kill a threat. Then he now has to live with an internal conflict that has left him unstable. When that instability manifests "going postal" as they say they still retain that conditioned reflex to shoot to kill, kill without making the reasoned decision to kill or not to kill. And as my own addition. In the United States at least many ex military find jobs in police departments, or such departments also train with such conditioning where that conditioned reflex can trigger and lead to shootings such as Philando Castile.

[@tcurtisjohnson]

It's true that any number of soldiers from any number of wars, conflicts, "police actions," etc. suffer(ed) from PTSD; however, there IS a correlative link between rates/severity of suffering and actually, personally, DIRECTLY killing other human beings. That's not to suggest that the causes of PTSD aren't many and complex; modern warfare is MUCH different in type, scale, and continuity of direct combat involvement from any other type of warfare in human history. However, because modern training methods are geared toward making more soldiers actually, personally, DIRECTLY kill other people, modern soldiers DO experience PTSD at higher rates and to greater degrees.Yes, some of that is because of higher rates of reporting, but ONLY some of it. The best source I'm aware of that explains this in all its complexity is Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's "On Killing."

[@Aoskar95]

So basically this is why storm troopers keeps missing. The rebels are just a bunch of psychos which makes sense since they blew up the death star which must have had a bunch of civilian engineers and support personnel.

[@LordVader1094]

Except, ya know, stormtroopers hit every target they're meant to in the films unless otherwise told by their commanders.

[@lukavmineav3489]

You see the targets that stormtroopers can't hit are protected by this thing called 'plot' armour

[@LordVader1094]

Francesco Salem They hit Leia and R2-D2, though.

[@lukavmineav3489]

True

[@juustem2000]

Set blasters to stun!

[@davew4998]

One of your best videos. Fascinating stuff. It's why many ex SAS guys just can't lead normal lives and turn to drink.

[@catmandenny]

My brother was a helicopter door gunner in Vietnam. One day, after he had left the Army, he told me a story. His copter was dropping off some Vietnamese dignitaries at a clearing to attend a meeting. As they were lifting off, a message came in over the radio. One of those dignitaries was a North Vietnamese spy, but they didn't know which one of them it was. My brother was ordered to take his M-60 and kill all three of the dignitaries. He didn't say that he shot them, but, of course, he must have. There was a look of distress on his face as he told the story. That was the closest he ever came to telling me that he killed anyone during the war. He seemed a bit odd for several years. I believe he has, after all these years, finally been able to get it out of his mind. I hope so, anyway.

[@yomamawanmadikku9094]

He did good 👍 that's a soldier.

[@kaymoney6169]

crazy story i would have shot them all too!

[@s3m4jno5w4d]

Jesus! What a position to be put in. Kill twice as many innocent as guilty, what a burden

[@niksatt4843]

Fuck man I'm sorry he had to live with that. I feel like they put the wrong people in those types of positions and it just fucks with them so bad for a long time. Which is completely unfair and a horrible thing to put people through especially conscripts which was most in nam. I often wonder if I should had joined military I didn't because the pay is garbage and the medical aide I hear is a nightmare. Plus honestly the real reason I couldn't qualify because of a wreck I was in when I was 13. That shit FUCKED ME UP lol But if I received an order like that I'm pretty sure I'd feel nothing. I don't know why I'm like this I've always had good friends and family but for some reason I feel absolutely nothing when it comes to doing heinous shit. I hope I'm wrong but I also know myself pretty well. At least there is self control. If there wasn't I would be screwed

[@amuroGenki]

This guy is incredible. Brilliant demonstration, clever, moving. Worth every 24 minute :-) . And … what a speaker !

[@gregedwards1087]

"Shoot to kill", if you shoot someone there is more chance that you will only wound them and in combat that is actually more desirable, not because you don't want to kill them but a wounded soldier will use more of your enemies resources and put strain on their ability to wage war, 1. Wounded soldier has to be treated and stabilised before being transported to an aid station or Field hospital, this takes at least three or four other soldiers including one who specialises in battlefield trauma. 2. That soldier then needs transport, surgery, specialised/intensive care, recuperation and rehabilitation (Physical and Mental). These points invovle literally hundreds of people. A dead soldier can wait until the battle is finished.

[@Inconsecuente]

Vietnam style, creating traps not to kill but to injure

[@arenalife]

That rather depends on the culture of the enemy - assuming they would care. I remember during the 80's visiting UK military bases with my father (RN) the guards would often say they knew we were good because we were still near our vehicle so there couldn't be a bomb risk (IRA). They were assuming we'd want to live, unlike the prevalent terrorists of this era. In fact, just before 9/11 I was working some tech equipment just behind Tony Blair the UK PM, and his guard told me he knew my equipment must be safe as I wouldn't be there otherwise. Innocent times!!

[@redpotato2585]

Yeah but that could be considered torture since the soldier has to go through more pain rather than one big and last pain

[@thenotoriousflip4275]

@S billings the fallacy in your logic is assuming that war is civilized.

[@bernd8608]

@@thenotoriousflip4275 You don't know what ''fallacy'' means.

[@DougsterCanada1]

Better a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.

[@robertnett9793]

Ahh, I beg to differ. We gardeners know places where they never find you. And after all - the murderer is always the gardener, don't you know?

[@ccvcharger]

@@robertnett9793 No no, sometimes it's the butler.

[@robertnett9793]

@@ccvcharger Ah. Another fan of Reinhard Mey I persume?

[@ccvcharger]

@@robertnett9793 I can't say I'm too familiar with the name.

[@robertnett9793]

@@ccvcharger German singer songwriter who literally wrote the piece 'Der Mörder ist immer der Gärtner' 'The murderer is always the gardener' which takes a bit of a jab on 60' to 80' crime movies and series. And in the last verse the gardener described in the former ones happily murdering everyone gets murdered by the butler. lyricstranslate.com/de/der-m%C3%B6rder-ist-immer-der-g%C3%A4rtner-its-always-gardener-who-killer.html

[@roban2799]

As someone who recently went through basic millitary training it was incredibly interesting to learn about the psychology behind it

[@kassthered8452]

Incredible video man, gave me chills on several occasions. The one thing I respect most though, is your example with Himmler and Che Guevara. We can all agree, that Himmler was a detestable human being who commanded probably the most brutal military organization ever, but even he was (at least somewhat) human. While Che Guevara, an international symbol for rebellion that many people use on banners and T-shirts loved to execute people. It was a great way of showing, that humans can make the worst decisions imaginable(in the case of Himmler), but when it comes time to actually execute those decisions, they falter. Heavy stuff man, but superbly well done.

[@sean_d]

20,000 Cubans killed by Batista's henchmen before they lost. About 100 of those bad guys were executed after the Revolution (following trials with huge popular support) under Guevara's control. The idea of him enjoying to do it personally sounds like nonsense from the anti-Castro exiles (more of those henchmen). Look into it a bit deeper. His biographer Jon Lee Anderson: "I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed "an innocent". Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder"

[@54356776]

@@sean_d So it's a lie that he shot homosexuals and blacks ?

[@pladderisawesome]

@@54356776 it doesn't sound particularly likely, given the far left's love for LGBT support and equal rights. Stranger things have definitely happened, though, and Cuba wasn't better than the rest of the world on gay rights for a bit. The Soviets were as equal as the modern world (legally) until Stalin came in and started being Stalin. Now they provide free gender conforming surgery and HRT, so they're ahead of the curve there.

[@sabotabby3372]

Reading Che's works and personal literature a lot of his attitude is essentially "the faster we get this over with the less people get hurt", and a lot of his work specifically emphasizes that every effort should be taken to not hurt innocents and to let them carry on with life as normally as possible. In "guerrilla warfare" he talks about this specifically regarded to terrorist attacks, only using them against despicable and brutal enemy figures, to make them feel terror and fear retribution for their acts. TLDR: Che was ruthless but for the sake of minimizing overall suffering

[@JayM409]

Except that he wrote letters to his father stating how much he loved killing. Witnesses also saw him murder women and children.

[@lokustic]

its not so hard to kill another human being as long as that human being posses a threat to your life. either you kill him or he kills you. killing an innocent civilian is a different matter.

[@lokustic]

bilal SADIQ well i personally wouldn't find it hard to do.

[@SatanicDonut]

I think that's what alot of people would say until they are actually in the position where they can

[@slopcrusher3482]

lokustic it's completely different saying i wouldn't find it hard to do and actually looking at someone dying because of you

[@drey1156]

jesus christ, you're a kid... you have no idea what it's really like to be in that situation

[@lokustic]

ZeonWatches its not hard to kill with a gun if theres no repercussion and the situation is like what i stated in the beginning.

[@Moneor]

Marshall's research doesn't withstand close scrutiny. In fact, this is flat out stated in newer editions of his own book - see Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command (2000) There are plenty of scholarly studies that debunk his figures: "without further corroboration, the source of Marshall’s contentions about shockingly low fire ratios at least in some US Army divisions in World War II appears to have been based at best on chance rather than scientific sampling, and at worst on sheer speculation. It seems most probable that Marshall, writing as a journalist rather than as a historian, exaggerated the problem and arbitrarily decided on the one-quarter figure because he believed that he needed a dramatic statistic to give added weight to his argument. The controversial figure was probably a guess. " -John Whiteclay Chambers II, "S. L. A. Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios," Parameters, Autumn 2003, pages 114-121 Also see, for example: www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp And even memoirs from much earlier wars don't seem to support it, e.g. the classic "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Junger

[@rachelslur8729]

👍

[@StarSage66]

👍

[@elliottramsden6147]

Thanks! This is the comment that I came to write, but I see you beat me to it.

[@thetrippedup9322]

This may be why Lindybeige pointed out that the book was controversial

[@yushpi]

👍

[@caravaggiosaccomplice7841]

That nagging feeling that the enemy is the person who set you against the other bloke...

[@elultimo102]

I had no personal animosity towards the Vietnamese. I felt that my enemy was Lyndon Baines Johnson and Local Board 112. By the grace of God, and six pounds, I flunked the physical.

[@Statalyzer]

"The ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame, and on each end of the rifle we're the same."